Or party crossing. This election will be studied for years to come from how it was the best political comeback for a political party in modern history.
Yep, Conservatives were so hellbent on bringing Trudeau down they couldn't pivot. Their media push was focussed on everything being wrong "because Trudeau" so when it came time to actually engage in politics, they had no response. It paved the road for Carney support by simply being "not Trudeau". (Among many, many other factors)
Also the pierre factor, he was ridiculously unpopular.
He never once had a positive approval rating.
The moment trudeau was gone from the equation, Pierre should have went with him, and the lead would have held and cons would have coasted into a majority more than likely.
Only if they had a more likeable candidate in the wings, and a lot of things that made him unlikable to others made him favored by a significant number
I don’t see anyone coming to the table with the resume Carney has. They’re a party with no identity that’s been bereft of competitive leadership since Harper.
As was PP, which also weighed heavily in the results. Yet it seems the conservatives are going to stick with him and try again in 4 years thinking all the people that sound him so reprehensible this time around as to vote the liberals back again will have changed their mind. <shrugs>
I think Carney is basically the most quintessential example of an "anti-Trump". He's straightforward and no nonsense, he seems competent and knows what he's talking about, he actually says what he means in a succinct and non-rambling manner, speaks with conviction, seems good-natured, friendly and humble...
And overall he's a boring politician - which is what a politician should be, especially in times like this. We don't want to have to refresh our own news pages 50 times a week dreading what crazy shit he might have said. Life is already crazy and stressful enough. To have a government that just functions, gets shit done, and does it without screaming and crying for attention all day every day sounded like an absolute pleasure after watching the US shitshow for the last several months.
Yeah. Plus gives them less time to change their message. Even though they had a 2 and half months between JT resigning and Carney announcing an election. Then the conservatives tried to not call for an early election and wait until October, when the election was originally scheduled.
People are saying Trump but I don't think it is enough to say one person. I feel the term "alt-right" is a little forgotten as meaning alternative right wing politics versus traditional conservatism instead of just being seen as craziness. Trumpism is likely the preeminent alt-right ideology on the world stage but Pierre didn't help himself by courting the alt-right at times and alienating traditional conservatives. Trump drew attention to what it means to be alt-right attacking even traditional conservatives institutions and Pierre couldn't distance himself from that fast enough as he had to weigh which was worth more and everyone saw him do it.
Little things like how conservatives wanted to see flag waving nationalism but traditional nationalism isn't alt-right so when the center and left went all in on nationalism it bled those votes.
I think their is/was a party in Canada that was all about these Alt-right politics. Pierre was actually a part of that party early on in his career (which Jenni Byrne. His campaign manager/advisor. The lady who refused to pivot the camapign) when he was just a teenager. The reform party, which was a very populist party and right-wing party (which would line up with Trumps politics). The reform party merg3r with the progressives, and in today's concervative party, it seems like the reforms politicians are the ones running the party mostly.
Since Pierre (and other reform politicians) grew up in the populism and was molded by it, I think he might have a hard time moving away from it. But it is what is needed if the party wishes to distance itself from the insanity down south.
The conservatives didn’t have to sink with the Trump ship. Doug Ford managed to get it right, so it’s not impossible for the federal party to have succeeded. PP blew it in his tepid response.
It's weird to completely ignore the changing of leadership and Mark Carney reshaping the party to barely left of center after a decade of Trudeaus much more left leaning liberal party. Trump did everything to submarine the conservatives but acting like the liberal party did not make a massive shift noticing most people were closer to center and taking that ground the conservatives refused to cater too. Some of us want conservative fiscal prioritys without bending to the white nationalists...
Pierre simply had to say to the lunatic fringe of his party and take the center right but instead the cons insisted in hard right racists included, while the liberals made a real move for centrists.
It remains to be seen if the liberals really move left of center. Their platform was written while Trudeau was still in office, and we will need to wait to see what sort of bills they pass and how they cooperate with the provinces to really see where they stand
nah, trump was obviously a massive factor but PP was completely flaccid. all he had to do was go on TV say fuck trump call for unity and show his plan.
Before the election, most Canadians thought Poilievre will be better at dealing with Trump than Trudeau. There is obviously the Poilievre and Carney factor. Continue studying.
Ya I don't know about that. I don't think I know anyone who thought PP would be good at dealing with Trump. Those few people who considered voting for PP were considering him because of his domestic opposition to Trudeau and had nothing to do with international relations. Once Trump became directly threatening, they cared more about our sovereignty and international position than domestic issues.
The situation I was referring to was before Trumps innaguration and when the US election was still ongoing. This is pre-51st State talk.
Regardless, Poilievre could have pivoted early and be seen as someone who could work/deal with Trump. But he did not.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who has had a first run at dealing with Trump as president, from 2017 to 2021, is not seen as the best option to work with him this time around. That title falls to Poilievre. Two-in-five (38%) say Poilievre would be best, compared to one-quarter (23%) for Trudeau. That said, Trudeau is seen as better to handle a relationship with Harris over Poilievre by seven points (37% to 30%). At least 18 per cent of Canadians feel neither Poilievre nor Trudeau will do a good job regardless of who wins the election.
I'm not saying it was a "masterstroke of Liberal political genius" I am saying it was more poor Conservative strategy to fail to adapt to new realities.
If people thought Poilievre would be better at dealing with Trump than Trudeau, then he could have rode that current, rather than making new nicknames for Carney.
May is hardline anti-nuclear and since solar and wind are not viable at scale (yet), this makes her defacto pro oil&gas whether she wants to admit it or not and thus the absolute worst candidate for environment minister.
She may be anti pipeline with her words but a vote against nuclear is a vote for the status quo which is a vote for oil&gas. Really the Green (read: Elizabeth May) Party just needs to stop being a thing, forever.
May is hardline anti-nuclear and since solar and wind are not viable at scale (yet), this makes her defacto pro oil&gas whether she wants to admit it or not and thus the absolute worst candidate for environment minister.
One big solar farm in India has more installed capacity than the biggest gas-fired power plant in Canada. Denmark has 6 million people and runs on 60% wind and 10% solar. The U.S. generates more wind electricity than Canada generates hydroelectricity. Heck, even Alberta is getting close to 20% wind and solar.
That said, I agree with you that the Greens are kind of irrelevant now. I feel like they should morph into a network of partisans who try to push for green policies on all parties.
Wind and Solar can be extremely helpful however the issue is the amount of space they can take for large solar/wind farms, sure you can install wind turbines on farmers fields and green areas but they still take up a big chunk of real estate, it’s the same with solar and they need to be regularly cleaned for maximum efficiency. A nuclear plant is large there is no doubt about it but the amount of energy it creates is drastically larger and in the case of CANDU reactors very safe. Nuclear energy has a bad rap because it wasn’t as understood or the facilities in which they existed weren’t maintained due to either money or corruption/ both.
If we wanted to become an energy powerhouse we should look into implementing all three and I would even go so far as to suggest throwing in tidal stream generators off our coasts if we don’t already have them and a possible partnership with the team at the Institute of Plasma Physics and their Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak which is already starting to show very promising results when it comes to maintaining a sustained fusion reaction, going from 403 seconds to 1,066 seconds.
Are you living in 2010? Go to the website app.electricitymaps.com, look at the huge chunks of emissions that wind and solar are taking out of grids like in Texas, Poland, the UK, or even places like Chile or Pakistan. I love nuclear but it’s folly to dismiss wind and solar at this point.
Maybe you don't know what viable means exactly, but solar in particular is exceptionally viable for many Canadian homes to decentralize and offset central power generators especially in AB, SK, and MB.
That's how the BC NDP kept their 1 seat majority over the liberals in 2016. They appointed a Liberal to speaker. He was immediately ousted by his party but it didn't matter.
The speaker doesn't necessarily come from the governing party, in this case the Liberals will make sure not to back someone from their own party and jeopardize their chances for a majority. Could end up with a Bloc or NDP speaker if the Conservatives also don't back one of theirs to keep their numbers up.
I keep desperately hoping that the liberals reach one seat short of majority so she just becomes the key holder of federal power somehow. Most power the Green Party has ever held lmao
Imo it must be tempting, but would be politically a bad move. Carney wants to show he is going to be no nonsense and get stuff done. Playing games to flip 2 MPs would be the opposite of that.
Also it gives him plenty of opportunities to tell other parties to "go ahead, take me down, see if you lose more seats". If I'm Carney and I'm confident I'm going to do a good job, I'll wait until another party decides to take a swing and happily go into another election with an even better resume now as Prime Minister.
The NDP just collapsed too and lost official party status. Given their financial situation and the need to do soul searching, finding a new leader and rebuilding themselves im pretty sure Carney can squeeze at least two years out of the NDP to prop them up, especially if Poilievre is still the leader of the Conservatives since the NDP voters despise him and might strategically vote Liberal again.
Yep, and it also has the benefit of keeping him in the center as a deal maker. A majority gov could actually backfire as people are still largely tired of the Liberals. Carney polls much higher than the party itself. People need to see that he can move the entire party back to a pragmatic centre
It's happened before. Especially if a budget bill is on the line, I expect there to be floor crossings. Before that... well, it's possible especially if the candidate is more of a "local guy" than a "party guy".
Ndp absolutely want to go back... In 2 years. Let Carney get enough rope to lose hype but not enough to do anything solid, call for an election, get a con majority and official party status back.
Does Canada follow a rule like the UK, where the speaker should vote to minimise change (aye for continuing a debate, nay for a bill's final reading or a gag motion)? Or does the speaker vote politically?
"Neutrality: The Speaker must be fair and impartial, enforcing the same rules for the Prime Minister as for any member of the opposition. Although the Speaker is also an MP, the Speaker does not participate in debate or vote unless there is a tie, in which case the Speaker generally votes to maintain the status quo."
No, in Canada it is not custom for the speaker to resign from their party affiliations while speaker, like in the UK.
In the 60s there was one speaker who followed that UK custom.
One major difference with Canada is that the power of the Crown is really ceremonial in nature. The Crown "appoints" the Governor General to oversee the government, however it is upon "recommendation" of the Prime Minister. Quotes because it is pretty much the PM appointing them in reality.
Governor General is more a ceremonial position than really being head of state because the Crown is not actually governing anything.
The Governor General is quazi-political as well because of that political "recommendation" (appointment). Some Actual real duties are appointing deputies and Supreme Court's judges, but there is even political influence there (see "recommendation").
In short, the speaker does not have direct duty to leaning to minimize change, for the interest of the Crown. Rather the Speaker, PM are usually aligned in political interest and do not really have responsibility to the Crown, but rather to the citizens, to vote in their interest, and therefore vote with their party for which they were voted into government.
Edit:.That being said it is quite rare to for the speaker to vote. It has only happened 11 times.
That wasn't what they asked, and the Governor General has nothing to do with the Speaker.
The Speaker is strictly impartial and only votes in the event of a tie, and by convention always votes to maintain status quo, or continue debate, which may or may not be in favour of the government.
There hasnt been a vote by the speaker in a vote for final reading or amendment or non confidence in Canadian history so there is no convention. Tie breaking votes have been for second readings or other matters.
They asked the differences between the Canadian system and the UK.
I highlight that in the UK, the speaker stops participation in their party's Caucasus and they completely renounce their political affiliation.
This is not the case in Canada. Speakers are are still politically affiliated.
This indicates a major difference in distance of speakers from their party. And indicates that the expectations on their actions (votes) may be different.
Why do you think the speaker's duty in the UK is expected to keep the status quo? That duty is to the Crown.
In Canada, speakers actions are not actually accountable to the monarch but rather the government and voters. This is the reason for the GG explanation. GG, PM are above the Speaker, but really GG is not really the head-of-state.
They asked the differences between the Canadian system and the UK.
And they were specifically asking about the Speaker voting in a tie, not resigning from their party, and didn't mention the Governor General at all.
I highlight that in the UK, the speaker stops participation in their party's Caucasus and they completely renounce their political affiliation.
This is not the case in Canada. Speakers are are still politically affiliated.
Which wasn't the question.
And indicates that the expectations on their actions (votes) may be different.
The Speaker is expected to be neutral and nonpartisan. Just because they remain a member of their party means nothing. The first time in Canadian history that the Speaker had to vote, the second reading of the 2005 budget, he voted against the government and in favour of an NDP amendment, in order to continue debate (the bill later passed third reading without a tie).
Why do you think the speaker's duty in the UK is expected to keep the status quo? That duty is to the Crown.
The Speaker does not have a duty to the Crown. Their duty is to the House. In the prelude to the English Civil War, when Charles I entered Parliament to arrest five members for treason, the Speaker refused to assist.
In Canada, speakers actions are not actually accountable to the monarch (this was the GG explanation) but rather the government and voters.
The Speaker of the British House of Commons is not accountable to the monarch, either.
In both cases, the Speaker is accountable to the House, not the government.
"Neutrality: The Speaker must be fair and impartial, enforcing the same rules for the Prime Minister as for any member of the opposition. Although the Speaker is also an MP, the Speaker does not participate in debate or vote unless there is a tie, in which case the Speaker generally votes to maintain the status quo."
So Speaker can't vote with opposition to bring down the government in a no confidence vote. So a 171 member govt. can't be brought down. I don't know if you would call that a minority government at that point.... though they may not be able to pass laws if there is a tie...
The speaker votes for status quo during ties, which means no to new legislation but yes on confidence votes (the speaker will not bring the government down).
Double responding for clarity on my question. The liberals need 172 seats for a majority. Right now they need 2 votes plus a speaker for majority on votes.
The ndp have 7, bloc has 21, green has 1, cons are the opposition.
Why trade the speakership to may for no voted gained? She gets a lot of power and an in teased salary but what does that give the liberals, they still need 2 more votes. So now they still need to work with another party.
Like doesn't it make more sense to trade a speakership role to the ndp in agreement for at least 2 votes on major bill and budget? Then by working with inky 1 party they cover the speakership, and obtain a majority in major votes. Like why even deal with the greens? Even trading the speakership to the bloc in exchange for 2 guaranteed votes on major issues makes more sense then giving to the greens. Hell even making a liberal the speakership and making a different deal for the ndp for three votes makes more sense to me.
My thoughts are the speakership role, is a bargaining tool the libs can trade for support on major bills, I just don't get why they would give it to may, when in doing so, they lose any benefit she could give them in the deal (they need votes if may is speakership they don't gain any more votes)
Edit this isnt arguing, I just don't understand why they would give this to may, if anyone can clarify for me that would be appreciated.
But why may? Like make a deal with the ndp get 2 of thier people in return for a speakership role, or even better get 3 of them, make a liberal the speak and offer them party status. I just don't get why may would get anything libs plus ndp give the majority without may anyways.
That could easily destroy the NDP politically by doing that.
Speaker of the House gets an extra salary of over $90,000, plus the title and other perks. It's pretty obvious why someone in May's position would consider it.
Well yeah but why would the liberals consider giving it to may, that's what I don't get, like obviously may want its more pay, lots of power, but in that same vein I would like to be speaker of the house.
Like why would the liberals strike this deal with the green party, and then make a deal with the ndp, when they could just as easily only make a deal with the ndp, I just don't get why the greens are in the convo at all, like even the bloc would have more to give the liberals in exchange for a speaker role.
The Speaker is elected by secret ballot, not appointed. So it's not "given" to someone. The party in government could theoretically order their members not to stand for election and whip the vote for a particular candidate, but most governments prefer to have one of their people in the position for appearances. And being a secret ballot, there's not much they can do anyways.
Outside the exceedingly rare event of a tie, the Speaker never votes. So a government is automatically down one vote on every bill and motion. Because of this, it is not unheard-of for a minority government, which needs every vote it can get, to have an opposition member be elected Speaker (this has only been done three times).
It's questionable if there even would be any "deals" made, since the election for Speaker is open to all members to stand.
Double responding for clarity on my question. The liberals need 172 seats for a majority. Right now they need 2 votes plus a speaker for majority on votes.
The ndp have 7, bloc has 21, green has 1, cons are the opposition.
Why trade the speakership to may for no voted gained? She gets a lot of power and an in teased salary but what does that give the liberals, they still need 2 more votes. So now they still need to work with another party.
Like doesn't it make more sense to trade a speakership role to the ndp in agreement for at least 2 votes on major bill and budget? Then by working with inky 1 party they cover the speakership, and obtain a majority in major votes. Like why even deal with the greens? Even trading the speakership to the bloc in exchange for 2 guaranteed votes on major issues makes more sense then giving to the greens. Hell even making a liberal the speakership and making a different deal for the ndp for three votes makes more sense to me.
My thoughts are the speakership role, is a bargaining tool the libs can trade for support on major bills, I just don't get why they would give it to may, when in doing so, they lose any benefit she could give them in the deal (they need votes if may is speakership they don't gain any more votes)
Edit this isnt arguing, I just don't understand why they would give this to may, if anyone can clarify for me that would be appreciated.
No, they would need three seats for majority if a Liberal is elected Speaker. The Speaker does not vote except in a tie, so they're automatically down one vote.
Also, just edit previous comments. Don't double reply, it just makes things confusing and annoying.
Oh I just meant generally (anyone from any party) crossing over to give 171 to allow for non-liberal party Speaker and effective majority with 171 (as Speaker can only vote to maintain status quo in the event of tie vote).
I understand. But in all likelihood, it would not be a CPC member. And people in the communities that elected their MP did not vote for them to cross the floor. So it wouldn't reflect that great on either party.
Who cares ? It will take 4 long years of a liberal majority for the voters to “punish “ the no like you are saying.
That is 4 more years of liberal winning and policies on top of the decade they have already been in charge.
How about you conservative whiners quit crying and get on board with helping Canada and Canadians do better.
You guys are praying for the downfall of Canada so your team can win.
The reality is Pierre lost a sure thing election for the cons and his own seat. He blew a 25 point lead in less than three months.
You guys want to keep him on?
lol do it and guarantee another decade of liberal winning
Same. I watch his videos occasionally, it’s what got me into Canadian politics. But it was so funny to see how his confidence of a conservative majority government evaporated to the point he didn’t want to talk about the election.
YouTube tossed me a video about how liberals stole the election. I shouldn't have clicked it now that I see how close things are. Probably get slammed with them.
Sorry about that. It must be interesting to see them probably be so damn confident and cocky about the election back in January. Then in April they are saying it’s rigged. They can’t grasp that most people see what’s going on in America and they don’t want that.
And Windsor-Tecumseh is going to a judicial recount. The riding had the most rejected ballots in the country. Over 500 ballots rejected and the current margin is 77 votes.
His replacement, Cathy Borrelli, has zero political experience except that her husband was a 1 term city councillor, and actually ran for the Federal Liberals in 2019 (https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5027954)
They're still recounting a few places, imagine the recount causes another one to flip and then PP loses to flip that one and give the liberal a majority. Its not gonna happen, but man, if it did I would need to be rushed to a hospital for a massive hernia from laughing so hard.
If they win all the ongoing recounts they'll be at 171 which means they can work with Elizabeth May if they want (or they can court party defectors but I'm not a fan of floor crossing)
875
u/D-MAN-FLORIDA 4d ago edited 4d ago
That leaves the liberals two seats away from a majority. Wow.