Canadian Election 2019
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:51:40 PM
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 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 91
Author Topic: Canadian Election 2019  (Read 189156 times)
mileslunn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,800
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #350 on: April 30, 2019, 01:21:10 AM »

What are the odds that Trudeau wins reelection despite these scandals & controversies ?

Retaining his majority will be tough but not impossible as I've seen leaders further back in the polls stage comebacks.  Christy Clark going into 2013, Greg Selinger going into 2011, Dalton McGuinty going into 2011, Jean Charest going into 2007, and Brian Mulroney going into 1988 were all further back so it is doable.  Holding his majority will be a challenge, but minority still possible.  If Tories fall short of a majority he probably remains PM as I almost certain NDP and Greens will back Liberals over Tories.  If BQ holds the balance of power then things could get interesting, but probably another election within a year.  A Tory majority looked far fetched six months ago while now much more realistic, but again a lot will depend on how Scheer performs on the campaign trail.

How long could an arrangement like a minority Trudeau gov't last, realistically? I'm guessing nothing more than a couple years

Depends on what type of minority:

1.  Liberal Minority 2-3 years.  NDP will be broke and depending on how they do may even involve a leadership convention so won't want to bring down the government too quickly.  May pledge to support them for a full four years with certain conditions, but Trudeau has the upper hand so could ignore them.  Tories won't support them, but may abstain if their poll numbers aren't great and if Scheer resigns (unlikely since if he gains seats probably gets a second chance) will wait until new leader is in.

2.  Conservatives win plurality of seats, but Liberals form government with support from NDP and maybe Greens - at least 2 years maybe full four.  In this case will probably want an iron clad guarantee from opposition to support for certain time period and in turn the NDP and maybe Greens will probably have certain conditions in exchange for support.  I am thinking for NDP, promise to implement universal Pharmacare will be one.  They want won't to pull the plug until fully implemented as risk Tories would cancel it if they win, but once fully implemented too risky to undo.  Tories will stomp their feet and complain how it is an illegitimate government, but won't be able to bring it down.

3.  Conservative minority - 1-2 years - This will happen if Liberals + NDP + Greens fall short of 170 seats and need to rely on BQ or Trudeau decides to resign and let Scheer govern (latter seems unlikely, but I put it in just to cover all bases).  In this case Liberals and NDP won't bring down the government until they have a full war chest and in case of Liberals until they have a new leader in place, so will abstain on confidence matters, but once those are in order will bring them down.  Also like Harper, opposition parties make take turns abstaining since if it requires all them to bring them government down, so Scheer just has to hope one of them has lousy poll numbers as parties rarely bring down a government if their polls tell them they will lose seats.
Logged
DL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,405
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #351 on: April 30, 2019, 08:43:15 AM »

One thing has not been discussed very at all is what happens with the Senate if Scheer forms a government. Right now about three-quarters of the Senate is composed of either Liberals or liberals (in other words the non-partisans Trudeau has appointed). These non-partisans in the Senate will not feel bound by any convention to hold their nose and pass government legislation and as a result a Scheer government would quickly face a constitutional crisis as a result of not being able to pass much of its legislation thorugh the Senate
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #352 on: April 30, 2019, 09:00:18 AM »

One thing has not been discussed very at all is what happens with the Senate if Scheer forms a government. Right now about three-quarters of the Senate is composed of either Liberals or liberals (in other words the non-partisans Trudeau has appointed). These non-partisans in the Senate will not feel bound by any convention to hold their nose and pass government legislation and as a result a Scheer government would quickly face a constitutional crisis as a result of not being able to pass much of its legislation thorugh the Senate

As opposed to the Liberal majority Senate Harper faced initially?
Logged
lilTommy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,819


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #353 on: April 30, 2019, 09:38:11 AM »

Nanos Weekly
https://bit.ly/2WgW9Rc

CPC - 34.91%
LPC - 32.02%
NDP -16.46%
GRN - 9.03%

->BC
CPC - 27.32%
LPC - 26%
NDP - 24.88%
GRN - 21.80%
- Both the NDP and Greens have gained 10 point since the beginning of April (10ish and 8ish point gains)

->QC
LPC - 33.19%
NDP - 15.40%
CPC - 15.42%
BQ - 17.48%

Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #354 on: April 30, 2019, 10:08:01 AM »

What are the odds that Trudeau wins reelection despite these scandals & controversies ?

Retaining his majority will be tough but not impossible as I've seen leaders further back in the polls stage comebacks.  Christy Clark going into 2013, Greg Selinger going into 2011, Dalton McGuinty going into 2011, Jean Charest going into 2007, and Brian Mulroney going into 1988 were all further back so it is doable.  Holding his majority will be a challenge, but minority still possible.  If Tories fall short of a majority he probably remains PM as I almost certain NDP and Greens will back Liberals over Tories.  If BQ holds the balance of power then things could get interesting, but probably another election within a year.  A Tory majority looked far fetched six months ago while now much more realistic, but again a lot will depend on how Scheer performs on the campaign trail.

How long could an arrangement like a minority Trudeau gov't last, realistically? I'm guessing nothing more than a couple years

Depends on what type of minority:

1.  Liberal Minority 2-3 years.  NDP will be broke and depending on how they do may even involve a leadership convention so won't want to bring down the government too quickly.  May pledge to support them for a full four years with certain conditions, but Trudeau has the upper hand so could ignore them.  Tories won't support them, but may abstain if their poll numbers aren't great and if Scheer resigns (unlikely since if he gains seats probably gets a second chance) will wait until new leader is in.

2.  Conservatives win plurality of seats, but Liberals form government with support from NDP and maybe Greens - at least 2 years maybe full four.  In this case will probably want an iron clad guarantee from opposition to support for certain time period and in turn the NDP and maybe Greens will probably have certain conditions in exchange for support.  I am thinking for NDP, promise to implement universal Pharmacare will be one.  They want won't to pull the plug until fully implemented as risk Tories would cancel it if they win, but once fully implemented too risky to undo.  Tories will stomp their feet and complain how it is an illegitimate government, but won't be able to bring it down.

3.  Conservative minority - 1-2 years - This will happen if Liberals + NDP + Greens fall short of 170 seats and need to rely on BQ orTrudeau decides to resign and let Scheer govern (latter seems unlikely, but I put it in just to cover all bases).  In this case Liberals and NDP won't bring down the government until they have a full war chest and in case of Liberals until they have a new leader in place, so will abstain on confidence matters, but once those are in order will bring them down.  Also like Harper, opposition parties make take turns abstaining since if it requires all them to bring them government down, so Scheer just has to hope one of them has lousy poll numbers as parties rarely bring down a government if their polls tell them they will lose seats.

There's another plausible (and somewhat likely in my opinion) Tory minority scenario:

Liberal+NDP have a majority. Scheer still forms a government, not because Trudeau decided to go quietly but because either:

a) Trudeau and Singh cannot come to a working agreement.

b) The NDP decides that it isn't in their best interest to prop up a scandal ridden Trudeau government

In which case we probably get new elections within 18 months.

As I've said before, I think Atlas and other political social media groups overstate the likelihood of the Liberals and NDP working together to overcome a Tory plurality. I get the impression that they conflate the interests of the Liberals and NDP with the interests of progressive voters active on social media.

In Canada these sort of arrangements have typically been to topple an unpopular incumbent. That has very different optics than the NDP making an agreement with a Prime Minister they just spent the last six months (rightly) slamming as corrupt and arrogant.

A Liberal-NDP agreement certainly isn't impossible or even unlikely, but to simply dismiss the historic norm for minority election results is veering into the sort of "here's how Bernie can still win" type of error we political junkies are prone to.


->BC
CPC - 27.32%
LPC - 26%
NDP - 24.88%
GRN - 21.80%
- Both the NDP and Greens have gained 10 point since the beginning of April (10ish and 8ish point gains)



Man that would be an interesting result.
Logged
DL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,405
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #355 on: April 30, 2019, 10:35:00 AM »

One thing has not been discussed very at all is what happens with the Senate if Scheer forms a government. Right now about three-quarters of the Senate is composed of either Liberals or liberals (in other words the non-partisans Trudeau has appointed). These non-partisans in the Senate will not feel bound by any convention to hold their nose and pass government legislation and as a result a Scheer government would quickly face a constitutional crisis as a result of not being able to pass much of its legislation thorugh the Senate

As opposed to the Liberal majority Senate Harper faced initially?

In 2006 it actually did cause problems for Harper to face a Liberal majority in the senate, BUT there was a huge difference. Those Liberal senators formed a caucus and they were all part of the old regime where there was a tacit acknowledgement that the appointed Senate should not reject bills passed by the elected Senate. We are in uncharted waters now with a majority of the senate now sitting as Independents who all think that the fact they are senators chosen for their personal qualities and not for having been party bagmen in the past and that this makes them God's gift to the world and they see themselves as having a legitimacy that the old partisan senators did not have. No one can tell them what to do and I suspect they will not hesitate to vote down Tory measures they don't like. Scheer may have to "pack" the senate like Mulroney did in 1988 
Logged
DL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,405
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #356 on: April 30, 2019, 10:59:24 AM »


There's another plausible (and somewhat likely in my opinion) Tory minority scenario:

Liberal+NDP have a majority. Scheer still forms a government, not because Trudeau decided to go quietly but because either:

a) Trudeau and Singh cannot come to a working agreement.

b) The NDP decides that it isn't in their best interest to prop up a scandal ridden Trudeau government

In which case we probably get new elections within 18 months.

As I've said before, I think Atlas and other political social media groups overstate the likelihood of the Liberals and NDP working together to overcome a Tory plurality. I get the impression that they conflate the interests of the Liberals and NDP with the interests of progressive voters active on social media.

In Canada these sort of arrangements have typically been to topple an unpopular incumbent. That has very different optics than the NDP making an agreement with a Prime Minister they just spent the last six months (rightly) slamming as corrupt and arrogant.

A Liberal-NDP agreement certainly isn't impossible or even unlikely, but to simply dismiss the historic norm for minority election results is veering into the sort of "here's how Bernie can still win" type of error we political junkies are prone to.


I have to disagree.

a) Trudeau and Singh don't need to come to any agreement. Trudeau is the incumbent and he has a right to present a Throne speech and try to govern. As an NDP member myself, i know that party pretty well. There is zero chance that the NDP would vote with the Tories to topple Trudeau at that stage knowing that it would mean Scheer forming government and then having to pass Throne speech himself - and if that failed we would face a second election the same year and there would be absolutely no upside for the NDP in triggering that. Does anyone seriously think the NDP would vote against a Liberal Throne speech that would likely be heavily larded with items relating to pharmacare and child care and the environment so that two weeks later they could vote in favour of a Tory Throne speech that would be full of draconian cuts to social spending, anti-labour stuff, lots of climate change denial and tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy etc...

There may be lots of "narcissism of small difference" issues that separate the Liberals and NDP - but seriously i can think of lots of policy concession that the Liberals would be only too happy to make to stay in power. In contrast I cannot think of ANY policy whatsoever where the Tories and NDP have any common ground (can you?). There would literally be nothing to discuss. On top of that while NDP MPs and insiders may see the Liberals as their competition for votes, they also tend to see the Reformatories under Scheer as an existential threat to Canada and as a "mini-Trump"

b) while the SNC Lavalin affair is a "thing" its a stretch to call this a "scandal ridden" government. A true scandal ridden government was the Liberal government of the early 00s what with the sponsorship scandal. As you may recall, the NDP made a deal with Paul Martin that was widely seen as a good deal from an NDP perspective and the NDP gained seats in the subsequent election
Logged
RogueBeaver
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,058
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #357 on: April 30, 2019, 11:41:10 AM »

Then Scheer could propose a Parliament Act-type constitutional amendment, since the constitutional provision Mulroney used only allows for a limited number of appointments.
Logged
_
Not_Madigan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,103
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.29, S: -7.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #358 on: April 30, 2019, 11:50:41 AM »

There's no chance of the Senate being made elected right?  My understanding is that the Tories and Liberals are opposed to that wholeheartedly (Tories more opposed than Liberals however).
Logged
DL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,405
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #359 on: April 30, 2019, 12:17:03 PM »

There's no chance of the Senate being made elected right?  My understanding is that the Tories and Liberals are opposed to that wholeheartedly (Tories more opposed than Liberals however).

The Tories have supported an elected Senate in the past but the fact is it would require a constitutional amendment requiring unanimous consent of the provinces so it can never happen
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #360 on: April 30, 2019, 12:38:39 PM »


There's another plausible (and somewhat likely in my opinion) Tory minority scenario:

Liberal+NDP have a majority. Scheer still forms a government, not because Trudeau decided to go quietly but because either:

a) Trudeau and Singh cannot come to a working agreement.

b) The NDP decides that it isn't in their best interest to prop up a scandal ridden Trudeau government

In which case we probably get new elections within 18 months.

As I've said before, I think Atlas and other political social media groups overstate the likelihood of the Liberals and NDP working together to overcome a Tory plurality. I get the impression that they conflate the interests of the Liberals and NDP with the interests of progressive voters active on social media.

In Canada these sort of arrangements have typically been to topple an unpopular incumbent. That has very different optics than the NDP making an agreement with a Prime Minister they just spent the last six months (rightly) slamming as corrupt and arrogant.

A Liberal-NDP agreement certainly isn't impossible or even unlikely, but to simply dismiss the historic norm for minority election results is veering into the sort of "here's how Bernie can still win" type of error we political junkies are prone to.


I have to disagree.

a) Trudeau and Singh don't need to come to any agreement. Trudeau is the incumbent and he has a right to present a Throne speech and try to govern. As an NDP member myself, i know that party pretty well. There is zero chance that the NDP would vote with the Tories to topple Trudeau at that stage knowing that it would mean Scheer forming government and then having to pass Throne speech himself - and if that failed we would face a second election the same year and there would be absolutely no upside for the NDP in triggering that. Does anyone seriously think the NDP would vote against a Liberal Throne speech that would likely be heavily larded with items relating to pharmacare and child care and the environment so that two weeks later they could vote in favour of a Tory Throne speech that would be full of draconian cuts to social spending, anti-labour stuff, lots of climate change denial and tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy etc...

There may be lots of "narcissism of small difference" issues that separate the Liberals and NDP - but seriously i can think of lots of policy concession that the Liberals would be only too happy to make to stay in power. In contrast I cannot think of ANY policy whatsoever where the Tories and NDP have any common ground (can you?). There would literally be nothing to discuss. On top of that while NDP MPs and insiders may see the Liberals as their competition for votes, they also tend to see the Reformatories under Scheer as an existential threat to Canada and as a "mini-Trump"

b) while the SNC Lavalin affair is a "thing" its a stretch to call this a "scandal ridden" government. A true scandal ridden government was the Liberal government of the early 00s what with the sponsorship scandal. As you may recall, the NDP made a deal with Paul Martin that was widely seen as a good deal from an NDP perspective and the NDP gained seats in the subsequent election

I should clarify: When I talked about 'Liberal-NDP' agreements, I meant either a coalition or a formal BC/NB style confidence and supply agreement.  I still think that is quite unlikely given the optics of the scenario.

Trading policy concessions for votes on a case by case basis  is a totally different matter, and of course has a long history in Canadian politics. I can definitely see something like Pharmacare for Throne Speech votes happening. Propping up the 2nd place PM has less history, but its also more precedented and way less problematic from the NDP than a coalition.

Now to quibble with your account: it doesn't follow that the NDP would have to vote for a Tory throne speech just because they voted down a Liberal one. Indeed something similar happened in 2007, where the NDP voted down a Liberal amendment to a Tory throne speech, and the Tory throne speech itself, forcing a game of chicken with the Liberals. The Liberals wound up abstaining. That seems like a plausible outcome as well.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,085
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #361 on: April 30, 2019, 12:44:08 PM »

One thing has not been discussed very at all is what happens with the Senate if Scheer forms a government. Right now about three-quarters of the Senate is composed of either Liberals or liberals (in other words the non-partisans Trudeau has appointed). These non-partisans in the Senate will not feel bound by any convention to hold their nose and pass government legislation and as a result a Scheer government would quickly face a constitutional crisis as a result of not being able to pass much of its legislation thorugh the Senate

As opposed to the Liberal majority Senate Harper faced initially?

In 2006 it actually did cause problems for Harper to face a Liberal majority in the senate, BUT there was a huge difference. Those Liberal senators formed a caucus and they were all part of the old regime where there was a tacit acknowledgement that the appointed Senate should not reject bills passed by the elected Senate. We are in uncharted waters now with a majority of the senate now sitting as Independents who all think that the fact they are senators chosen for their personal qualities and not for having been party bagmen in the past and that this makes them God's gift to the world and they see themselves as having a legitimacy that the old partisan senators did not have. No one can tell them what to do and I suspect they will not hesitate to vote down Tory measures they don't like. Scheer may have to "pack" the senate like Mulroney did in 1988 

Hmm that's an interesting question. Just eyeballing it, but it looks like the number of Tory + Toryish independent senators is still short of a majority, even with the Senate packing provision. That would be a fun constitutional crisis Tongue
Logged
DL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,405
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #362 on: April 30, 2019, 01:14:13 PM »


Now to quibble with your account: it doesn't follow that the NDP would have to vote for a Tory throne speech just because they voted down a Liberal one. Indeed something similar happened in 2007, where the NDP voted down a Liberal amendment to a Tory throne speech, and the Tory throne speech itself, forcing a game of chicken with the Liberals. The Liberals wound up abstaining. That seems like a plausible outcome as well.

Well I suppose that if we had a scenario where the Tories actually had more seats than the Liberals, the NDP could abstain on a Tory Throne speech and it would pass. But I suspect that the Liberals would do absolutely anything possible to avoid relinquishing power in the first place. They would either dare the NDP to defeat them and bring Scheer to power or they would agree to a slew of NDP demands - or some combination of the two.

There are things Trudeau and Singh could discuss and negotiate. There is literally nothing for Singh to talk about with Scheer
Logged
UWS
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,220


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #363 on: April 30, 2019, 01:43:41 PM »


Now to quibble with your account: it doesn't follow that the NDP would have to vote for a Tory throne speech just because they voted down a Liberal one. Indeed something similar happened in 2007, where the NDP voted down a Liberal amendment to a Tory throne speech, and the Tory throne speech itself, forcing a game of chicken with the Liberals. The Liberals wound up abstaining. That seems like a plausible outcome as well.

Well I suppose that if we had a scenario where the Tories actually had more seats than the Liberals, the NDP could abstain on a Tory Throne speech and it would pass. But I suspect that the Liberals would do absolutely anything possible to avoid relinquishing power in the first place. They would either dare the NDP to defeat them and bring Scheer to power or they would agree to a slew of NDP demands - or some combination of the two.

There are things Trudeau and Singh could discuss and negotiate. There is literally nothing for Singh to talk about with Scheer

You mean that Trudeau and Singh would form a coalition government?
Logged
MaxQue
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,600
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #364 on: April 30, 2019, 01:52:56 PM »


Now to quibble with your account: it doesn't follow that the NDP would have to vote for a Tory throne speech just because they voted down a Liberal one. Indeed something similar happened in 2007, where the NDP voted down a Liberal amendment to a Tory throne speech, and the Tory throne speech itself, forcing a game of chicken with the Liberals. The Liberals wound up abstaining. That seems like a plausible outcome as well.

Well I suppose that if we had a scenario where the Tories actually had more seats than the Liberals, the NDP could abstain on a Tory Throne speech and it would pass. But I suspect that the Liberals would do absolutely anything possible to avoid relinquishing power in the first place. They would either dare the NDP to defeat them and bring Scheer to power or they would agree to a slew of NDP demands - or some combination of the two.

There are things Trudeau and Singh could discuss and negotiate. There is literally nothing for Singh to talk about with Scheer

You mean that Trudeau and Singh would form a coalition government?

No, Canada doesn't do coalitions.
Logged
DL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,405
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #365 on: April 30, 2019, 02:40:04 PM »


You mean that Trudeau and Singh would form a coalition government?

No, Canada doesn't do coalitions.

A. No I don't think there is any chance of an actual coalition, but there could be horse trading in exchange for a CASA (Confidence and Supply Agreement).
B. We actually have had coalitions in Canada...the Union government during WW1 and Liberal/Conservative coalitions in the 50s in manitoba... and 1999-2003 there was an NDP/Liberal coalition in Saskatchewan and we came very close to having one federally in 2008. The time for it will come...
Logged
mileslunn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,800
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #366 on: April 30, 2019, 03:25:16 PM »

Actually if Tories win plurality we are in unchartered waters so while I think it would probably mean Liberals staying on its tough to say for sure.

In the past usually there haven't been as stark an ideological divides so Liberals or NDP were able to let Tories govern without angering their bases too much, but with today's polarization not sure that could work.  At the same time everytime a second place party formed government, it was to remove a government that had been in power for a very long time, i.e. Ontario 1985, BC 2017, not for a party to stay on especially one with an approval rating down in the 30s. 

Either way I suspect Trudeau will be asked by the media if his party doesn't win the most seats will they try to form government so if he says yes or maybe one can argue he will have a mandate, if he explicitly rules it out but then does it, it will look really bad.  I think not only will his answer give us many clues, but also could influence how people vote and likewise I suspect his will be tactical.  If internal polls show there is a strong desire to get rid of the Liberals, but some unease about the Tories, he will probably say no as saying yes will just increase chances of Tory majority, but if polls still show it tight either way he may leave the door open.  On the other hand ruling out is probably the best strategy simply to motivate his supporters to show up.  If you frame it that Liberals must beat Tories in seats, more likely supporters will show up and more likely NDP and Greens will vote strategically, whereas if you frame it as we just need to stop a Tory majority, progressives are probably less likely to vote strategically so more vote splits which helps the Tories.
Logged
DL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,405
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #367 on: April 30, 2019, 03:38:56 PM »

I can guarantee you that if the last Ontario election had yielded 60 PCs under Doug Ford and say 38 Liberals under Wynne and 30 NDP under Horwath - as much as the NDP would rather have preferred to eat crushed glass than prop up such a discredited Kathleen Wynne - there is no way that Kathleen Wynne and Andrea Horwath would have allowed Doug Ford to take power knowing how much damage he would do.
Logged
mileslunn
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,800
Canada


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #368 on: April 30, 2019, 04:26:44 PM »

I can guarantee you that if the last Ontario election had yielded 60 PCs under Doug Ford and say 38 Liberals under Wynne and 30 NDP under Horwath - as much as the NDP would rather have preferred to eat crushed glass than prop up such a discredited Kathleen Wynne - there is no way that Kathleen Wynne and Andrea Horwath would have allowed Doug Ford to take power knowing how much damage he would do.

That is probably true, although think if Brown, Elliott, or Mulroney were leader they would have.  Scheer is more polarizing and disliked more by the left than those two but not hated as much as Doug Ford who pretty much everyone outside the base hates.  I also think had that scenario emerged NDP would have demanded Wynne's resignation and Liberals choose a new leader as a price which they just might do with Trudeau so involves changing PM, but not Tories winning.
Logged
King of Kensington
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,068


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #369 on: April 30, 2019, 08:45:58 PM »

I am hearing a third candidate plans to enter the Parkdale-High Park NDP nomination race:  pundit Tom Parkin.
Logged
lilTommy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,819


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #370 on: May 01, 2019, 06:52:59 AM »

I am hearing a third candidate plans to enter the Parkdale-High Park NDP nomination race:  pundit Tom Parkin.

Wow... but really, this is a stacked field already. Why not run somewhere else and try and get MORE strong NDP candidates nominated.
I know University-Rosedale is going to be hard against Freeland, but probably the most demographically "fitting" riding for Paikin
Spadina-Fort York, same against Vaughan (although not in cabinet and not the most likable guy, so of the three probably the weakest LPC MPs) but probably the most progressive-swingy riding.
Toronto Centre, almost no one will defeat Morneau... probably Councillor Wong-Tam
Toronto-St.Paul's, even more of a long shot, didn't even think the ONDP would win this one.

anyway, this is good for the NDP (if it's true)
 
Logged
King of Kensington
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,068


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #371 on: May 01, 2019, 08:38:15 AM »

Because 1) Parkin lives in High Park and 2) wants the easiest ride to Parliament.  This is the most coveted nomination in the city.

I wouldn't say he's a bigger name than Saron Gebresellassi.  I'm guessing far fewer Torontonians have heard of him.  But he's a big deal to a several hundred existing members in PHP, presumably.
Logged
King of Kensington
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,068


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #372 on: May 01, 2019, 08:39:22 AM »

Tommy, are you confusing Tom Parkin with Steve Paikin of TVO?
Logged
DL
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,405
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #373 on: May 01, 2019, 08:55:29 AM »

Because 1) Parkin lives in High Park and 2) wants the easiest ride to Parliament.  This is the most coveted nomination in the city.

I wouldn't say he's a bigger name than Saron Gebresellassi.  I'm guessing far fewer Torontonians have heard of him.  But he's a big deal to a several hundred existing members in PHP, presumably.

As far as I know he is the only contender for the nomination who lives in Parkdale-High Park (and has lived there for the last 30 years). He has also been president of the riding association there. Until recently he had a regular column in the Toronto Sun and now writes for ipolitics and Huffington Post and appears regulary on panels. People can debate whether he's the best candidate in PHP but I think he is likely the best known of the candidates...not that any of them are what anyone would call a "supernova".

Apparently Saron Gebreselassie lives in York South Weston and was riding association president there. i wonder why she didn't want the NDP nomination there? It elected a New Democrat provincially less than a year ago.

The other contender Paul Taylor seems to have impressive credentials but just moved to Toronto two years ago from Vancouver, has no history in the NDP and lives in Toronto Centre. I wonder why he doesnt run there? It also elected an NDP MPP last year by a wide margin and on top of that taylor is LGBTQ and Toronto Centre is where that community is centred.

Anyways, we shall see what happens.
Logged
RogueBeaver
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,058
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #374 on: May 01, 2019, 10:14:57 AM »

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... 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 0.068 seconds with 11 queries.