Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Abacus: 37-27-19

https://abacusdata.ca/conservative-lead-drops-to-10-over-liberals/

Still very good for the Tories, but there do seem to be fewer government disasters in recent weeks?

Poilievre took control of the narrative over the summer and fall, and the Liberals didn't really know how to handle it, not helped by the litany of stupid PR disasters over the fall like Nazigate, "housing isn't a federal responsibility", and the carbon tax exemption which seemed to convince no one. But since November, yeah I'd say the Liberals are starting to regain ground. Sean Fraser has been one of the stronger ministers recently, he's making moves on housing that, while still very preliminary and likely to be too little too late, at least disrupt Poilievre's narrative on housing. I also don't think Poilievre and the parliamentary CPC are that impressive in the house, which puts them at a disadvantage when parliament is in session.

My view is that the CPC successfully executed its first act of introducing the leader to less politically engaged Canadians. Canadian elections, as we all know by now, are very "presidentialized", with the popularity of the leader able to swing far more voters than traditional partisanship. Polls now consistently show that while Poilievre isn't exactly beloved, he's less unpopular than the alternatives, which is all you need anyway. The second act has to be more policy-focused though. I think the mini-documentary on housing was a good idea on this front, but they need to start fleshing out their policy goals more broadly. I think the whole "don't announce anything, just promise change" thing won't work for the CPC the way it did for Doug Ford in 2018, because the LPC under Trudeau is far more politically skilled than the OLP under Wynne. There's some merit to the idea that opposition parties should focus more energy on countering the government than putting forward policies when we're this far out from an election. But two more years of just criticizing the status quo without convincing people on an alternative runs the risk of seeming like massive blowhards who just want power for power's sake.

Apparently this Abacus poll, and it is just one poll, also reported that of the approximately 5% of Canadians who have switched from the Liberals to the Conservatives since the 2021 election, that they dislike Justin Trudeau but would be convinced to vote Liberal in the next election if they become convinced that Poilievre would be worse. So, if this poll is accurate, it also suggests that the Liberal attacks on Pierre Poilievre are having an effect.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Abacus: 37-27-19

https://abacusdata.ca/conservative-lead-drops-to-10-over-liberals/

Still very good for the Tories, but there do seem to be fewer government disasters in recent weeks?

Poilievre took control of the narrative over the summer and fall, and the Liberals didn't really know how to handle it, not helped by the litany of stupid PR disasters over the fall like Nazigate, "housing isn't a federal responsibility", and the carbon tax exemption which seemed to convince no one. But since November, yeah I'd say the Liberals are starting to regain ground. Sean Fraser has been one of the stronger ministers recently, he's making moves on housing that, while still very preliminary and likely to be too little too late, at least disrupt Poilievre's narrative on housing. I also don't think Poilievre and the parliamentary CPC are that impressive in the house, which puts them at a disadvantage when parliament is in session.

My view is that the CPC successfully executed its first act of introducing the leader to less politically engaged Canadians. Canadian elections, as we all know by now, are very "presidentialized", with the popularity of the leader able to swing far more voters than traditional partisanship. Polls now consistently show that while Poilievre isn't exactly beloved, he's less unpopular than the alternatives, which is all you need anyway. The second act has to be more policy-focused though. I think the mini-documentary on housing was a good idea on this front, but they need to start fleshing out their policy goals more broadly. I think the whole "don't announce anything, just promise change" thing won't work for the CPC the way it did for Doug Ford in 2018, because the LPC under Trudeau is far more politically skilled than the OLP under Wynne. There's some merit to the idea that opposition parties should focus more energy on countering the government than putting forward policies when we're this far out from an election. But two more years of just criticizing the status quo without convincing people on an alternative runs the risk of seeming like massive blowhards who just want power for power's sake.

Apparently this Abacus poll, and it is just one poll, also reported that of the approximately 5% of Canadians who have switched from the Liberals to the Conservatives since the 2021 election, that they dislike Justin Trudeau but would be convinced to vote Liberal in the next election if they become convinced that Poilievre would be worse. So, if this poll is accurate, it also suggests that the Liberal attacks on Pierre Poilievre are having an effect.

And to that point, also raises questions about whether a non-Trudeau leader could turn the Liberals' fortunes.

Trudeau had something of a fair point on housing. Obviously the federal government is responsible more or less for the immigration levels (not with student visas) and they have the 'power of the purse' but when you look here in British Columbia at what the provincial government is forcing on municipalities, and the provinces ability to do this because 'municipalities are creatures of the province' the Federal Government could not do these things.

IN OUR VIEW: Is this what a housing revolution looks like?
New rules are biggest change in B.C. land use in 50 years
https://www.mapleridgenews.com/opinion/in-our-view-is-this-what-a-housing-revolution-looks-like-7115252

I don't know what other provinces are doing, but this is what the B.C government has done:
An incomplete list of the changes introduced over the last few months by Housing Minister Ravi Kahlon includes:

• Triplexes, fourplexes, and in some areas, sixplexes to be allowed on most single family lots, depending on size and availability of transit

• A crackdown on Airbnb and VRBO, including a near total ban on non-residential short-term rentals

• Changes to how towns and cities zone and plan for future development, including eliminating most public hearings

• Changes to development cost charges and amenity contributions cities collect from developers

• Increased density around transit hubs, and

• Funding for non-profits to buy up and manage existing rental buildings, preserving it from re-development.

One thing the federal government could do to help on this, and some of this has probably already been announced, is federal funding to help with necessary infrastructure upgrades for all this increased development likes expanded roads and sewers.

One interesting thing that could lead to is if provincial governments squawk with the federal government dealing directly with municipalities on these things. I would certainly expect Quebec to complain, but Alberta and Saskatchewan would be interesting.

One thing that may have helped the federal Liberals improve in the polls, or at least stopped the momentum of the federal Conservatives is the Liberals starting to use Premier Danielle Smith as a foil. Both Dominic LeBlanc and Jonathan Wilkinson referred to her demand for 53% of the money in the federal pension plan and her ideas on continued long term use  (increasing or the same amounts) of fossil fuels as 'fantasy.' I don't believe that was the exact word, but it was very similar.

How does Poilievre's plans to punish municipalities that won't increase housing work if the provinces are telling the Federal government that municipalities are creatures of the province?

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

1 in 7 NDP voters would vote for Trump if in US.  

Who are these people? I know one, personally - my step grandmother in law. She's a Serbian immigrant. Thinks the NDP are the party of the working people, but likes Trumps anti-war stance. I get the impression this is not an uncommon view among Eastern Europeans.

I also think it's completely understated to not stated at all in modern political analysis that Trump is not really a conservative as a conservative was defined 20 to 30 years ago. I personally don't consider the Republican Party a conservative organization any longer even though it definitely has conservative elements inside it (no different than the Democratic Party until the 1980s).

It's not surprising to me that in a country whose political setup is not overwhelmingly binary you see seemingly strange coalitions being made of who supports who in a binary one, and it should give pause to people that think if the Liberals and NDP merge they would automatically win every election going forward.

I don't like to refer to Trump or the Republican Party as conservative either as opposed to either populist right wing or incoherent right wing because as much as I don't necessarily agree with traditional conservative ideology it has a respectable history and is more or less ideologically consistent (as consistent as any other ideology.)

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Trudeau says he thinks about leaving 'crazy job'


That's a very frank thing to say. A stupid thing to say if he wants another term. But I think Trudeau's at least considering a walk in the snow.

But I have to say, he's been a bit more frank recently in general. His impassioned defence of the carbon tax, while probably bad politics given the mood of the nation, I think he comes off much better in those off the cuff moments compared to his standard focus-grouped word salad non-answers. I don't think he's winning back any LPC-CPC defectors with that, but I can definitely see how a stance like that would at least help unite progressive voters around the LPC. And aside from partisan/ideological stuff, he does come across as a more assertive and confident leader than he has for months if not years, and that's half the job of a Prime Minister. But it might also be that his frankness is him thinking more about his long-term legacy rather than the next election, and it sounds like he doesn't really want to contest it in the first place.

A bit eye-rolly how he keeps insisting on calling it a "price" though. It's a tax, I get the political calculation there but literally nobody calls it a "price on carbon" or thinks of it as a "price". You tried to brand it that way, it didn't work. It's just corny at this point.

I could atleast understand his defense of the carbon tax but the simple fact is he helped out some provinces(Atlantic) while the Western provinces remain screwed over.

Alberta and Saskatchewan aren't 'the west.'

Since 1984 with the ending of the National Energy Program, Alberta and (to a lesser degree) Saskatchewan have received enormous revenues from fossil fuels and insisted that the National Energy Program end because it was their resource to gain from.  That's fine, resources are provincial and the Federal government received taxes as well which the Federal government helped earn through the assistance the Pierre Trudeau government provided in developing the oil sands (completely and conveniently forgotten by pretty much everybody.)

However, now that we find out since then that fossil fuels are the main contributor to global warming (known theoretically since the 1950s anyway), since the resources are provincially owned, it's primarily up to Alberta and Saskatchewan to address the harms caused by their resource. 

Obviously the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan as well as the Federal Conservatives and their owners - the fossil fuel sector- want to privatize the gains and socialize the costs, but so far Canadians have resisted that.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Trudeau says he thinks about leaving 'crazy job'


That's a very frank thing to say. A stupid thing to say if he wants another term. But I think Trudeau's at least considering a walk in the snow.

But I have to say, he's been a bit more frank recently in general. His impassioned defence of the carbon tax, while probably bad politics given the mood of the nation, I think he comes off much better in those off the cuff moments compared to his standard focus-grouped word salad non-answers. I don't think he's winning back any LPC-CPC defectors with that, but I can definitely see how a stance like that would at least help unite progressive voters around the LPC. And aside from partisan/ideological stuff, he does come across as a more assertive and confident leader than he has for months if not years, and that's half the job of a Prime Minister. But it might also be that his frankness is him thinking more about his long-term legacy rather than the next election, and it sounds like he doesn't really want to contest it in the first place.

A bit eye-rolly how he keeps insisting on calling it a "price" though. It's a tax, I get the political calculation there but literally nobody calls it a "price on carbon" or thinks of it as a "price". You tried to brand it that way, it didn't work. It's just corny at this point.

It can be called a 'tax' or a 'price' in the sense that most Canadians receive rebates that offset the cost of the consumer carbon 'tax' anyway. 

What bothers me is the arguments from ignorance about how this pricing works and the lack of interest expressed especially by right wingers and right wing populists. It actually isn't hard.

There are three goods

Without carbon pricing/tax
candy $10
5 liters of gasoline $10
movie ticket $10

With carbon pricing/tax
candy $10
5 liters of gasoline $11
movie ticket $10

Even when people get the rebate, the gasoline is still more expensive which, since all else is equal, means that people are going to buy less gasoline. Obviously it depends on the price elasticity of gasoline which tends to be rather inelastic, but over time, like any other good, it's more elastic.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

I feel like immigration is the third rail of Canadian politics. No one wants to be seen as 'racist' for opposing it, even if Canadians generally oppose it.

I do agree that it will be a big issue in the next election. Poilieve will have to address the issue very carefully. He can't be seen as being racist, but he does risk losing votes to the PPC. I assume Bernier is going to focus his campaign heavily on being anti-immigration and with the Tories assured victory, a lot of people on the far right may feel like voting PPC won't split the vote.

Anecdotally I'm seeing a lot of chatter on places like Reddit about the influx of student immigration from India, and how they're not integrating very well (to put it mildly) on campuses. It's certainly fuelling a lot of racism and xenophobia.   

 

the ppc are a fringe party

They got 5% of the vote last time. Whether you consider that fringe or not is up to you, but it's significant enough for the Conservatives to worry about losing votes to them.

The Tories nominated Erin O Toole last time though, not Pierre Polievre . Erin O Toole was not liked by many right wingers which is why the PPC was able to do that well

Also, a lot of it was just anti-vaccine stuff which just isn't going to be relevant in 2025.

I think it is true that in the end Erin O'Toole wasn't really trusted by anybody. I think there was a sense with many blue collar union workers that liked his pro private sector union policies that if he got elected Prime Minister and tried to implement those pro union policies that there would be a revolt in his caucus.

I think that was a reason why Doug Ford was able to successfully run on pro private sector union policies and succeed while Erin O'Toole failed.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

What's the reason for the most recent Conservative surge? I checked in on the Wikipedia polls page for the first time since January and boom after stalling for like six months the Conservatives are going up again.

Looking back it seems like many were suggesting a tightening of polling/Liberals regaining momentum, but they are tanking again.

Until we see some actual data, it's anyone's guess. I can't think of anything that has significantly changed during the time of this polling surge. Conservatives haven't really changed anything since summer 2023 when they overhauled the leader's image and narrowed down their messaging. There hasn't been a major snafu from LPC these past few months either. Anecdotally, it feels like there's an increasing sense that the Liberals are a lame duck government, and when that happens, a significant % of Canadian voters decide to tepidly cast their lot with whoever the strongest opposition is. And in the minds of many Canadians right now, CPC is not the strongest opposition, it's the only opposition.

Right now there is only one poll that shows the Conservatives higher than 40% low 40%s.

This is 'Peak Atlas' to make a big deal of one poll.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

What's the reason for the most recent Conservative surge? I checked in on the Wikipedia polls page for the first time since January and boom after stalling for like six months the Conservatives are going up again.

Looking back it seems like many were suggesting a tightening of polling/Liberals regaining momentum, but they are tanking again.

Until we see some actual data, it's anyone's guess. I can't think of anything that has significantly changed during the time of this polling surge. Conservatives haven't really changed anything since summer 2023 when they overhauled the leader's image and narrowed down their messaging. There hasn't been a major snafu from LPC these past few months either. Anecdotally, it feels like there's an increasing sense that the Liberals are a lame duck government, and when that happens, a significant % of Canadian voters decide to tepidly cast their lot with whoever the strongest opposition is. And in the minds of many Canadians right now, CPC is not the strongest opposition, it's the only opposition.

Right now there is only one poll that shows the Conservatives higher than 40% low 40%s.

This is 'Peak Atlas' to make a big deal of one poll.

What, this whole flurry of discussion is based on one single solitary poll?

Genuine lol.

Yes, it is a Mainstreet Research poll that has the Conservatives at 46%. The day earlier a Nanos tracking poll came out that had the Conservatives dropping from 42.8% to 40.6% in their previous tracking poll. But, just as nothing should be made of one poll that has the Conservatives at 46%, the Conservative drop in the Nanos poll is almost certainly just 'statistical noise' as well.

The interesting thing about the Mainstreet Research poll that maybe caught the eye of the media is that the Conservative rise was the result of the NDP dropping down to 15%. Of course, theoretically that can make sense as people who oppose the Liberals get increasingly annoyed with the NDP for propping them up. However, so far this is just one poll.

The significant takeaway from the polls is that from January 26, excluding the Mainstreet Research, there have been 13 polls (including 6 Nanos polls - but that still leaves 7 others) showing the Conservatives between 40-43% while the Liberals have been between 23-26%. The NDP drop to as low as 16% in a poll released on January 26 but are mostly averaging around 20%. Of course, The federal NDP always ends up a couple points lower than its polls due to having support from voters the least likely to turn out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_45th_Canadian_federal_election

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

What's the reason for the most recent Conservative surge? I checked in on the Wikipedia polls page for the first time since January and boom after stalling for like six months the Conservatives are going up again.

Looking back it seems like many were suggesting a tightening of polling/Liberals regaining momentum, but they are tanking again.

Until we see some actual data, it's anyone's guess. I can't think of anything that has significantly changed during the time of this polling surge. Conservatives haven't really changed anything since summer 2023 when they overhauled the leader's image and narrowed down their messaging. There hasn't been a major snafu from LPC these past few months either. Anecdotally, it feels like there's an increasing sense that the Liberals are a lame duck government, and when that happens, a significant % of Canadian voters decide to tepidly cast their lot with whoever the strongest opposition is. And in the minds of many Canadians right now, CPC is not the strongest opposition, it's the only opposition.

Right now there is only one poll that shows the Conservatives higher than 40% low 40%s.

This is 'Peak Atlas' to make a big deal of one poll.

What, this whole flurry of discussion is based on one single solitary poll?

Genuine lol.

It's not. Nobody specifically brought up any solitary poll until Benjamin Frank did. Someone did bring up the Wikipedia polls page, which shows this:

Link (the actual image is too big and messes up the UI)


Is it a massive swing? No, it's a tiny uptick that could just as easily go down. But is it one poll? Also no.

The poll itself was not brought up but I think it's clear a couple of the comments here were a reference to that poll.

As for the Conservative increase in January, I don't think there is necessarily a rational reason behind it or an incident, when the public individually and collectively decides it's 'time for a change' that's it.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

The NDP in Canada just proposed a motion in the House of Commons to recognize a Palestinian state. The NDP MP who proposed it, Heather McPherson, went on the CBC for an interview. She was asked by the interviewer why she proposed it. One of the reasons she cited was; 'Unlike any other issue, I've been hearing from hundreds of thousands of Canadians from coast to coast about this.' I'm convinced that part of the reason why our country is such a mess right now is because hundreds of thousands of Canadians are expending their time and energy on this issue and not the plethora of domestic issues like the cost of living. If hundreds of thousands of Canadians contacted the government about the cost of housing or immigration policy, the issue would be fixed in a day.

What's happening in the Middle East may not be effecting many Canadians at home, but it's an humanitarian crisis, and Canadians are a compassionate people. Why shouldn't we care about just what's happening in this country? We are all humans after all.

It's fine to care about it (though I think the NDP position on this is somewhat misguided). I care about foreign policy a lot as well.

My issue is moreso that this is the only issue that has galvanized hundreds of thousands of Canadians, according to Heather McPherson in the CBC interview, to contact their MPs? Not any domestic issue? What would happen if hundreds of thousands of Canadians contacted their MPs about housing? Maybe something would change.

M.Ps have only so much authority on housing and there are fairly massive changes in at least some areas depending on the provinces. There are massive changes in British Columbia, it still takes time.

I wrote on another thread that things could be sped up even further at the municipal level if more prefab and standardized housing blocks were built. It takes about 3 weeks to build a prefab or standardized housing block versus about 3 months to build a conventional house and they are cheaper to build. Beyond that, they don't require preapproval which speeds up the application process as well thereby reducing the time that the developer needs to own the lot without receiving anything in return (imputed interest cost.)

I think whether that actually lowers the price of housing in an area depends on how much the housing costs are determined solely by the value of the land, but, all else being equal, it certainly should lower housing costs.

As you know, the NIMBYs hate these things and they still have sway in some areas, this isn't as easy as passing some nonbinding resolution. Your argument would fit more if this Canadian resolution on the two states were not only binding in Canada but binding in Israel/Palestine.

I appreciate the frustration, but status quo interests are always very difficult to overcome.

I suspect that even people who don't consider themselves to be NIMBYs might find a problem with standardized housing blocks as the 'aesthetics' are supposedly ugly.

In addition to status quo interests, the other thing that needs to be fought to get things done is people not understanding the consequences of their choices and the tradeoffs involved, and, unfortunately, politicians tend to have a difficult time telling voters 'you have to make a choice.'

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Poilievre picking a fight with David Eby is really dumb. Boost the BC Cons by all means, but there's no reason to specifically go after a premier who is fairly popular in his province and is all but certain to win a full 4-year mandate this fall. The combative tone works against Trudeau because he's unpopular, it doesn't work against a popular leader. I'm not sure what he's trying to achieve here. Maybe he's trying to get Eby in line with the other premiers (and apparently Bonnie Crombie!) on the carbon tax issue. It's not gonna happen, Eby's like the one Anglo premier who doesn't feel the pressure to axe the tax, both because of his province's inclination towards environmentalism, and the fact that the opposition to him is very fragmented.

Mainstreet has just released a poll showing the conservatives only 6 points below the BCNDP. Poilievre knows what he's doing.

The Mainstreet poll asked people their federal voting intentions before asking them how they'd vote provincially.

Mainstreet polls aren't junk polls but people should be suspicious of their motives. Quitto Maggi has used his polls to attempt to influence elections before.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

At this rate though, I wouldn't be surprised if BC United is totally annihilated come next election.

Oh yeah BCU is toast. At best they'll hang around as a minor party for well-off Vancouverites who are too rich to vote NDP but too "woke" to vote Conservative. You know, the mythical "fiscally conservative, socially progressive" voter.

I don't know about that. Small subsamples, but the Angus Reid poll that came out in February showed B.C United in second place in the Interior/North behind the NDP with the B.C Conservatives a fairly distant third. 10 of the 16 B.C United MLAs who are running again are in the Interior/North including well known and generally well liked/well respected MLAs like Shirley Bond, Mike Bernier, Peter Milobar and Todd Stone.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

For those interested in the discussion on B.C politics, for instance, where I heard that the Mainstreet Poll asked questions on federal voting intentions before provincially voting intentions (I'm sure they wouldn't do this specifically but: so, you plan to vote Conservative federally, how will you vote provincially?) I listen to Baldrey's Beat on CKNW 980 from 10-10:30 AM Monday to Thursday (Bill Tieleman with Bill's Beat is on Fridays) with host Mike Smyth.

I otherwise dislike Mike Smyth, but the right wing lean of the audience is interesting. For all the complaints about Liberal/Laurentian 'elites', CKNW archives its audio for two weeks (https://globalnews.ca/pages/audio-vault-cknw/) and I'd especially recommend listening to Tuesday's show. There were three callers in a row who repeated the myth/legend that 'B.C/Canada needs a conservative government because only conservatives know how to manage the economy'  or that 'conservative values are needed to save Canada.'

You can't get more elite/arrogant than that.

'Conservative economics' ranges from the more monetarist balanced budget focused types of Stephen Harper to the seemingly populist Pierre Poilievre types which are more incoherent economically (based on Trump anyway.)  Based on Danielle Smith and Scott Moe, they basically mean shilling for fossil fuel interests.

I have extolled many times the virtues of centrist governments like Brian Mulroney/Jean Chretien, but, for instance, the poor Canadian productivity growth highlighted in the lack of real GDP per capita growth has been poor since around 2000, which covers both the full tenure of the Stephen Harper Conservatives as well as the Justin Trudeau Liberals. Stephen Harper was also little more than a (mostly failed) shill for the fossil fuel sector though he did leave office having balanced the budget.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

At this rate though, I wouldn't be surprised if BC United is totally annihilated come next election.

Oh yeah BCU is toast. At best they'll hang around as a minor party for well-off Vancouverites who are too rich to vote NDP but too "woke" to vote Conservative. You know, the mythical "fiscally conservative, socially progressive" voter.

I don't know about that. Small subsamples, but the Angus Reid poll that came out in February showed B.C United in second place in the Interior/North behind the NDP with the B.C Conservatives a fairly distant third. 10 of the 16 B.C United MLAs who are running again are in the Interior/North including well known and generally well liked/well respected MLAs like Shirley Bond, Mike Bernier, Peter Milobar and Todd Stone.

Would you say it's looking more like the Socreds' last election then, where strong incumbents prevent a complete wipeout? I don't know much about BC provincial politics, but something feels very terminal about BCU

The historical part is easier to comment on, I was surprised at the Angus Reid subsamples myself and dismissed them as results based on very small samples, but I've said myself that I think Shirley Bond was personally responsible for turning Prince George and area from a swing area to solidly B.C Liberal, and maybe in especially the bigger cities in the interior of Prince George, Kamloops and Kelowna there is enduring support for the B.C Liberals/B.C United.

I know it's kind of become a cliche to say, but the Interior 'is not a monolith' and there could be an urban/rural divide in the Interior as well as the three interior cities of Kelowna, Kamloops and Prince George combine for a population of over 300,000.

Of course, the NDP leads in that small Angus Reid subsample as well, so I'd say things are probably still too unsettled.

For the B.C United though that would be in addition to the ridings in 'Metro Vancouver' (Vancouver-Quilchena, maybe Vancouver-Langara and maybe both West Vancouver ridings that are too socially liberal to vote Conservative but maybe won't vote NDP (or Green.))

The Angus Reid subsample suggested a three way race in the Fraser Valley, but B.C United won only the two Abbotsford ridings there and neither of their incumbents is running again.

B.C United also won two ridings in Surrey, the wealthy ridings of Surrey-White Rock and South Surrey which probably have similar demographics to Vancouver-Quilchena. Elenore Sturko recently won the Surrey South byelection.

On the history, that might be the way the 1991 election has been remembered, but that's actually not really true. I recently saw the 1991 election night coverage on the CBC again and nobody thought Social Credit would simply collapse (with a few holdouts in the B.C Reform Party) or even necessarily merge with the B.C Liberals. Social Credit still received nearly 25% of the vote after all.

I don't agree with this fully but also from Keith Baldrey who I mentioned above:

It was de Jong’s historic byelection win in the riding of Matsqui that stamped out any chance the once-powerful Social Credit Party could stage a political comeback after being routed in the 1991 general election.

His victory ensured the B.C. Liberal Party, a virtual political non-entity until its electoral breakthrough in 1991, would eventually become the free enterprise coalition around which non-NDP voters would support at elections.

De Jong defeated Social Credit icon Grace McCarthy by just 42 votes. Many have felt that McCarthy had enough gas in the tank to steer her party back to prominence if she proved to be victorious.
https://www.nsnews.com/local-news/baldrey-what-this-longtime-mlas-departure-could-mean-bcs-political-future-8329830

I also appreciate that there can be a difference in how a politician is perceived at the wider level and locally, but I don't think too many people would have regarded Social Credit MLAs like Lyall Hanson in Vernon or Harry De Jong in Abbotsford or Peter Dueck in Matsqui as especially strong incumbents. They were reelected because Social Credit had an enduring brand in the Fraser Valley and much of the B.C Interior.

I don't necessarily agree with Baldrey because Grace McCarthy was regarded by members of Social Credit as too socially liberal, (I think entirely because she was not 100% anti abortion) so I don't think she would have been a good fit for the party to lead them into the election. However, I think he is correct that at the time the political landscape was still unsettled.

For one short historical lesson: Unlike in Ontario or most other provinces in Canada there have not been any city mergers in British Columbia for something like 90 years (that might have been when South Vancouver merged with Vancouver) with the exception of Matsqui merging into Abbotsford. Unlike in other provinces, that was decided entirely at the local level with I believe the citizens of Matsqui not wanting to be associated with the prison a major reason.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

At this rate though, I wouldn't be surprised if BC United is totally annihilated come next election.

Oh yeah BCU is toast. At best they'll hang around as a minor party for well-off Vancouverites who are too rich to vote NDP but too "woke" to vote Conservative. You know, the mythical "fiscally conservative, socially progressive" voter.

I don't know about that. Small subsamples, but the Angus Reid poll that came out in February showed B.C United in second place in the Interior/North behind the NDP with the B.C Conservatives a fairly distant third. 10 of the 16 B.C United MLAs who are running again are in the Interior/North including well known and generally well liked/well respected MLAs like Shirley Bond, Mike Bernier, Peter Milobar and Todd Stone.

For what it's worth, that was a misprint - the BC Conservatives are still in a solid second place in the Interior. It's only a slight drop for them and a slight rise for the NDP (from 35 to 32 for the former, and from 37 to 42 for the latter).

Still want to hear how you think BC United's incumbents will make a difference though out there - I'm not too familiar with that neck of the woods.

Thanks! that does make more sense. I still find it hard to believe that Shirley Bond or Todd Stone could lose. Peter Milobar won by only 1% in 2020 over the NDP and certainly Mike Bernier will have a hard time getting reelected in Peace River which is very conservative. I got mixed up thinking that Bernier was in the Prince George area but that's retiring B.C United MLA Mike Morris.

Had I checked the size of the subsamples I like to think I would have realized something couldn't add up, but I assumed Metro Vancouver was just the city of Vancouver, Burnaby and North and West Vancouver, while 'Lower Mainland/Fraser Valley' was everything else, but obviously that's not correct. Lower Mainland/Fraser Valley is probably just the city of Surrey (and White Rock) and the Fraser Valley (the Langleys, Abbotsford and Chilliwack and maybe Mission.)

The other interesting thing, and again, these are very small samples, is that this survey counts the North Coast (including I presume Powell River-Sunshine Coast) with Vancouver Island. This is the NDPs strongest area in the Interior (except for parts of the Kootenays.) So, if the NDP is leading in the Interior/North without it including Powell River-Sunshine, North Coast and Stikine (and Skeena), it's probable that the NDP would win a number of these Interior/North ridings over the Conservatives and B.C United.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Ridings/MLAs I can see B.C United holding (not taking the new maps into account):
1.Shirley Bond
2.Maybe Prince George-MacKenzie in a three way race
3.Todd Stone
4.Maybe Renee Merrifield in Kelowna but she's not as well known as Bond or Stone and Kelowna is more conservative than Kamloops or Prince George.
5.Elenore Sturko
6.Maybe Trevor Halford
7.Ian Paton in Delta South in a three way race, hard to see the NDP winning in Delta South.
8.Teresa Wat
9.Maybe Michael Lee
10.Kevin Falcon
11.West Vancouver-Capilano

So, up to 9 of the 16 incumbents running again.  I still end up with a minimum of 6 MLAs reelected and B.C United holding West Vancouver-Capilano as well.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

For what it's worth, here's where I think the state of the race is right now: https://twitter.com/Cadeyrnn/status/1770856146443583745?t=6xsnPySW7NXbxu_McbRK7A...

The first map 'feels' right to me, though the NDP winning Langara doesn't (but, I get it- vote splits).

I just hope my nemesis, the Conservative candidate in that riding, doesn't win.

A person I knew in middle and high school, Arzeena Hamir, is running for the Green Party in Courtenay-Comox. Arzeena is actually relatively well known throughout British Columbia as an organic farmer. She was also a two term regional district director.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Apparently Canada's population hit 41 million yesterday just 9 months after reaching 40 million.

I agree with those who say that this and not the carbon tax are why the Liberals will lose in 2025. It's not even just that Canada can not absorb this number of people in this period of time, but that for a long time the Liberals showed no interest or even understanding of the need to coordinate the population increase with the municipalities and the provinces. This is just basic incompetence.

I can't stand Poilievre or the Conservatives, but I can certainly appreciate the desire to fire a government that demonstrates basic incompetence.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Apparently Canada's population hit 41 million yesterday just 9 months after reaching 40 million.

I agree with those who say that this and not the carbon tax are why the Liberals will lose in 2025. It's not even just that Canada can not absorb this number of people in this period of time, but that for a long time the Liberals showed no interest or even understanding of the need to coordinate the population increase with the municipalities and the provinces. This is just basic incompetence.

I can't stand Poilievre or the Conservatives, but I can certainly appreciate the desire to fire a government that demonstrates basic incompetence.

Not only that, but what bothers me is that they destroyed Canada's previously good immigration system. Most of Canada's immigrants used to be high skilled and came through the points system and that was one of the most successful immigration systems in the world - that was the policy for 50 years (with minor adjustments). There was no need to allow the growth of the temporary resident population and lower the standard for permanent residency to the extent that the Liberals did. They could have kept the immigration system the same as it was in 2015 and it wouldn't be an election issue for them, because the old immigration system was effective and reasonably popular. Heck, they probably could have kept 2019 immigration levels without too much backlash. But what they've done in the last 2 to 3 years is completely insane.

I'm not all that familiar with this because I know the provinces have been given a much greater say on immigration so I don't know if the skilled immigrant program has really been done away with or if its just been transferred to the provinces.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

At the risk of turning this to a "Canada immigration policy" thread (although honestly I agree that this is the biggest issue with the Trudeau government, much more so than the carbon tax, but apparently opposing the carbon tax sells better for Poilievre) - PQ leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon gives a speech in English articulating perfectly what so many of us have been criticizing about Liberal immigration policy.

https://twitter.com/ContrarianTribe/status/1773702167980888453
Something very weird about a left-wing Quebec separatist who hopes to govern a province that actually has some control over immigration, making very obvious points about federal immigration policy, that even the federal Conservative leader is too scared to touch. It makes perfect sense and no sense at all.

What he's saying is not that different from what Poilievre is saying. Poilievre has also criticized the federal government for the growth in temporary and permanent immigration, is proposing to tie immigration levels to housing supply growth and wants to fix the imbalance between supply and demand.

The only difference is that the Quebec separatist is citing the Century Initiative as the federal government's motivation for the immigration failure, however I'm not sure that is really what's motivating them, and in general, it's very hard to read politicians' minds and figure out their intentions.

I know, I just don't understand why Poilievre doesn't make this a bigger part of the pitch. Maybe I'm just in a bubble but I feel like this kind of soft immigration-skeptical politics would go over very well right now. I can understand why Conservatives are timid about touching immigration since the Niqab/barbaric practices episode from 2015, but immigration in 2024 is very easy to talk about in purely pocketbook terms without going full on nativist.

On the Century Initiative thing, you're right, I don't think it's the feds' main motivation. But it's still very emblematic of the Liberals' approach to immigration which has basically made increasing the population at all costs the primary driving motivator, at the expense of virtually everything else, which is basically what the Century Initiative people advocate. There's literally zero reason for why Canada NEEDS to increase its population beyond maintaining a healthy working-age population, for which we do not need to reach even close to 100M.

Besides, if the Century Initiative is about reaching 100M by 2100, it's basically a conservative policy. Our population grew 1M in the last 9 months. At that rate, we're at 100M by 2068!

Poilievre obviously constantly mentions it indirectly. Maybe he's as surprised as I was that Canada's population was still increasing so quickly.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Premier Doug Ford says he wants only Ontario students at universities, colleges

First Trudeau flip-flops on temporary resident numbers, now this. Are Canadian politicians now just going to become serial flip-floppers because they just realized their immigration/international student policies are extremely unpopular?

This is silly.

Yes, there is a problem with phony 'diploma mills' but it's also the case that genuine foreign students help keep tuitions lower for domestic students and Canada has some of the best recognized universities in the world that bring in enormous export dollars (a foreigner spending money in Canada is included in export dollars.)

This is certainly far 'cleaner' money than the money Canada gets from exporting fossil fuels.

If this is popular, it's another case of Canadians not understanding the consequences of their choices especially in terms of how this will impact tuitions for domestic students.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

https://globalnews.ca/news/10397176/trudeau-temporary-immigration-canada/
Seems like Trudeau actually is backtracking. There actually could be a scenario where this entire international surge was more incompetence rather than malice.

“To give an example, in 2017, two per cent of Canada’s population was made up of temporary immigrants. Now we’re at 7.5 per cent of our population comprised of temporary immigrants. That’s something we need to get back under control.”

I can't believe the federal government is that incompetent.
Maybe they listened to businesses having difficulties to find employees due to manpower shortage rather than problems associated with such an influx of people.

If Britain left the EU over Immigration I wonder if Quebec will leave Canada over it too.

Will the BQ use the issue ?

The BQ may use it but it's very difficult for a province to actually secede. The constitutional amendment formula for a province to leave is unanimous consent from 7 provincial legislatures with the majority of the country's population as well as the House and Senate. Support for Quebec separatism right now is in the 35% range inside Quebec, so I don't think they'd be able to get unanimous consent in their own province for Quebec independence, let alone other provinces.

https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/ccs-term/amending-formula/?print=print-search#:~:text=There%20must%20be%20at%20least,for%20the%20amendment%20to%20succeed.

So unlike 1995 even if the BQ win a referendum they can't leave ?

Basically Catalonia then.

I'm actually not sure Ontario Tory is correct about this. What the Supreme Court ruled is that the rest of the country has to negotiate with any province that votes to separate provided that a clear question is approved by the voters of that province. There is an open question as to what percentage approval is required. I think the term used is 'clear majority.'

This ruling formed the basis of the 'Clarity Act' that was passed by the Chretien government, who get the credit for it, but largely forgotten is that the Clarity Act itself was mostly written by Preston Manning.

In terms of how this relates to 'Brexit' obviously one could argue that 'Brexit' did not receive a large enough percentage. But, for instance, it's also possible if that situation were applied to Canada, that the other provinces and the federal government could argue that the 'Brexit' campaign was based on a series of lies, and so, is not a basis for a mandate.

These same points would have been made had the 1995 Quebec referendum received just over 50% of the vote.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

https://globalnews.ca/news/10397176/trudeau-temporary-immigration-canada/
Seems like Trudeau actually is backtracking. There actually could be a scenario where this entire international surge was more incompetence rather than malice.

“To give an example, in 2017, two per cent of Canada’s population was made up of temporary immigrants. Now we’re at 7.5 per cent of our population comprised of temporary immigrants. That’s something we need to get back under control.”

I can't believe the federal government is that incompetent.
Maybe they listened to businesses having difficulties to find employees due to manpower shortage rather than problems associated with such an influx of people.

If Britain left the EU over Immigration I wonder if Quebec will leave Canada over it too.

Will the BQ use the issue ?

The BQ may use it but it's very difficult for a province to actually secede. The constitutional amendment formula for a province to leave is unanimous consent from 7 provincial legislatures with the majority of the country's population as well as the House and Senate. Support for Quebec separatism right now is in the 35% range inside Quebec, so I don't think they'd be able to get unanimous consent in their own province for Quebec independence, let alone other provinces.

https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/ccs-term/amending-formula/?print=print-search#:~:text=There%20must%20be%20at%20least,for%20the%20amendment%20to%20succeed.

So unlike 1995 even if the BQ win a referendum they can't leave ?

Basically Catalonia then.

I'm actually not sure Ontario Tory is correct about this. What the Supreme Court ruled is that the rest of the country has to negotiate with any province that votes to separate provided that a clear question is approved by the voters of that province. There is an open question as to what percentage approval is required. I think the term used is 'clear majority.'

This ruling formed the basis of the 'Clarity Act' that was passed by the Chretien government, who get the credit for it, but largely forgotten is that the Clarity Act itself was mostly written by Preston Manning.

In terms of how this relates to 'Brexit' obviously one could argue that 'Brexit' did not receive a large enough percentage. But, for instance, it's also possible if that situation were applied to Canada, that the other provinces and the federal government could argue that the 'Brexit' campaign was based on a series of lies, and so, is not a basis for a mandate.

These same points would have been made had the 1995 Quebec referendum received just over 50% of the vote.

So it will require something like a Conservative-BQ coalition.

Allowing Quebec to leave to make the rest of Canada more conservative or a double Quebec-Western secession.

Of course I don't dismiss the sentiment entirely, but separatism was a dream of one generation of Quebecers that followed on the 'Quiet Revolution' in Quebec of the early 1960s.

Far more likely than any vote of Quebecers to separate is the Canadian public voting to separate itself from this Liberal government.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Premier Doug Ford says he wants only Ontario students at universities, colleges

First Trudeau flip-flops on temporary resident numbers, now this. Are Canadian politicians now just going to become serial flip-floppers because they just realized their immigration/international student policies are extremely unpopular?

You see flip-floppers, I see people admitting they were wrong, better late than never. Who cares if they're doing the right thing now for the wrong reason?

Not all provinces offer every education program under the sun and may need to rely on other provinces. For example, people in my part of Quebec who want to become morticians are usually going to the Collège Boréal in Sudbury, as it is closer than any Quebec establishment offering the course.

That's true, I was acting under the assumption Ford's hypothetical policy would refer to domestic students, not just Ontario students alone. Would there even be enough Ontario students to support all Ontario universities, considering many would still leave for school? Probably not.

You're treating this as if Doug Ford actually thought about it beforehand.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

In hindsight I think it's clear that it's very unfortunate Erin O'Toole did not win in 2021.

While this is obviously counterfactual and it's impossible to know what would have happened with this Conservative government (mostly in terms of how the Conservative M.Ps, many of whom supported Pierre Poilievre, would have behaved under Prime Minister O'Toole) we know that Covid shortly after downgraded itself by remaining very contagious but becoming less virulent.

Had O'Toole won and succeeded as Prime Minister he would have restored the virtues of Progressive Conservatism and would have introduced a rather interesting pro private sector union progressive conservatism (at least in modern times.)

We also know that this term of the Liberal government has been a disaster all around. What accomplishments do they have? They've raised the consumer carbon tax (and the rebates) which I appreciate, but according to those who've crunched the numbers, most of the heavy lifting on reducing emissions is the result of the industrial carbon tax.

They did, along with Ontario, negotiate a deal to bring in large battery production facilities to Canada, that if it produces spin offs (network effects) should be a success, but the subsidies for this were enormous, and, at least one of these manufacturing facilities has been delayed to 2027.

Their signature campaign promise was $10 a day child care which they've negotiated with the provinces, but I understand it's largely stillborn due to the lack of workers and facilities. Not a surprise necessarily because the government has a large deficit and $10 a day isn't going to bring in anywhere near enough money (maybe a $25 a day child care program would have worked.)

At the same time, due to the CASA with the NDP, they've had to bring in two additional programs that seem to also be stillborn, a dental program that is a bureaucratic mess and that apparently very few dentists have signed up for, and a prescription drug program that might succeed in the coming years but probably won't get much traction before the next election.

And now we have Trudeau going around making more phony spending promises that they don't have the money for. (I like many of them but governing ultimately is about making hard choices and the debt is so high right now that the interest payments are becoming a concern as they were in the early 1990s, especially when combined with the large provincial deficits and debt.)

Of course, the Liberals have done some good things pushing through additional housing over the municipal NIMBYS which the B.C government, but not the Ontario government, has run with, but, if it weren't for the large increase in population since 2021, this wouldn't have been quite a big deal.

Had Justin Trudeau lost in 2021, as I've said before, with the exception of the loss, I think he would have been ultimately considered as successful as Lester Pearson who, among many successes, brought in the legislation for national Medicare. One interesting thing people don't remember about that though, unlike with Justin Trudeau, is that its rollout was delayed for a few years after the legislation passed, and Pierre Trudeau in his first term from 1968-1972 didn't implement any other social programs except for, in addition to Medicare, expanding unemployment insurance coverage in 1971.

Also, for what it's worth, of course who knows, but the Liberals in 1968 under Pearson were trailing the Robert Stanfield Progressive Conservatives by up to 20%, so had Pearson stayed on, he likely would have lost as well.