Canadian federal election - 2015

[DL]

Keep in mind that as recently as the 2004 federal election, the CPC took just 29% of the vote nationwide.

That was also an exceptional circumstance. The two conservative parties had merged quite recently. 35-40% is normal in the post Mulroney era for conservatives.
[/quote

The Liberals are swinging so far to the right under Justin Trudeau that the Liberals are now like a second conservative party threatening to split the rightwing vote.

[Space7]

The Liberals are swinging so far to the right under Justin Trudeau that the Liberals are now like a second conservative party threatening to split the rightwing vote.

Right now, (as is exemplified by the polls) the public perception is that Trudeau is one of the center/left guys, and the ABC voters like him. How long it will take until the fact that he definitely leans right is noticed by the public is anyone's guess. It could be months, it could be years.

We can hope he splits the right, but the CPCs don't view him favourably, and I can't foresee too many of them switching, unless it becomes quite public that Trudeau is right wing, and Harper messes up somehow.

I'm not banking my hopes on the CPCs losing, But I do think there's a fairly good chance he will lose his majority position. Short term, Trudeau will probably just split the vote, but in the long run, I hope, Trudeau's right wing policies will eventually put many of the Liberals off, and it will benefit the NDP.

[RogueBeaver]

On what issue is Trudeau "swinging so far to the right?" If energy, he opposes Northern Gateway, lukewarm on Kinder Morgan, but pushing hard for Keystone and pro-sands generally.

[DL]

Trudeau also wants to keep the Senate exactly the way it is - so he can have fun some day packing it with his own coterie of friends and sycophants.

Its clear that the hard core CPC base doesn't like Justin Trudeau or the Liberal party or Tom Mulcair or the NDP - and would only abandon the CPC if there was a new Reform party style apostasy (ie: someone decides to create a Canadian chapter of UKIP). But that CPC hard core is only about 26% of Canadian voters. Then you have another large chunk of people who voted CPC in 2011 who had previously voted Liberal during the Chretien/Martin era...look at Ontario for example, the CPC in 2011 took 44% of the vote in Ontario, but we know that under the right circumstances the tory vote in Ontario can easily be driven into the low 30s - the Tories took 32% in ontario in 2004 and just 35% in 2006 and in the Ontario elections of 2003, 2007 and 2011 the Ontario PCs have never had more than 35% of the vote. There is a segment of 10% of Ontarians (ditto in other provinces) who voted CPC in 2011 but who would have to be considered low hanging fruit for the opposition parties. They are people who have voted Liberal in 04, 06 or even 08. They are people who vote Liberal or NDP provincially etc...

The Liberals under Trudeau and the NDP under Mulcair are not expecting to attract votes from hard core Tory voters who will vote tory come hell or high water - but they will both be going after "soft Tory" voters - people who swung to Harper at the last minute in 2011 but who have a history of often voting for other parties etc...

[Space7]

On what issue is Trudeau "swinging so far to the right?" If energy, he opposes Northern Gateway, lukewarm on Kinder Morgan, but pushing hard for Keystone and pro-sands generally.

I might be going a little far saying he's "right wing", he's not as right wing as Harper, but his platform should raise some eyebrows for the more more leftish Liberals.

-Supports Keystone XL
-Supports Oil Sands
-Supports Foreign ownership of Canadian resources
-Does not support Senate reform, said it was "a terrible idea" (yes, Harper said he would reform the Senate, but all I've seen is him filling it up with Conservatives, so I consider Senate reform a left wing policy)

The rest of the platform is either vague or not finished yet, so we don't really know what it will look like come election day, but if these policies are any indication, they could be rightish.

I prefer him over Harper, a few of his policies seem okay, but he's no left-center.

[Hash]

Yeah, Justin Trudeau Bieber is turning out to be predictably horrible. I probably won't even bother voting in 2015.

[Smid]

Senate reform is in no way a left-wing policy. Harper attempted to reform the Senate, the Senate knocked back his Bill, he has subsequently appointed to the Senate people who support this policy. Senate reform doesn't sit on the left-right axis.

[MaxQue]

Senate reform is in no way a left-wing policy. Harper attempted to reform the Senate, the Senate knocked back his Bill, he has subsequently appointed to the Senate people who support this policy. Senate reform doesn't sit on the left-right axis.

Anyways, it's a complicated, since provinces are claiming than, since the Senate composition is defined in the Constitution, the approval of the provincial governments is needed for any Senate reform.

For once, Harper did the right thing, that is referring the question to the Supreme Court.

[DL]

Senate reform is in no way a left-wing policy. Harper attempted to reform the Senate, the Senate knocked back his Bill, he has subsequently appointed to the Senate people who support this policy. Senate reform doesn't sit on the left-right axis.

Except the NDP which is Canada's party of the left, has strongly advocated for senate abolition for 80 years. Abolition is the leftwing position. Trudeau wants the status quo in the senate which is a rightwing position. By any definition of left and right, it seems very rightwing to want to keep an unelected upper house full of appointed elites with lifetime jobs who regularly overrule the will of the people

[DC Al Fine]

Senate reform is in no way a left-wing policy. Harper attempted to reform the Senate, the Senate knocked back his Bill, he has subsequently appointed to the Senate people who support this policy. Senate reform doesn't sit on the left-right axis.

Except the NDP which is Canada's party of the left, has strongly advocated for senate abolition for 80 years. Abolition is the leftwing position. Trudeau wants the status quo in the senate which is a rightwing position. By any definition of left and right, it seems very rightwing to want to keep an unelected upper house full of appointed elites with lifetime jobs who regularly overrule the will of the people

And the Tory position is some form of elected Senate. This issue doesn't follow the standard left-right continuum.

[Hash]

To be fair to Bieber Trudeau, haven't the Liberals always more or less sort of advocated for the status-quo, between the Tories' Triple E and the NDP's abolition?

[Hatman 🍁]

From a political science perspective, Senate reform can be defined on a left-right axis.  The Tories are allowed to have left wing positions, and the Liberals right, you know.

Abolition is the far-left position
Triple E (with PR) is left
Triple E (with FPTP) is centre-left
Elected, but not equal - a la US is centre
equal, but not elected is centre-right
status quo is right
go back to no 75 year limits, and get rid of other reforms is far-right.

There, fairly simple. The Liberals have the right wing view, the NDP is far-left and the Tories are centre-left. I personally support option #2.  However (and I will upset my fellow dippers here) between abolishing and status quo, I support the status quo. Neither of those options are ideal though.

[Space7]

By very definition, I'd say reforming or abolishing the senate would be considered "left wing"

Left wing
Noun
Members of a radical or liberal political party, or those favoring extensive political reform.

From dictionary.com

[Hash]

Left wing
Noun
Members of a radical or liberal political party, or those favoring extensive political reform.

From dictionary.com

Damn, that's an unbelievably terrible definition. No wonder half of North Americans have no clue what left-wing actually means when dictionaries provide us with such bullsh**t.

[Space7]

Left wing
Noun
Members of a radical or liberal political party, or those favoring extensive political reform.

From dictionary.com

Damn, that's an unbelievably terrible definition. No wonder half of North Americans have no clue what left-wing actually means when dictionaries provide us with such bullsh**t.

Keep in mind that there are a couple ors in there.

Members of a radical or liberal political party, or those favoring extensive political reform.

If you take it to mean the "liberal" definition, "liberal" means...

Liberal
Adjective
Pertaining or noting to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

or...

Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the behavior and ideas of others; broad-minded.

[DC Al Fine]

Left wing
Noun
Members of a radical or liberal political party, or those favoring extensive political reform.

From dictionary.com

Damn, that's an unbelievably terrible definition. No wonder half of North Americans have no clue what left-wing actually means when dictionaries provide us with such bullsh**t.

Guess that makes Russian oligarchs circa 1994 super lefties

[toaster]

From a political science perspective, Senate reform can be defined on a left-right axis.  The Tories are allowed to have left wing positions, and the Liberals right, you know.

Abolition is the far-left position
Triple E (with PR) is left
Triple E (with FPTP) is centre-left
Elected, but not equal - a la US is centre
equal, but not elected is centre-right
status quo is right
go back to no 75 year limits, and get rid of other reforms is far-right.

There, fairly simple. The Liberals have the right wing view, the NDP is far-left and the Tories are centre-left. I personally support option #2.  However (and I will upset my fellow dippers here) between abolishing and status quo, I support the status quo. Neither of those options are ideal though.

I disagree.  I think it's a non-partisan, non-ideological issue.  Actually, leftist policies tend to support bigger government, while the majority (and I am generalizing) of right-wing politicians and their policies advocate for smaller governments.  In this case, removing a large portion of the government would fall under right wing policy.  Regardless, there are many ways to view it, but I think it's actually simply a personal issue.

[Smid]

Earl, I've mentioned in the past that you and I agree on the desired outcome of Senate reform. Actually, there is a good article that appeared about a week or two ago about reforming the Queensland Parliament. I think I agree with everything the author wrote. The state upper house was abolished back in the 1920s, and meant that majority governments (particularly those with large majorities) have been able to do pretty much anything. The article proposes bringing in a smaller Lower House, re-creating an Upper House, and electing the Upper House by PR.

[MaxQue]

Earl, I've mentioned in the past that you and I agree on the desired outcome of Senate reform. Actually, there is a good article that appeared about a week or two ago about reforming the Queensland Parliament. I think I agree with everything the author wrote. The state upper house was abolished back in the 1920s, and meant that majority governments (particularly those with large majorities) have been able to do pretty much anything. The article proposes bringing in a smaller Lower House, re-creating an Upper House, and electing the Upper House by PR.

The problem is than there is a custom than Senate doesn't block legislation passed by the House. So, it's not even useful as a counter-weigh to majorities.

[Smid]

Earl, I've mentioned in the past that you and I agree on the desired outcome of Senate reform. Actually, there is a good article that appeared about a week or two ago about reforming the Queensland Parliament. I think I agree with everything the author wrote. The state upper house was abolished back in the 1920s, and meant that majority governments (particularly those with large majorities) have been able to do pretty much anything. The article proposes bringing in a smaller Lower House, re-creating an Upper House, and electing the Upper House by PR.

The problem is than there is a custom than Senate doesn't block legislation passed by the House. So, it's not even useful as a counter-weigh to majorities.

Except when passed legislation is a Senate Reform Bill.

I think if there was an elected Senate, especially one elected by PR, it would be highly unlikely for a Government to have a majority in the Senate, and the Senate might become a bit more independent. Still partisan, but it would be like having a minority government, although without the ability to trigger an election through a confidence motion... basically more stable, but with the ability to prevent a government having complete freedom.

[Hatman 🍁]

Yeah, the Senate would become useful.

[Space7]

Are you guys discussing an Australian Senate in the Canadian federal election forum?

Clearly I really veered this forum way off topic by mentioning my view on the Senate.

New discussion material needed then! -random topic generator-

How about some minor party stuff:

What seats do you think the Bloc will win, if any? Will they hold onto their 4? Lose some? Gain some?

Will are the chances the Greens will gain another seat? What seats have the best odds for them?

Edit: Fixed spelling mistakes

[RogueBeaver]

Greens might try for another BC seat. No idea about the BQ, IMO depends on whether Grits or Dippers split the province like Grit/BQ in the Chretien era or one of them has a clear plurality or majority of seats.

[Space7]

Well obviously the Greens will want to at least attempt to expand their frontiers. They've been a bit more calculating as of late where they funnel their resources. I think their most viable options (Besides Saanich-Gulf Islands) are:

Yukon:
Last election they garnered 19% of the popular vote, the most in any riding besides Saanich-Gulf Islands. The candidate was John Streicker, a former president of the Green Party.
Maybe if they campaigned heavily in Whitehorse...

Vancouver Center:
Last time they got 15% of the vote here, the third most for them in any riding. The only reason this riding might be viable is because the other 3 parties were split almost evenly (The Liberals, NDP, and CPC at 31, 26, and 26 again respectively). The candidate was Adriane Carr, former leader of the BC Green Party. (Imagine downtown Vancouver coloured Green on a results map!)

Victoria:
Here, the Greens got *only* 9%, but if I remember correctly, it'll be a little more feasible next election because the redistribution cuts off a big chunk of Green support from Saanich-Gulf Islands and attaches it to Victoria. Also, last time the NDP got over 50% in this riding, and presumably if the Greens were to win a riding most of their new votes would come from the NDP. Their candidate last time was the relatively obscure Jared Giesbrecht, but if they were to run one of their star candidates, and add some more funding, maybe...

[Harry Hayfield]

Could I ask how the boundary changes are coming along (and by association calculation of the notionals from 2011 as well)?