Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Firebot

What do you think would give Singh a winning debate in his current situation?

Let me try to follow this "logic."

1. Singh shouldn't attack PP's record, regardless of how bad it is and how bad he thinks a CPC government, because the NDP can't attract CPC voters.

2. The NDP is floundering in Quebec, and therefore Singh should not try to siphon off of votes from one of the parties in Quebec.

3. Singh should only be going after the Liberals, but he shouldn't point out that some of the more popular policies the Liberals are adopted over the last few years were because the NDP forced their hands

In summary, Singh shouldn't advocate for what he thinks is best for Canadians. He should only be trying to siphon off votes from the Liberals, but he shouldn't do that by pointing to the things that the NDP were effective at forcing the Liberals to do.

Do I have all of that "objective analysis" correct?

EDIT: I'd also dispute your claim that Singh is a great speaker. He does well in casual settings, but he's always had a habit of tripping over his words and seems generally nervous in debate settings. Obviously just my opinion.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GGG

The NDPs legacy is national daycare, and subsidized dental and pharmacare. They were the most effective NDP government. Singh delivered more for the NDP than anyone other than Tommy D.

The Narrative that Singh failed just isnt well founded.

The NDP was and will never be a governing party, forming government should never be the measure of success of a party. Actively advancing policy goals is the measurement and by that measure he was highly successful. He was well positioned to take advantage of a JT minority government.

He also prevented the conservative majority from being elected by propping up Treudeu giving him a chance to resign. A move that while costing his party seats gave Canadians a real choice.

Singh was a great party leader.

I don't why you're trying to argue with Firebot. He's the paragon of unbiased and objective political analysis on CP. Just ask him.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't why you're trying to argue with Firebot. He's the paragon of unbiased and objective political analysis on CP. Just ask him.

Because one of these times he might agree with me.

It also brings up the more general question of why argue with anyone on here.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GGG

Because one of these times he might agree with me.

It also brings up the more general question of why argue with anyone on here.

I was just being a cheeky dickhead, as usual.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by jg13

Hello, I'm not going to go through the entire thread and I know the majority of CalgaryPuck posters are 45+ in age but 80% of the people I talk to and are within 5 years of my age (33) are all voting conservative without a second thought, myself included.

My question is:

I would like to know why those of you that are above 45 in age or older that own their own homes, think that Mark Carney will benefit us in our 30s over Pierre Polieivere. Pierre has stated he will cut immigration to the point where we're building more homes faster than we allow people into Canada and will allow first time home buyers to purchase their first homes without the 5% GST included in those homes.

The reason for the above question is because of 80% of the people I talk to in my age range (millenial) is because we're concerned about never being able to afford a home and if we're never able to afford a home, it affects many things specifically, like starting a family. From my understanding, Mark Carney wants to increase the Canadian population to 100 million by 2100 which is 800,000 a year when Canada has been known to build 200,000 places of living a year. He has publicly stated this.

If I currently owned a home this would be great for myself as my home would sky rocket in value. Please let me know on this particular issue, why as a millennial this is good for me.

Thank you in advance. Not looking to fight anyone. I want clarity.

I'm 36 but I want to share my thoughts:

- I just bought a place this year. Just a condo since I can't afford a 800k detached place as a single person. But a home nonetheless. A huge part of the down-payment was made thanks to this thing called the First Home Savings Account, which was introduced by Bill C32. This bill allowed me to get ~$5300 in tax returns across two tax seasons while adding around $11000 in tax-free gains. You know who voted against bill C32? Pierre Poilievre. How can you trust someone to help you own a home, when he actively voted against the one thing that essentially allowed many like myself to finally own a home?

- Canada will continue to require blue-collar workers to do things like... build our homes, plumb our pipes, operate our pipelines, and in Pierre Poillievre's bizarre phrasing of words, "capture lightning from the sky"... you're not going to get blue-collar workers from white-collar establishments like UofA from kids who grew up in Royal Oak. We are going to need immigrants to fill gaps like that, and that doesn't just mean in the urban centres, but across the country.

- Canada is a country of immigrants. Immigration is not why we can't build houses. In fact, we can build houses tomorrow if you're willing to live in Carstairs or Black Diamond / Turner Valley. But that's not your preference, right? It's not immigrants hoarding the 90 year old inner city lots, and finally selling them to builders who tear them down to build 1.7 million dollar infills so that a lawyer can have a nice view of the bow river. The immigrants are out there living in remote parts of the city like Cityscape and Seton, where you could probably buy an affordable home yourself if you wanted to live that far out of quality public transit, age-appropriate urban living, short commutes. I'm not criticizing because it matters to me too. The immigrants are out there living in places like Marlborough and Rundle, actually driving down housing prices in the relative scheme of things if you're willing to live in immigrant neighbourhoods. It's the boomers who have four properties, hanging on to them with diamond hands because they treat them like their retirement funds, that are screwing you over. And Pierre Poilivre, while not a boomer, is definitely a guy with plenty of investment properties who I would not expect to sacrifice his personal net worth for Canadians' sake.

- sometimes there are personal sacrifices that I think us millenial Canadians culturally are not willing to make to save up for a down payment. Things like taking public transit or not eating out or living with family or not paying for streaming services. These were sacrifices our parents likely actually did make once upon time, especially if we're children of immigrants. Our generation has it rough in many ways, but we make it rough on ourselves in many other ways. One thing that's for sure though, assuming that our generation is ####ed to poverty, I do not expect the Conservatives to give a #### about us. That's literally against their modus operandi. PP would love to criticize us because it would become a fun new target. I think the NDP is probably the party that cares the most about people like us, although I will strategically be voting for the Liberals because I am not, unlike you, voting conservative without a second thought

[Ped]

Originally Posted by GGG

The NDPs legacy is national daycare, and subsidized dental and pharmacare. They were the most effective NDP government. Singh delivered more for the NDP than anyone other than Tommy D.

The Narrative that Singh failed just isnt well founded.

The NDP was and will never be a governing party, forming government should never be the measure of success of a party. Actively advancing policy goals is the measurement and by that measure he was highly successful. He was well positioned to take advantage of a JT minority government.

He also prevented the conservative majority from being elected by propping up Treudeu giving him a chance to resign. A move that while costing his party seats gave Canadians a real choice.

Singh was a great party leader.

Great points, but unfortunately the optics for many will be the many times he threatened to bring down the government and didn't.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Ped

Great points, but unfortunately the optics for many will be the many times he threatened to bring down the government and didn't.

None of those people ever considered voting for the NDP

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by Ped

Great points, but unfortunately the optics for many will be the many times he threatened to bring down the government and didn't.

Well to be fair,,what concessions did he the liberals give him for not bringing down the government? Maybe they said if didn’t bring the government down, they will put one of their bills through.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

I'm 36 but I want to share my thoughts:
- sometimes there are personal sacrifices that I think us millenial Canadians culturally are not willing to make to save up for a down payment. Things like taking public transit or not eating out or living with family or not paying for streaming services. These were sacrifices our parents likely actually did make once upon time, especially if we're children of immigrants. Our generation has it rough in many ways, but we make it rough on ourselves in many other ways. One thing that's for sure though, assuming that our generation is ####ed to poverty, I do not expect the Conservatives to give a #### about us. That's literally against their modus operandi. PP would love to criticize us because it would become a fun new target. I think the NDP is probably the party that cares the most about people like us, although I will strategically be voting for the Liberals because I am not, unlike you, voting conservative without a second thought

This is one that I keep seeing. The opportunity is there, but it does require sacrifice. I was having this same conversation with someone a week a go where one of their co-workers was complaining about not being able to afford a home and in the next breathe is talking about their second trip abroad this year or talking about 15k work of ink they have had done.

[Sylvanfan]

I'm not the resident in this thread that a few are, and I'm not a person who's going to support the NDP at this point in my life. But it seems like this election they really have not been able to figure out their message and identity from the start. It does seem that they've tried to pivot here in hopes of getting a few MP's elected in hopes that it will be another minority which will give them a lot more influence than what their seat count would indicate.

But I think more Canadians really are seeing this as a two party choice to provide the winner with a stronger mandate to be able to handle Trump and all that chaos.

I also think Sing faces a fair bit of racism too. I have a nut job far right cousin who's always trying to paint him as a treasonist extremist. Which I think is the ugly part of the Conservative party attacking his race and religion with their misinformation.

[Firebot]

Originally Posted by GGG

The NDPs legacy is national daycare, and subsidized dental and pharmacare. They were the most effective NDP government. Singh delivered more for the NDP than anyone other than Tommy D.

Sure. I can certainly agree they were effective in this.

The Narrative that Singh failed just isnt well founded.

The NDP was and will never be a governing party, forming government should never be the measure of success of a party. Actively advancing policy goals is the measurement and by that measure he was highly successful. He was well positioned to take advantage of a JT minority government.

This I disagree with. The NDP could absolutely be a governing party if it so chooses and nearly did so in 2015, at times being ahead of both the Liberals and CPC in polling. The NDP's incredible regression to a point it is today, is absolutely a failure of Singh's leadership.

Being the junior party of a coalition propping up a deeply unpopular leader long past his expiry date was one of the NDP's biggest mistakes they could have done and it likely has cost them official party status which is a huge deal for a cash strapped party trying to remain relevant. The argument being made is that since dental care and the framework for pharma care was implemented, this advancement in policies was worth the sacrifice. I understand the argument.

He also prevented the conservative majority from being elected by propping up Treudeu giving him a chance to resign. A move that while costing his party seats gave Canadians a real choice.

Singh was a great party leader.

Singh lost a large part of the NDP base to both the Liberals and Conservatives by ignoring the working class. When Liberals enacted work actions on multiple occasions (Westjet / rails / Canada Post), Singh did nothing. When Canadians were in a cost of living crisis, Singh continuously backed the deeply unpopular and now defunct carbon tax and unpopular Liberal policies.

Without a black swan event hitting the Conservatives and their inability to pivot against Trump's aggression while giving Liberals a major nationalist / anti-populist boost, Conservatives likely win a landslide majority. To claim the shift as somehow being attributed as a NDP success is an odd take.

Currently Liberals are expected to land a majority by shifting significantly further right fiscally than under Trudeau, without the need of the NDP anymore and called this election of their own volition. I personally believe pharmacare will likely go away or deteriorate sometime in Carney's tenure with a majority government, with only the dental plan remaining.

Singh took control of a party that had 20% of the popular vote and has dragged it down to the depth of single digits for a few feathers in his cap by sacrificing it's relevance to Canadians and many of their own voters with only the floor die hards remaining. I see this as a leadership failure, you and a few others see this and advancement of party policies as a success. We will agree to disagree on this.

That's my personal subjective opinion of course

[rubecube]

Pharmacare, daycare, and dental care don't help the working class?

You learn something new every day.

It really does sound like you're criticizing Singh for getting positive results for Canadians, at the expense of his own party. Kinda sad that we're at that point with our political discourse.

[rubecube]

PP taking questions from Rebel News last night because he "respects the freedom of the press," while trying to cancel the CBC and refusing to take questions on the campaign trail from any outlet that doesn't kiss his ass is on-brand.

More Trumpy bull####.

[Torture]

Didn't watch it, but sounds like the French debate was a good performance from Carney - that PP didn't really land too many hits and Carney's French was just fine. Seems he did everything he needed to do to retain QC votes.

And according to Reddit (I know, great source) PP came off creepy doing the fake smile special that Thomas Mulcair patented in 2015.

[dammage79]

CBC gave points to Singh who went after everyone like a feral cat or something small but fierce.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Torture

Didn't watch it, but sounds like the French debate was a good performance from Carney - that PP didn't really land too many hits and Carney's French was just fine. Seems he did everything he needed to do to retain QC votes.

And according to Reddit (I know, great source) PP came off creepy doing the fake smile special that Thomas Mulcair patented in 2015.

Weird, one of our expert CP political analysts was saying Carney didn’t want to debate in French because he didn’t want his French exposed, yet all reports suggest he did just fine. Guess he didn’t know what he was talking about.

[Torture]

And looks like journalism was the real loser, with far right rags like True North, Rebel, getting pretty much all of the post-debate questions.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/reb...ates-1.7512714

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Weird, one of our expert CP political analysts was saying Carney didn’t want to debate in French because he didn’t want his French exposed, yet all reports suggest he did just fine. Guess he didn’t know what he was talking about.

Yeah, it definitely is meaningless when a Liberal party official claims that rejecting the TVA debate invite was a strategic move for linguistic reasons because recovering from a bad performance is difficult.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Yeah, it definitely is meaningless when a Liberal party official claims that rejecting the TVA debate invite was a strategic move for linguistic reasons because recovering from a bad performance is difficult.

Glad you can admit when you’re wrong. Takes a big person to do that.

[Party Elephant]

Originally Posted by Torture

And looks like journalism was the real loser, with far right rags like True North, Rebel, getting pretty much all of the post-debate questions.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/reb...ates-1.7512714

The press questions in meme format: