Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[Bonded]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

What I find scary is how low the concern for "deficit" is here.. Sure feels like that's the Canary in the coal mine situation to me.

No one is going to have the deficit high on the list when Trump is threatening tariffs.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

What I find scary is how low the concern for "deficit" is here.. Sure feels like that's the Canary in the coal mine situation to me.

Canada has run a much tighter fiscal policy than our G7 peers, which has contributed to inflation coming down more quickly and interest rates coming down sooner. Canada's general government deficit-to-GDP ratio of 2 per cent in 2024 is the lowest in the G7, tied with Germany (Table 1). The United States deficit currently sits at 7.6 per cent of GDP, while France is at 6 per cent and the United Kingdom is at 4.3 per cent.

SOURCE: https://budget.canada.ca/update-mise...apercu-en.html

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Andy83

The bar should be high. As for the rest, i guess we will find out if the law agrees.

In terms of what I find most interesting is that, my previous perception of a monopoly was one company holding a vast majority of the total market share. Amazon and e-commerce, has me re-evaluating that perception.

If you look at two scenarios, where in the first, company x has, whatever, say, 80% of the market, vs a company like Amazon having 40%, and millions of other competitors, but it's closest competition holds a fraction (less than 8%). Is that competitive imbalance much less problematic than the first scenario? Even if the bulk of companies hold the majority of online sales? I'm not so sure that it is much less problematic.

It's an interesting question. My instinct is to stay out of it unless there are egregious abuses.

We have also seen that even the largest tech companies with seemingly unassailable positions can get taken down very quickly by a disruptive competitor. It's happened repeatedly. Even if there is a monopoly that the government litigates, by the time the process is complete , the point is moot.

The recent one with Google for instance. Nobody expected that AI would come along and inside of a year threaten Google's stranglehold on search.

[shotinthebacklund]

I would love to know where the funding comes from for members running for their party leadership. You would think this should be a transparent process. 350K is nothing to sneeze at and and someone is flipping that bill, and it would be naive to think there is not associated costs attached to those dollars.


Looks like the payments are done in 4 instalments with the first due Jan 23. a 50,000 refundable deposit. Max donation is 1750$ per person. 200 donations of 1750, Maybe I underestimate how many donations someone like Gould can muster.

How many candidates drop out before the first non refundable deposit comes due.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by shotinthebacklund

I would love to know where the funding comes from for members running for their party leadership. You would think this should be a transparent process. 350K is nothing to sneeze at and and someone is flipping that bill, and it would be naive to think there is not associated costs attached to those dollars.


Looks like the payments are done in 4 instalments with the first due Jan 23. a 50,000 refundable deposit. Max donation is 1750$ per person. 200 donations of 1750, Maybe I underestimate how many donations someone like Gould can muster.

How many candidates drop out before the first non refundable deposit comes due.

I think it would be very troubling (for the party) if a leadership candidate was not able to fundraise $350,000 for their leadership campaign. What would that mean for fundraising for an election campaign?

[Bonded]

If anything a leadership candidate should be able to raise 100 dollars from 3500 people but 1750 isn't really a lot for upper middleclass person to donate to a preferred candiate.

[calgarygeologist]

A reasonable leader:

The leader of the Bloc Quebecois says Canada is playing with fire by suggesting it could cut oil or electricity exports to the United States if President Donald Trump makes good on his promise to impose tariffs on Canadian goods.

Yves-Francois Blanchet's position runs counter to that of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and most premiers -- including Quebec's Francois Legault -- who have said everything is on the table in negotiations with the Trump administration.

Blanchet told in an interview Monday that Canada's best response would be counter-tariffs and it would be "absurd" to cut energy exports.

He says that if the United States breaks the habit of importing energy from Canada and finds other sources, Canada will be at a disadvantage when the times eventually comes to renegotiate exports.

https://nationalnewswatch.com/2025/0...ys-bloc-leader

[GGG]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

A reasonable leader:


https://nationalnewswatch.com/2025/0...ys-bloc-leader

We’ll Smith is also a separatist so it makes sense that their views are aligned.

[Fuzz]

I'm not sure they are aligned, it sounds like he wants us to put counter tariffs on them, but not cut them off. Which isn't Smith's positon. Unless I misread that.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Firebot

Nanos just released their latest poll this morning.

https://nanos.co/conservatives-45-li...oldrums-nanos/

"Conservatives 45, Liberals 21, NDP 19 > Trudeau leaves Liberal brand in doldrums."

Quite a different conclusion from EKOS.

One interesting difference about the nanos pole is that it asks for your 1st and 2nd preference for the ballot question and does not give a list of choices.

I’m not sure if this makes a difference or not and it doesn’t look like it discloses the second choices it just uses thousands in the power ranking part. But it’s interesting in terms of being different.

The big question is how much of that Ontario Ekos number was random variance as that seemed like a big outlier.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

A reasonable leader:


https://nationalnewswatch.com/2025/0...ys-bloc-leader

I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm not sure they are aligned, it sounds like he wants us to put counter tariffs on them, but not cut them off. Which isn't Smith's positon. Unless I misread that.

I had assumed counter Tarrifs are Tarrifs on US goods in proportion to tariffs on our goods.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Firebot

It's the same guy that said this yet wants to present his polls as unbiased.



I swear he's probably a poster on this forum saying PP instead of Poilievre. He's now on the defense on X about Abacus's commentary on IVR.

Do people say PP as an insult? I do it because I’m lazy. 5 letter names is all I’m good for.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

It's an interesting question. My instinct is to stay out of it unless there are egregious abuses.

We have also seen that even the largest tech companies with seemingly unassailable positions can get taken down very quickly by a disruptive competitor. It's happened repeatedly. Even if there is a monopoly that the government litigates, by the time the process is complete , the point is moot.

The recent one with Google for instance. Nobody expected that AI would come along and inside of a year threaten Google's stranglehold on search.

Everytime I see the older I get sad with just how bad and yet seemingly credible AI is right now.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by GGG

Do people say PP as an insult? I do it because I’m lazy. 5 letter names is all I’m good for.

I use PP because I can never remember how to spell his last name. I only use his full name when I'm quoting something that has his name readily available or if I have googled it to get the spelling correct.

[Fuzz]

Can we settle on PP and Skippy not being meant as offensive then? For the simple amongst us?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Can we settle on PP and Skippy not being meant as offensive then? For the simple amongst us?

It’s fine, the only one whining about those names has no problem with other politicians getting nicknames so nobody is going to take their opinion seriously anyway.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s fine, the only one whining about those names has no problem with other politicians getting nicknames so nobody is going to take their opinion seriously anyway.

The derisive nicknames are really annoying though. I don’t want to accidentally use them.

Skippy is derisive though. It’s designed to be an insult. PP is just his initials unless you are less than 12.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

The derisive nicknames are really annoying though. I don’t want to accidentally use them.

Skippy is derisive though. It’s designed to be an insult. PP is just his initials unless you are less than 12.

Skippy is only derisive because conservative voters called Trudeau Skippy in a derisive way so they don’t know any better. Those of us who are gentlemen and scholars use it as a term of respect, as that is how it was originally designed by his fellow Conservative Party members.

But yes PP because nobody in their right mind is spelling out Poielevere

[indes]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I get accused (rightly) of word salad. So I'll try to avoid.

Confederation is setup to hand enormous powers to a PM with a majority. Canada's population is concentrated in Quebec and Ontario. So to get essentially unfettered power over the whole country you just need some sort of coalition between Quebec and Ontario.

This has defined Canadian policy from the start with predictable results. Trudeau being the peak. Most previous prime ministers at least understood that they needed to pretend this wasn't the case.

I've said this before but Western Canada has done this to themselves. By always voting Conservative we've caused the Cons not to give a #### about us because they get the votes no matter what they do. The Libs don't give a #### because they don't get the votes no matter what they do.

Neither party has any incentive to chase votes out west. I'm hoping the Maverick party can make some inroads and we can actually put some seats up for grabs. We had Harper for 10 years, what did he do for Alberta?

https://macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/...s-worst-enemy/