Canadian Election 2019
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:06:14 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Canadian Election 2019
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 74 75 76 77 78 [79] 80 81 82 83 84 ... 91
Author Topic: Canadian Election 2019  (Read 189197 times)
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1950 on: October 24, 2019, 04:20:00 PM »

Trudeau talks and comes off like an effeminate hippy and a hardcore SJW. That's not 100% true mind you, but those elements are there in his personality, and if you dislike thise things you will latch onto them. He is EXTREMELY minority-friendly and LGBTQ-friendly as well. You can see how some traditional conservatives will view this. His actual policy isn't noticed as much as his personality by his detractors, but they DO notice when he does controversial liberal things like giving taxpayer money to Syrian refugees and dressing full-on Indian on his trip to India.

TL;DR: He isn't a "man's man" that you want to drink beer, watch hockey and chase girls with, he's a liberal p__sy.

Though it doesn't quite explain the Cons' reach in places like Mayor Nenshi's Calgary.

When it comes to the urban West, it's a matter of being minority/LGBTQ-friendly on their own terms.  (Remember how as a federal politician, Jason Kenney was basically *the* Conservative face for multicultural outreach)

Yeah it's hard to explain running up the score in a riding like Calgary Skyview, that's <40% white, with "they don't like brown people". Tongue

The East-West split has been around for quite a few years and has taken different forms in terms of which party does well where. As a general rule, the same party doesn't do well in both urban Ontario and the Prairies (unless it's a big landslide).

After the Tories implemented the National Policy of tariffs with the US, Ontario became a strongly Conservative province in most elections to come. The West tended to swing back and forth, with each party frequently doing well there when in government.

After the First World War and the rise of the Progressives, the Tories found themselves weaker than usual on the Prairies (one reason for the 1925 & 1926 outcomes), while remaining strong in Ontario.  The Depression made that split even more pronounced, with Conservatives doing extremely poorly on the Prairies (generally coming third or fourth) while still doing well in Toronto. Looking at the safest Tory ridings from the 1920s to the 1950s, many are in urban Ontario (1921, 1925, 1926, 1940) or even Montreal (1930 & 1935).

Prairie populist John Diefenbaker brought the Prairies into the Tory fold in 1957 & 1958, but it cost him in the central cities: a lot of ridings that the Tories had seldom (or even never) lost before went Liberal or NDP in 1962 & 1963, and some have never come back. The Prairies, however, have remained very strong for the Tories (or Reformers in the 1990s) to this day. The safest Conservative/Reform ridings from 1958 to the present have always been (except 1988) on the Prairies, with Crowfoot maintaining a remarkably long winning streak (1968 through 1974, 1997, & 2004 to the present).

(In fact, the 80% majority obtained in Battle River - Crowfoot this time is the largest Tory majority at a General Election in at least 100 years, and the biggest margin for anybody since Pierre Trudeau's 86% lead in Mount Royal in 1968.)

Interesting that the Tories became the party most supportive of free trade with the US by 1988!  And that hurt them in the prairies I suppose?   Have the prairies always tended to be protectionist?
Logged
DistingFlyer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 650
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 0.25, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1951 on: October 24, 2019, 04:54:37 PM »

Trudeau talks and comes off like an effeminate hippy and a hardcore SJW. That's not 100% true mind you, but those elements are there in his personality, and if you dislike thise things you will latch onto them. He is EXTREMELY minority-friendly and LGBTQ-friendly as well. You can see how some traditional conservatives will view this. His actual policy isn't noticed as much as his personality by his detractors, but they DO notice when he does controversial liberal things like giving taxpayer money to Syrian refugees and dressing full-on Indian on his trip to India.

TL;DR: He isn't a "man's man" that you want to drink beer, watch hockey and chase girls with, he's a liberal p__sy.

Though it doesn't quite explain the Cons' reach in places like Mayor Nenshi's Calgary.

When it comes to the urban West, it's a matter of being minority/LGBTQ-friendly on their own terms.  (Remember how as a federal politician, Jason Kenney was basically *the* Conservative face for multicultural outreach)

Yeah it's hard to explain running up the score in a riding like Calgary Skyview, that's <40% white, with "they don't like brown people". Tongue

The East-West split has been around for quite a few years and has taken different forms in terms of which party does well where. As a general rule, the same party doesn't do well in both urban Ontario and the Prairies (unless it's a big landslide).

After the Tories implemented the National Policy of tariffs with the US, Ontario became a strongly Conservative province in most elections to come. The West tended to swing back and forth, with each party frequently doing well there when in government.

After the First World War and the rise of the Progressives, the Tories found themselves weaker than usual on the Prairies (one reason for the 1925 & 1926 outcomes), while remaining strong in Ontario.  The Depression made that split even more pronounced, with Conservatives doing extremely poorly on the Prairies (generally coming third or fourth) while still doing well in Toronto. Looking at the safest Tory ridings from the 1920s to the 1950s, many are in urban Ontario (1921, 1925, 1926, 1940) or even Montreal (1930 & 1935).

Prairie populist John Diefenbaker brought the Prairies into the Tory fold in 1957 & 1958, but it cost him in the central cities: a lot of ridings that the Tories had seldom (or even never) lost before went Liberal or NDP in 1962 & 1963, and some have never come back. The Prairies, however, have remained very strong for the Tories (or Reformers in the 1990s) to this day. The safest Conservative/Reform ridings from 1958 to the present have always been (except 1988) on the Prairies, with Crowfoot maintaining a remarkably long winning streak (1968 through 1974, 1997, & 2004 to the present).

(In fact, the 80% majority obtained in Battle River - Crowfoot this time is the largest Tory majority at a General Election in at least 100 years, and the biggest margin for anybody since Pierre Trudeau's 86% lead in Mount Royal in 1968.)

Interesting that the Tories became the party most supportive of free trade with the US by 1988!  And that hurt them in the prairies I suppose?   Have the prairies always tended to be protectionist?

Not really; the Tory drop in 1988 on the Prairies was more due to the Reform intervention (which took 9% of the vote but only cost them one riding there) as well as unpopular provincial governments, particularly in Saskatchewan. The recently-ousted NDP government in Manitoba & the Liberals' taking second place there saw a repeat at the federal level too.

Additionally, the Progressives in the 1920s opposed tariffs while the Tories favored them - one reason for the results at that time. By the 1980s, tariffs largely applied to the kinds of industries found in Central Canada (read: manufacturing) while East & West had to compete at world prices without any advantage being given to them. That's one reason why Ontario swung so hard to the Liberals (from 18% down to 1% up): the special advantage they'd had for the last century was about to disappear.

Atlantic Canada also swung hard to the Liberals (19% down to 5% up), largely due to claims that regional subsidies & programs would be put at risk by free trade. That didn't happen, of course, and with the economic field leveled the GDP per capita gap between this region and the country as a whole went on to narrow.
Logged
adma
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,718
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1952 on: October 24, 2019, 06:20:09 PM »

Incidentally, I did a quick once-over of a united NDP-Green result, and they had the net plurality in an additional 7 Liberal seats and 1 Conservative seat.  (I could be off a bit.  Or not.)
Logged
King of Kensington
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,068


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1953 on: October 24, 2019, 06:26:52 PM »

The East-West split has been around for quite a few years and has taken different forms in terms of which party does well where. As a general rule, the same party doesn't do well in both urban Ontario and the Prairies (unless it's a big landslide).

And Manitoba takes a middling position between Ontario and Alberta/Saskatchewan.
Logged
adma
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,718
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1954 on: October 24, 2019, 06:56:21 PM »

The East-West split has been around for quite a few years and has taken different forms in terms of which party does well where. As a general rule, the same party doesn't do well in both urban Ontario and the Prairies (unless it's a big landslide).

And Manitoba takes a middling position between Ontario and Alberta/Saskatchewan.

Speaking of that, I wonder if it might be argued that a vestigial "Scheer effect" even leaked eastward into Northern Ontario--obviously with the Kenora pickup, but also in the Conservatives being second *everywhere else* except Sudbury and Nickel Belt--yes, even unexpectedly versus the NDP's Angus and Hughes...
Logged
King of Kensington
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,068


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1955 on: October 24, 2019, 07:35:59 PM »

BC and Alberta being politically aligned in the Reform/Alliance days seems so long ago...
Logged
DistingFlyer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 650
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 0.25, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1956 on: October 24, 2019, 08:06:24 PM »

BC and Alberta being politically aligned in the Reform/Alliance days seems so long ago...


BC's political tendencies make more sense when you look at who's governing provincially - more specifically, when the NDP is in power.

The 1972 federal election was held several weeks after the NDP's first provincial victory; as one would expect, the federal party received a bit of a bounce too, but only a modest one (33% to 35%). The 1974 election - held while Dave Barrett was still Premier - saw the federal party plunge to 23%, and its MPs drop from eleven to two. Even Vancouver East, one of the most reliable NDP ridings, fell to the Grits.

By 1979, the NDP was out of power, and the federal party recovered to 32%. Support remained consistent (mid-30s) for the next three elections, peaking at 37% and 19 MPs in 1988 (thanks probably to the unpopular Socred government as well as Reform intervention federally, which got 5% of the vote and handed three ridings to the NDP).

In 1991, Mike Harcourt led the provincial NDP back to power, but the government's popularity didn't last too long. The 1993 election saw the federal party drop right through the floor, falling to 15% and only two MPs. Once again, Vancouver East was grabbed by the Liberals.

This time, the NDP remained in power for a decade; the next two federal elections had the NDP remain in a poor third and never with more than three MPs.

Finally, the NDP government was turfed in 2001; the federal vote in 2004 saw the NDP recover quite well (from 11% to 27%), and while they've never reached the heights of the 1970s and 1980s, they remained consistently in the high 20s to low 30s.

The election just past is therefore a bit of an anomaly: in spite of an NDP government back in power in Victoria (albeit a minority backed by the Greens), the federal party only from 26% to 24%, and lost only three MPs, making it by far the best election they've had while simultaneously ruling the province.

This 'vote against' tendency has been remarked on before regarding BC, but more often in the context of the federal government: the Liberals did poorly there and the Tories well during the Trudeau years, while the Mulroney government saw a sharp Tory decline and the rise of the Liberals back to second place. The Reformers provided a convenient vote too, as a Western-based, anti-Ottawa party, and were able to steal a lot of NDP supporters. Once they were folded into the re-united Conservative Party, that allure faded and many Reform voters went back to the New Democrats.
Logged
Oryxslayer
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,725


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1957 on: October 24, 2019, 08:10:30 PM »
« Edited: October 24, 2019, 08:13:58 PM by Oryxslayer »

BC and Alberta being politically aligned in the Reform/Alliance days seems so long ago...

BC is still under the present electoral arrangement a conservative province. Vancouver's growth is hampered by geography and it's votes are fragmented. As long as the non-tory vote keeps getting cut into 20-20-20 (a simplification) chunks, the Tories will  waltz to popular vote victories thanks to the interior and seat count victories via vote splits in the suburbs. They did it under Harper and they did it this week. BC though is one of those places though if you forced people to pick a loyal-left or a loyal-right, when they both have realistic shots at power unlike 2011, they will pick loyal-left. The BC liberals provincially have a distinct brand from other local provincial conservative parties which allows them to win the two-party contests with the NDP.
Logged
Holmes
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,719
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1958 on: October 24, 2019, 09:21:20 PM »

The East-West split has been around for quite a few years and has taken different forms in terms of which party does well where. As a general rule, the same party doesn't do well in both urban Ontario and the Prairies (unless it's a big landslide).

And Manitoba takes a middling position between Ontario and Alberta/Saskatchewan.

Speaking of that, I wonder if it might be argued that a vestigial "Scheer effect" even leaked eastward into Northern Ontario--obviously with the Kenora pickup, but also in the Conservatives being second *everywhere else* except Sudbury and Nickel Belt--yes, even unexpectedly versus the NDP's Angus and Hughes...

It's not a "Scheet effect", no. Trudeau's not really too popular in Northern Ontario compared to 2015, and Singh's not as popular of a leader that past NDP leaders were because of reasons (guess which ones!). That being said, the Liberals still did pretty well in the region. And Kenora has a history of electing Conservatives too, both federally and provincially.
Logged
DistingFlyer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 650
Canada


Political Matrix
E: 0.25, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1959 on: October 24, 2019, 10:14:37 PM »
« Edited: October 24, 2019, 10:22:04 PM by DistingFlyer »

The East-West split has been around for quite a few years and has taken different forms in terms of which party does well where. As a general rule, the same party doesn't do well in both urban Ontario and the Prairies (unless it's a big landslide).

And Manitoba takes a middling position between Ontario and Alberta/Saskatchewan.

Speaking of that, I wonder if it might be argued that a vestigial "Scheer effect" even leaked eastward into Northern Ontario--obviously with the Kenora pickup, but also in the Conservatives being second *everywhere else* except Sudbury and Nickel Belt--yes, even unexpectedly versus the NDP's Angus and Hughes...

It's not a "Scheet effect", no. Trudeau's not really too popular in Northern Ontario compared to 2015, and Singh's not as popular of a leader that past NDP leaders were because of reasons (guess which ones!). That being said, the Liberals still did pretty well in the region. And Kenora has a history of electing Conservatives too, both federally and provincially.

Only a recent history of doing so at the federal level: when Greg Rickford won there in 2008, he was the first Conservative to do so since 1917; apart from 1984-88, when the NDP held it, that riding was always Liberal. A number of northern ridings (such as the two Thunder Bay ones) haven't been held by Tories for similar lengths of time. Northern Ontario as a whole has been largely immune to Tory charms since the 1920s, even in the sweeps of 1958 & 1984.

Now, provincially it's a different story, as Leo Bernier held the seat for more than two decades. However, his 1987 loss marked thirty-one years of Tory defeats until Greg Rickford (again) won the seat back last year.


On a somewhat unrelated note, for the statistically-minded folks like myself the official count for Edmonton – Wetaskiwin has come in and a new record has been set: Mike Lake's majority of 52544 has exceeded Maurizio Bevilacqua's 51389-vote margin in York North back in 1993.

The Tories are racking up some very large margins (both in absolute and percentage terms) in Alberta, so I suspect the list of largest-ever numerical margins may change quite a bit when the final counts are completed. Pre-2019, these were the times that a winner's majority exceeded 40000:

51389 - Maurizio Bevilacqua (Lib) (York North) (1993)
47763 - Bobbie Sparrow (PC) (Calgary South) (1984)
42928 - Benoit Sauvageau (BQ) (Terrebonne) (1993)
42047 - Kevin Sorenson (Cons) (Battle River – Crowfoot) (2015)
41691 - Jason Kenney (Cons) (Calgary Southeast) (2011)
40480 - Monique Begin (Lib) (Saint-Leonard – Anjou) (1979)
40189 - Don Boudria (Lib) (Glengarry – Prescott – Russell) (1993)

So far, ten Tories in Alberta have exceeded that threshold in the official counts, with nine results left to come (including Battle River – Crowfoot). From this we can see a big reason why the Tories, for the first time since the King-Meighen days, did not win government in spite of receiving more votes.
Logged
King of Kensington
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,068


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1960 on: October 24, 2019, 10:20:22 PM »
« Edited: October 24, 2019, 10:33:14 PM by King of Kensington »


BC is still under the present electoral arrangement a conservative province. Vancouver's growth is hampered by geography and it's votes are fragmented. As long as the non-tory vote keeps getting cut into 20-20-20 (a simplification) chunks, the Tories will  waltz to popular vote victories thanks to the interior and seat count victories via vote splits in the suburbs. They did it under Harper and they did it this week. BC though is one of those places though if you forced people to pick a loyal-left or a loyal-right, when they both have realistic shots at power unlike 2011, they will pick loyal-left. The BC liberals provincially have a distinct brand from other local provincial conservative parties which allows them to win the two-party contests with the NDP.

Technically true the Conservatives won a plurality of the vote and seats but I doubt too many British Columbians feel a "shared destiny" of any sort with Alberta these days.  "The West" basically means Alberta and Saskatchewan now.
Logged
vileplume
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 540
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1961 on: October 24, 2019, 10:57:09 PM »
« Edited: October 24, 2019, 11:00:34 PM by vileplume »

BC and Alberta being politically aligned in the Reform/Alliance days seems so long ago...

BC is still under the present electoral arrangement a conservative province. Vancouver's growth is hampered by geography and it's votes are fragmented. As long as the non-tory vote keeps getting cut into 20-20-20 (a simplification) chunks, the Tories will  waltz to popular vote victories thanks to the interior and seat count victories via vote splits in the suburbs. They did it under Harper and they did it this week. BC though is one of those places though if you forced people to pick a loyal-left or a loyal-right, when they both have realistic shots at power unlike 2011, they will pick loyal-left. The BC liberals provincially have a distinct brand from other local provincial conservative parties which allows them to win the two-party contests with the NDP.

I don't think you can say that at all.

If you look at the Tory held seats in Greater Vancouver the equivalent areas are mostly also represented by the (centre-right) provincial Liberals. As people have said on here multiple times the federal Liberal vote is not uniformly left-wing in the slightest and in the case where people were forced to choose between a 'right block' and a 'left block' a large chunk of the current federal Liberals would choose the 'right block' (indeed a number of Liberal seats in the region e.g. Delta, Vancouver Quadra, Vancouver South etc. may well vote for this 'right block' too).
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1962 on: October 24, 2019, 11:37:26 PM »

At the end of the day, what a race. I think it has to be seen as a repudiation of Andrew Scheer & the Conservatives, though. He claimed he's put Trudeau "on notice," but that's what my 5th Grade teacher Mrs. Fox did when she wrote names on the whiteboard. Scheer isn't a teacher, & Trudeau isn't a 5th-grader.

As it stands, the Conservatives have received around 6.1 million votes. That's about 500,000 more votes than they received in 2015, & this was the election where it came out that the PM wore blackface more times than he could remember.

Despite all the gnashing of teeth about Trudeau's "horrible" performance as PM, & all the sly nods about the shy Tories, it turns out that running without a climate plan, running on maligning your opponents outright, & explicitly supporting misinformation is a losing plan. Based on the regional results, the Conservatives were supported in the West by a larger margin compared to 2015 while losing votes everywhere else. This despite 4 years (& 40 days) of telling us over & over that Trudeau was ruining this country. So something went wrong.

Despite what the CBC was intimating last night, we know this: Doug Ford is a disaster for the province & the Conservatives. Conservative supporters have trumped Ford up as some messiah, despite every indication that fatigue with Liberals granted him a majority, & we have yet more proof in Toronto last night that Ford is an albatross around the Conservative neck. Maybe somebody on the right will admit he was a bad choice? Maybe, somewhere, a cadre of social conservatives are understanding the depth of their mistake in supporting him?

We know this: the anti-carbon tax crusade was a disastrous position to take, let alone clutch to your chest like a pearl necklace. The Greens received 1.1 million votes in this election. They got 600,000 in 2015, & turnout dropped this time around. Right now, we can see that the Canadian electorate is changing. I think in 5 years' time, we'll be able to say that the Canadian electorate has changed.

All of this to say that as we hear whining about Western alienation & separation in the weeks to come, it's important to remember that a party that seemingly ran on a campaign for the last 4 years (& 40 days) crafted to increase their vote count in ridings that they've already won have dug a hole that Western voters are now sitting in. Andrew Scheer & the Conservatives have alienated the West. Andrew Scheer & the Conservatives are now the opposition to a minority government in which they'll have no say in the governance of the country. Andrew Scheer & the Conservatives have systematically turned this country against the West by refusing to budge on issues on which the majority of Canadians disagree. If the West wants in, the West must compromise.

Time to admit, for instance, that climate change is real (not a party position, but one anecdotally espoused by the CPC). Time to admit that a Conservative-originated carbon-tax might be an okay idea. Time to admit that Trudeau might be a bad PM, but not a traitor, nor a criminal, nor whatever denigrating term they're using this week.

If these results continue for Conservatives, they'll once again be shut out of government for a decade. Maybe it's time to rethink what they've done since 2011?


My friends who live in Western Canada say it’s the East who have alienated the west over and over again not the other way around . Which is why they hate the Liberals a lot .


They think the Tories are currently already too pro Quebec and pro East in general

The West keeps getting goodies and got the government to buy them a 5 billions pipeline. They have a full belly and keep whining for even more.

They are aliened because they keep whining and asking for more and nobody wants to have anything to do with the West.





Quebec gets way more then the West does
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,567


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1963 on: October 25, 2019, 05:07:48 AM »

The East-West split has been around for quite a few years and has taken different forms in terms of which party does well where. As a general rule, the same party doesn't do well in both urban Ontario and the Prairies (unless it's a big landslide).

And Manitoba takes a middling position between Ontario and Alberta/Saskatchewan.

Rural Manitoba votes basically the same way as rural Saskatchewan. What's interesting is that Winnipeg is so much less Conservative than, say, Edmonton (and this applies double when you consider the suburbs of both urban areas.
Logged
adma
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,718
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1964 on: October 25, 2019, 06:41:37 AM »


Speaking of that, I wonder if it might be argued that a vestigial "Scheer effect" even leaked eastward into Northern Ontario--obviously with the Kenora pickup, but also in the Conservatives being second *everywhere else* except Sudbury and Nickel Belt--yes, even unexpectedly versus the NDP's Angus and Hughes...

It's not a "Scheet effect", no. Trudeau's not really too popular in Northern Ontario compared to 2015, and Singh's not as popular of a leader that past NDP leaders were because of reasons (guess which ones!). That being said, the Liberals still did pretty well in the region. And Kenora has a history of electing Conservatives too, both federally and provincially.

Though I'm also taking calibre of candidates and conventional wisdom into account (the incoming Kenora Con being a lot "rawer" than Greg Rickford--though in a funny way, I wonder whether Premier Ford's Kenora visit actually *helped* CPC here).

And in some ways, my point might be more regarding seats like Algoma (where 2015's Lib candidate was running again) and Timmins--even if Justin was less popular, few would have called for *those* seats to be second-place Conservative unless Scheer was polling in clear seat-plurality territory...
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1965 on: October 25, 2019, 07:47:39 AM »

At the end of the day, what a race. I think it has to be seen as a repudiation of Andrew Scheer & the Conservatives, though. He claimed he's put Trudeau "on notice," but that's what my 5th Grade teacher Mrs. Fox did when she wrote names on the whiteboard. Scheer isn't a teacher, & Trudeau isn't a 5th-grader.

As it stands, the Conservatives have received around 6.1 million votes. That's about 500,000 more votes than they received in 2015, & this was the election where it came out that the PM wore blackface more times than he could remember.

Despite all the gnashing of teeth about Trudeau's "horrible" performance as PM, & all the sly nods about the shy Tories, it turns out that running without a climate plan, running on maligning your opponents outright, & explicitly supporting misinformation is a losing plan. Based on the regional results, the Conservatives were supported in the West by a larger margin compared to 2015 while losing votes everywhere else. This despite 4 years (& 40 days) of telling us over & over that Trudeau was ruining this country. So something went wrong.

Despite what the CBC was intimating last night, we know this: Doug Ford is a disaster for the province & the Conservatives. Conservative supporters have trumped Ford up as some messiah, despite every indication that fatigue with Liberals granted him a majority, & we have yet more proof in Toronto last night that Ford is an albatross around the Conservative neck. Maybe somebody on the right will admit he was a bad choice? Maybe, somewhere, a cadre of social conservatives are understanding the depth of their mistake in supporting him?

We know this: the anti-carbon tax crusade was a disastrous position to take, let alone clutch to your chest like a pearl necklace. The Greens received 1.1 million votes in this election. They got 600,000 in 2015, & turnout dropped this time around. Right now, we can see that the Canadian electorate is changing. I think in 5 years' time, we'll be able to say that the Canadian electorate has changed.

All of this to say that as we hear whining about Western alienation & separation in the weeks to come, it's important to remember that a party that seemingly ran on a campaign for the last 4 years (& 40 days) crafted to increase their vote count in ridings that they've already won have dug a hole that Western voters are now sitting in. Andrew Scheer & the Conservatives have alienated the West. Andrew Scheer & the Conservatives are now the opposition to a minority government in which they'll have no say in the governance of the country. Andrew Scheer & the Conservatives have systematically turned this country against the West by refusing to budge on issues on which the majority of Canadians disagree. If the West wants in, the West must compromise.

Time to admit, for instance, that climate change is real (not a party position, but one anecdotally espoused by the CPC). Time to admit that a Conservative-originated carbon-tax might be an okay idea. Time to admit that Trudeau might be a bad PM, but not a traitor, nor a criminal, nor whatever denigrating term they're using this week.

If these results continue for Conservatives, they'll once again be shut out of government for a decade. Maybe it's time to rethink what they've done since 2011?


My friends who live in Western Canada say it’s the East who have alienated the west over and over again not the other way around . Which is why they hate the Liberals a lot .


They think the Tories are currently already too pro Quebec and pro East in general

The West keeps getting goodies and got the government to buy them a 5 billions pipeline. They have a full belly and keep whining for even more.

They are aliened because they keep whining and asking for more and nobody wants to have anything to do with the West.





Quebec gets way more then the West does

1. The equalisation formula is there since decades, Trudeau cannot be blamed.
2. Alberta still has a better economy than Quebec. The only reason why it has a deficit is because of their very low tax rates (perequation assumes average tax rates). Same reason why Quebec has big surplus (tax rates are quite higher than the average).
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1966 on: October 25, 2019, 08:55:03 AM »


Speaking of that, I wonder if it might be argued that a vestigial "Scheer effect" even leaked eastward into Northern Ontario--obviously with the Kenora pickup, but also in the Conservatives being second *everywhere else* except Sudbury and Nickel Belt--yes, even unexpectedly versus the NDP's Angus and Hughes...

It's not a "Scheet effect", no. Trudeau's not really too popular in Northern Ontario compared to 2015, and Singh's not as popular of a leader that past NDP leaders were because of reasons (guess which ones!). That being said, the Liberals still did pretty well in the region. And Kenora has a history of electing Conservatives too, both federally and provincially.

Though I'm also taking calibre of candidates and conventional wisdom into account (the incoming Kenora Con being a lot "rawer" than Greg Rickford--though in a funny way, I wonder whether Premier Ford's Kenora visit actually *helped* CPC here).

And in some ways, my point might be more regarding seats like Algoma (where 2015's Lib candidate was running again) and Timmins--even if Justin was less popular, few would have called for *those* seats to be second-place Conservative unless Scheer was polling in clear seat-plurality territory...

I'd suggest it wasn't Scheer specific, or Western alienation. Just the slow steady trend of the left upscaling and the right downscaling. To be honest, what I find confusing is that the Liberals do so well in Northern Ontario to begin with. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the region, but it feels like the sort of place that would be Tory-NDP out in BC.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1967 on: October 25, 2019, 09:12:06 AM »

1. The equalisation formula is there since decades, Trudeau cannot be blamed.

I mean, a Trudeau can be. Just not this one.
Logged
Hatman 🍁
EarlAW
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,978
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1968 on: October 25, 2019, 09:38:03 AM »

One has to remember that in Northern Ontario, much of the vote shifting is on the right, not on the left. So when the Liberals go down, the Tories go up.

As for BC, the NDP government is actually popular right now (relatively speaking), so makes sense that the federal party wouldn't be hurt because of them.
Logged
OSR stands with Israel
Computer89
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 44,357


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 2.61

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1969 on: October 25, 2019, 09:39:27 AM »

1. The equalisation formula is there since decades, Trudeau cannot be blamed.

I mean, a Trudeau can be. Just not this one.
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1970 on: October 25, 2019, 09:46:40 AM »

1. The equalisation formula is there since decades, Trudeau cannot be blamed.

I mean, a Trudeau can be. Just not this one.

The formula was actually amended under Harper to include offshore oil in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1971 on: October 25, 2019, 09:55:41 AM »

But if we want to discuss the issue of Western Alienation seriously (and we should because it is a serious issue, a real threat to the stability of the country etc), you have to have to remember that the problem is deeply rooted. Whatever they are now, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritime Provinces all are in origin attempts to establish Old World types of societies - with dominant and basically monotone ethnic and religious characters - in the New World. The West was never like this; it was a much more typical New World society almost as soon as white people began to move there in large numbers. Exactly how that sort of thing manifests is never predictable - and rarely stable - but that's a fairly fundamental cultural division.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1972 on: October 25, 2019, 09:57:27 AM »

1. The equalisation formula is there since decades, Trudeau cannot be blamed.

I mean, a Trudeau can be. Just not this one.

The formula was actually amended under Harper to include offshore oil in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia.

It is fiddled with all the time, sure, and the basic concept didn't even start with Trudeau the Elder. But we should never allow such minor details as 'facts' to interfere with the opportunity for cheap word-based humour.
Logged
EastAnglianLefty
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,567


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1973 on: October 25, 2019, 09:58:12 AM »

Although again the interesting thing there is that British Columbia has ended up on the wrong side of that particular cultural divide.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1974 on: October 25, 2019, 10:01:51 AM »

Although again the interesting thing there is that British Columbia has ended up on the wrong side of that particular cultural divide.

Yes and no: its traditional (and current once more) status as the stronghold of the federal NDP has similar origins.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 74 75 76 77 78 [79] 80 81 82 83 84 ... 91  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.075 seconds with 11 queries.