Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[Benjamin Frank]

Finally, you mention disparagingly social conservatives. There is an incredible sanctimony amongst social liberals; an inability to understand how people could disagree with them. This is unhealthy and unnecessary. For one thing, ethnic minorities are often quite religious and socially conservative. However, you probably cannot run an explicitly socially conservative federal campaign. My solution would be a broad church. Canada, after all, is a parliamentary democracy . Individual MPs have a conscience and should vote with it. So controversial issues like abortion and so on should be free votes. You could then run socially conservative candidates in rural areas; always emphasising that you are a broad and not dogmatic party which accepts differences of opinion as legitimate. I'd point to the regular votes in the UK in the 1970s and '80s on reintroduction of capital punishment. They were always free votes, and the Tories were always split (about 60-40 in favour). But politicians of all stripes understood that these are exceedingly delicate moral questions which cannot be whipped or swept under the rug.

I agree there can be some sanctimony but the main argument is simply the libertarian one of 'live and let live.'  Maybe there is a difference in attitudes because Canada has a written Constitution and the U.K doesn't, but the idea of subjecting fundamental rights to Parliamentary votes or the will of the majority is anathema to me and to many Canadian liberals (and Liberals.)

For instance, when we had the debate on same sex marriage here and those on the right were disparaging the involvement of the courts, I'd argue "why didn't I get a vote on your marriage? If you can't marry who you want, why shouldn't I and others have had as much say on who you could marry as you'd like on who others can marry?"

Same-sex marriage is not the only social issue - and it is (to my mind) probably the easiest one. Yes, your "Charter of Rights" does complicate things, but how are pro-life people going to be represented? Is this live political and moral issue to be swept under the rug because somehow it is a "right" guaranteed by the Charter? (I'm not terribly familiar with the details of the decision, but, like Roe, it seems very unsound to me. Of course I'm aware of the arguments in favour of judicial review and protection of rights, but I'm not particularly sympathetic to them precisely because of how it can neuter important arguments like these.)

Why should 'pro-life' people be represented?  If abortion is regarded as a fundamental right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then why should there be Parliamentary arguments on the issue?  if people want to make arguments that abortion should not be a fundamental right, they are free to do so, but that does not mean the arguments have to be made in Parliament or should be subject to a vote.  

If they can put forward valid and sound arguments that abortion is inconsistent with other rights, the courts will almost certainly hear them and reconsider.

It is interesting you complain about liberal 'sanctimony' but then refer to those who are anti abortion as 'pro life.'  I can't think of anything more sanctimonious than claiming to be 'pro life' especially when those who are anti-abortion often disappear when practical considerations like paying for the care of the child come up.

[mileslunn]

I think for Tories forward, there is no easy answer.  Being anti-lockdown is a sure vote loser as Canadians generally have a high deference to authority and don't mind restrictions if they serve some greater good.  Despite Canada's success in vaccines, I suspect you will see us go slower in re-opening and that is way most want it.  Anti-wokeism is risky as Canadians have a reputation of being polite and for little guy so while people may not care for the left wing woke stuff, you aren't seeing the backlash you are elsewhere.

On abortion, Tories are in a bad position as making it a whipped vote like Liberals would split party, but at same time Canada unlike UK doesn't have a history of free votes so anytime a member votes to limit abortion, it is just ammo for others to use that voting Tory risks putting abortion at risk.

Their best hope is with rising interest rates and inflation, people will turn more towards fiscal conservatism down the road and instead focus on saving the furniture this time and hope by 2025 people will have fatigued of left.  

[Geoffrey Howe]

Finally, you mention disparagingly social conservatives. There is an incredible sanctimony amongst social liberals; an inability to understand how people could disagree with them. This is unhealthy and unnecessary. For one thing, ethnic minorities are often quite religious and socially conservative. However, you probably cannot run an explicitly socially conservative federal campaign. My solution would be a broad church. Canada, after all, is a parliamentary democracy . Individual MPs have a conscience and should vote with it. So controversial issues like abortion and so on should be free votes. You could then run socially conservative candidates in rural areas; always emphasising that you are a broad and not dogmatic party which accepts differences of opinion as legitimate. I'd point to the regular votes in the UK in the 1970s and '80s on reintroduction of capital punishment. They were always free votes, and the Tories were always split (about 60-40 in favour). But politicians of all stripes understood that these are exceedingly delicate moral questions which cannot be whipped or swept under the rug.

I agree there can be some sanctimony but the main argument is simply the libertarian one of 'live and let live.'  Maybe there is a difference in attitudes because Canada has a written Constitution and the U.K doesn't, but the idea of subjecting fundamental rights to Parliamentary votes or the will of the majority is anathema to me and to many Canadian liberals (and Liberals.)

For instance, when we had the debate on same sex marriage here and those on the right were disparaging the involvement of the courts, I'd argue "why didn't I get a vote on your marriage? If you can't marry who you want, why shouldn't I and others have had as much say on who you could marry as you'd like on who others can marry?"

Same-sex marriage is not the only social issue - and it is (to my mind) probably the easiest one. Yes, your "Charter of Rights" does complicate things, but how are pro-life people going to be represented? Is this live political and moral issue to be swept under the rug because somehow it is a "right" guaranteed by the Charter? (I'm not terribly familiar with the details of the decision, but, like Roe, it seems very unsound to me. Of course I'm aware of the arguments in favour of judicial review and protection of rights, but I'm not particularly sympathetic to them precisely because of how it can neuter important arguments like these.)

Why should 'pro-life' people be represented?  If abortion is regarded as a fundamental right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then why should there be Parliamentary arguments on the issue?  if people want to make arguments that abortion should not be a fundamental right, they are free to do so, but that does not mean the arguments have to be made in Parliament or should be subject to a vote.  

Perhaps it hinges on the fact that I really struggle to see how it is protected by the Charter.
Where other than Parliament should they make arguments if they want change? (I understand it's in Parliament and provincial legislatures that the Charter is amended.)

It is interesting you complain about liberal 'sanctimony' but then refer to those who are anti abortion as 'pro life.'  I can't think of anything more sanctimonious than claiming to be 'pro life' especially when those who are anti-abortion often disappear when practical considerations like paying for the care of the child come up.

That's a complete straw-man. Pro-life ≠ agree with GOP welfare policies. I believe this is evidenced by one poster here. In any case, I doubt that death results in most of these cases.

[Geoffrey Howe]

Finally, you mention disparagingly social conservatives. There is an incredible sanctimony amongst social liberals; an inability to understand how people could disagree with them. This is unhealthy and unnecessary. For one thing, ethnic minorities are often quite religious and socially conservative. However, you probably cannot run an explicitly socially conservative federal campaign. My solution would be a broad church. Canada, after all, is a parliamentary democracy . Individual MPs have a conscience and should vote with it. So controversial issues like abortion and so on should be free votes. You could then run socially conservative candidates in rural areas; always emphasising that you are a broad and not dogmatic party which accepts differences of opinion as legitimate. I'd point to the regular votes in the UK in the 1970s and '80s on reintroduction of capital punishment. They were always free votes, and the Tories were always split (about 60-40 in favour). But politicians of all stripes understood that these are exceedingly delicate moral questions which cannot be whipped or swept under the rug.

What you propose is exactly what the Conservatives are doing right now.

The problem is that the socially conservative base is not approving of that, because they will never be a majoirty in Parliament and so, they will never get what they want (they didn't under both Mulroney and Harper). They want the party leader to be in agreement with them, the party to campaign on those questions and some even want whipped votes on those questions.

Then see my comment about ignoring their more radical fringes. Just like the Corbynite left, they cannot expect to dictate policy when they only form a small portion of the electorate.

[mileslunn]

Finally, you mention disparagingly social conservatives. There is an incredible sanctimony amongst social liberals; an inability to understand how people could disagree with them. This is unhealthy and unnecessary. For one thing, ethnic minorities are often quite religious and socially conservative. However, you probably cannot run an explicitly socially conservative federal campaign. My solution would be a broad church. Canada, after all, is a parliamentary democracy . Individual MPs have a conscience and should vote with it. So controversial issues like abortion and so on should be free votes. You could then run socially conservative candidates in rural areas; always emphasising that you are a broad and not dogmatic party which accepts differences of opinion as legitimate. I'd point to the regular votes in the UK in the 1970s and '80s on reintroduction of capital punishment. They were always free votes, and the Tories were always split (about 60-40 in favour). But politicians of all stripes understood that these are exceedingly delicate moral questions which cannot be whipped or swept under the rug.

What you propose is exactly what the Conservatives are doing right now.

The problem is that the socially conservative base is not approving of that, because they will never be a majoirty in Parliament and so, they will never get what they want (they didn't under both Mulroney and Harper). They want the party leader to be in agreement with them, the party to campaign on those questions and some even want whipped votes on those questions.

Then see my comment about ignoring their more radical fringes. Just like the Corbynite left, they cannot expect to dictate policy when they only form a small portion of the electorate.

Problem is in Canada unlike UK, our parties tend to vote in lock step so having a few fringe members is viewed much differently here.  Our party discipline much stricter and we don't have a history of MPs breaking party ranks like they do in UK.  While I agree less party discipline is a good thing, it is a tough sell as Canadians are used to parties voting in lock step.

[Geoffrey Howe]

I'm coming to the conclusion that the solution is just be like Britain

[Benjamin Frank]

Finally, you mention disparagingly social conservatives. There is an incredible sanctimony amongst social liberals; an inability to understand how people could disagree with them. This is unhealthy and unnecessary. For one thing, ethnic minorities are often quite religious and socially conservative. However, you probably cannot run an explicitly socially conservative federal campaign. My solution would be a broad church. Canada, after all, is a parliamentary democracy . Individual MPs have a conscience and should vote with it. So controversial issues like abortion and so on should be free votes. You could then run socially conservative candidates in rural areas; always emphasising that you are a broad and not dogmatic party which accepts differences of opinion as legitimate. I'd point to the regular votes in the UK in the 1970s and '80s on reintroduction of capital punishment. They were always free votes, and the Tories were always split (about 60-40 in favour). But politicians of all stripes understood that these are exceedingly delicate moral questions which cannot be whipped or swept under the rug.

I agree there can be some sanctimony but the main argument is simply the libertarian one of 'live and let live.'  Maybe there is a difference in attitudes because Canada has a written Constitution and the U.K doesn't, but the idea of subjecting fundamental rights to Parliamentary votes or the will of the majority is anathema to me and to many Canadian liberals (and Liberals.)

For instance, when we had the debate on same sex marriage here and those on the right were disparaging the involvement of the courts, I'd argue "why didn't I get a vote on your marriage? If you can't marry who you want, why shouldn't I and others have had as much say on who you could marry as you'd like on who others can marry?"

Same-sex marriage is not the only social issue - and it is (to my mind) probably the easiest one. Yes, your "Charter of Rights" does complicate things, but how are pro-life people going to be represented? Is this live political and moral issue to be swept under the rug because somehow it is a "right" guaranteed by the Charter? (I'm not terribly familiar with the details of the decision, but, like Roe, it seems very unsound to me. Of course I'm aware of the arguments in favour of judicial review and protection of rights, but I'm not particularly sympathetic to them precisely because of how it can neuter important arguments like these.)

Why should 'pro-life' people be represented?  If abortion is regarded as a fundamental right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then why should there be Parliamentary arguments on the issue?  if people want to make arguments that abortion should not be a fundamental right, they are free to do so, but that does not mean the arguments have to be made in Parliament or should be subject to a vote.  

Perhaps it hinges on the fact that I really struggle to see how it is protected by the Charter.
Where other than Parliament should they make arguments if they want change? (I understand it's in Parliament and provincial legislatures that the Charter is amended.)

It is interesting you complain about liberal 'sanctimony' but then refer to those who are anti abortion as 'pro life.'  I can't think of anything more sanctimonious than claiming to be 'pro life' especially when those who are anti-abortion often disappear when practical considerations like paying for the care of the child come up.

That's a complete straw-man. Pro-life ≠ agree with GOP welfare policies. I believe this is evidenced by one poster here. In any case, I doubt that death results in most of these cases.

1.They can make arguments to the public and they can make valid/sound factual arguments to the courts as to why abortion should not be a fundamental right or how it conflicts with other fundamental rights.

Not everything is subject to debate and vote in Parliament.  A Bill of Rights limits the scope of what can be debated and voted on in Parliament to protect fundamental freedoms.

2.I completely disagree that it is a straw-man.   Being anti abortion by itself is cost free morality/the ultimate form of virtue signaling.  If you want to tell other people what they have to do in ways that fundamentally effect their lives, and if you really care about the life of the 'unborn', then put your money where your mouth is.  Otherwise, those who are anti-abortion are absolutely being sanctimonious. Those who are anti-abortion tend to be the most sanctimonious moral preeners.

[Geoffrey Howe]

Perhaps it hinges on the fact that I really struggle to see how it is protected by the Charter.
Where other than Parliament should they make arguments if they want change? (I understand it's in Parliament and provincial legislatures that the Charter is amended.)

It is interesting you complain about liberal 'sanctimony' but then refer to those who are anti abortion as 'pro life.'  I can't think of anything more sanctimonious than claiming to be 'pro life' especially when those who are anti-abortion often disappear when practical considerations like paying for the care of the child come up.

That's a complete straw-man. Pro-life ≠ agree with GOP welfare policies. I believe this is evidenced by one poster here. In any case, I doubt that death results in most of these cases.

1.They can make arguments to the public and they can make valid/sound factual arguments to the courts as to why abortion should not be a fundamental right or how it conflicts with other fundamental rights.

Not everything is subject to debate and vote in Parliament.  A Bill of Rights limits the scope of what can be debated and voted on in Parliament to protect fundamental freedoms.

Yes, but it can be amended.

2.I completely disagree that it is a straw-man.   Being anti abortion by itself is cost free morality/the ultimate form of virtue signaling.  If you want to tell other people what they have to do in ways that fundamentally effect their lives, and if you really care about the life of the 'unborn', then put your money where your mouth is.  Otherwise, those who are anti-abortion are absolutely being sanctimonious. Those who are anti-abortion tend to be the most sanctimonious moral preeners.

How is it virtue signalling? Is being "against" murder (which pro-life people claim abortion is) virtue signalling?

[MaxQue]

Finally, you mention disparagingly social conservatives. There is an incredible sanctimony amongst social liberals; an inability to understand how people could disagree with them. This is unhealthy and unnecessary. For one thing, ethnic minorities are often quite religious and socially conservative. However, you probably cannot run an explicitly socially conservative federal campaign. My solution would be a broad church. Canada, after all, is a parliamentary democracy . Individual MPs have a conscience and should vote with it. So controversial issues like abortion and so on should be free votes. You could then run socially conservative candidates in rural areas; always emphasising that you are a broad and not dogmatic party which accepts differences of opinion as legitimate. I'd point to the regular votes in the UK in the 1970s and '80s on reintroduction of capital punishment. They were always free votes, and the Tories were always split (about 60-40 in favour). But politicians of all stripes understood that these are exceedingly delicate moral questions which cannot be whipped or swept under the rug.

What you propose is exactly what the Conservatives are doing right now.

The problem is that the socially conservative base is not approving of that, because they will never be a majoirty in Parliament and so, they will never get what they want (they didn't under both Mulroney and Harper). They want the party leader to be in agreement with them, the party to campaign on those questions and some even want whipped votes on those questions.

Then see my comment about ignoring their more radical fringes. Just like the Corbynite left, they cannot expect to dictate policy when they only form a small portion of the electorate.

Hard to ignore the fringe when they are a majority in some provinces, the majority of activists and the source of a big chunk of the money.

[Benjamin Frank]

I think for Tories forward, there is no easy answer.  Being anti-lockdown is a sure vote loser as Canadians generally have a high deference to authority and don't mind restrictions if they serve some greater good.  Despite Canada's success in vaccines, I suspect you will see us go slower in re-opening and that is way most want it.  Anti-wokeism is risky as Canadians have a reputation of being polite and for little guy so while people may not care for the left wing woke stuff, you aren't seeing the backlash you are elsewhere.

On abortion, Tories are in a bad position as making it a whipped vote like Liberals would split party, but at same time Canada unlike UK doesn't have a history of free votes so anytime a member votes to limit abortion, it is just ammo for others to use that voting Tory risks putting abortion at risk.

Their best hope is with rising interest rates and inflation, people will turn more towards fiscal conservatism down the road and instead focus on saving the furniture this time and hope by 2025 people will have fatigued of left.  

I disagree with the term 'deference to authority.'  I think most Canadians recognize that Covid-19 is a public health issue that requires shared action.  

I think part of what we see in the United States, and I know there are people with other reasons who oppose mask requirements, is a whole lot of people who are extremely authoritarian when it comes to telling other people what to do (they're anti abortion, anti LGBTQ+, anti marijuana/drug legalization for instance) don't want other people telling them what to do.  These are people who are all about power and control, which is why many on the religious right, for instance, weaponize the Bible in order to maintain a patriarchy.

In terms of Covid-19, this is why many of these horrible people refer to all sorts of loony conspiracy theories that Covid-19 is 'fake news' from governments to justify a 'power grab.'

The argument that Americans, especially those on the right, are anti-authoritarian is a complete myth.  They want a great deal of authoritarian rule as long as it isn't used against them and as long as they solely decide on the rules.

[Benjamin Frank]

Perhaps it hinges on the fact that I really struggle to see how it is protected by the Charter.
Where other than Parliament should they make arguments if they want change? (I understand it's in Parliament and provincial legislatures that the Charter is amended.)

It is interesting you complain about liberal 'sanctimony' but then refer to those who are anti abortion as 'pro life.'  I can't think of anything more sanctimonious than claiming to be 'pro life' especially when those who are anti-abortion often disappear when practical considerations like paying for the care of the child come up.

That's a complete straw-man. Pro-life ≠ agree with GOP welfare policies. I believe this is evidenced by one poster here. In any case, I doubt that death results in most of these cases.

1.They can make arguments to the public and they can make valid/sound factual arguments to the courts as to why abortion should not be a fundamental right or how it conflicts with other fundamental rights.

Not everything is subject to debate and vote in Parliament.  A Bill of Rights limits the scope of what can be debated and voted on in Parliament to protect fundamental freedoms.

Yes, but it can be amended.

2.I completely disagree that it is a straw-man.   Being anti abortion by itself is cost free morality/the ultimate form of virtue signaling.  If you want to tell other people what they have to do in ways that fundamentally effect their lives, and if you really care about the life of the 'unborn', then put your money where your mouth is.  Otherwise, those who are anti-abortion are absolutely being sanctimonious. Those who are anti-abortion tend to be the most sanctimonious moral preeners.

How is it virtue signalling? Is being "against" murder (which pro-life people claim abortion is) virtue signalling?

Just because that's what they claim doesn't make it so.   If you are going to argue it's murder, you need actual valid and sound arguments, otherwise, it is indeed nothing more than virtue signaling: "I'm pro-life, what a wonderful person I am!"

I certainly don't dispute that the rights of the fetus increases over time, and the Canadian Supreme Court never said that Parliament could not pass a law that placed some limits on abortion, however, the claims about 'infanticide' are indeed straw-men arguments.

The Canadian Parliament is not meant to be led by King Canute^* where all opinions are treated as equally valid.  This is why the Charter of Rights and Freedoms exist.  When it comes to fundamental rights as defined by the Charter, only arguments that are actually valid and sound can be considered.

So, if somebody has an opinion that abortion is murder, that isn't good enough.  If somebody has actual evidence that abortion is murder, then the courts can decide if that's a basis to overturn its previous ruling.

*That is a myth in itself.  The Canadian Parliament is actually meant to be led by a King Canute.  Although he was making a religious argument about God and humans, he was also showing that there are fundamental facts that humans can't alter, even if they disbelieve these facts. 

Sure, if people want to amend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to have abortion removed as a fundamental right as defined by the Canadian Courts, they are free to try.  It requires getting, at a minimum, the support of 7 provinces with 50% of the population onside, if not all 10 provinces.  

[mileslunn]

I think for Tories forward, there is no easy answer.  Being anti-lockdown is a sure vote loser as Canadians generally have a high deference to authority and don't mind restrictions if they serve some greater good.  Despite Canada's success in vaccines, I suspect you will see us go slower in re-opening and that is way most want it.  Anti-wokeism is risky as Canadians have a reputation of being polite and for little guy so while people may not care for the left wing woke stuff, you aren't seeing the backlash you are elsewhere.

On abortion, Tories are in a bad position as making it a whipped vote like Liberals would split party, but at same time Canada unlike UK doesn't have a history of free votes so anytime a member votes to limit abortion, it is just ammo for others to use that voting Tory risks putting abortion at risk.

Their best hope is with rising interest rates and inflation, people will turn more towards fiscal conservatism down the road and instead focus on saving the furniture this time and hope by 2025 people will have fatigued of left.  

I disagree with the term 'deference to authority.'  I think most Canadians recognize that Covid-19 is a public health issue that requires shared action.  

I think part of what we see in the United States, and I know there are people with other reasons who oppose mask requirements, is a whole lot of people who are extremely authoritarian when it comes to telling other people what to do (they're anti abortion, anti LGBTQ+, anti marijuana/drug legalization for instance) don't want other people telling them what to do.  These are people who are all about power and control, which is why many on the religious right, for instance, weaponize the Bible in order to maintain a patriarchy.

In terms of Covid-19, this is why many of these horrible people refer to all sorts of loony conspiracy theories that Covid-19 is 'fake news' from governments to justify a 'power grab.'

The argument that Americans, especially those on the right, are anti-authoritarian is a complete myth.  They want a great deal of authoritarian rule as long as it isn't used against them and as long as they solely decide on the rules.

I think US has a much stronger libertarian streak than Canada.  Canadians aren't scared of big government the way Americans are.  Doesn't mean we want government doing everything, but we don't tend to mind an interventionist government as long as it serves some greater good.  We do mind it when we feel it is done as a power grab.  In US, I would argue religious right and libertarians have little in common and they are only in same party due to common enemy.  Also two groups have strengths in very different regions.  Religious right is strongest in Deep South while libertarians strongest in Mountain West (which asides Utah is not very religious).

[Benjamin Frank]

I think for Tories forward, there is no easy answer.  Being anti-lockdown is a sure vote loser as Canadians generally have a high deference to authority and don't mind restrictions if they serve some greater good.  Despite Canada's success in vaccines, I suspect you will see us go slower in re-opening and that is way most want it.  Anti-wokeism is risky as Canadians have a reputation of being polite and for little guy so while people may not care for the left wing woke stuff, you aren't seeing the backlash you are elsewhere.

On abortion, Tories are in a bad position as making it a whipped vote like Liberals would split party, but at same time Canada unlike UK doesn't have a history of free votes so anytime a member votes to limit abortion, it is just ammo for others to use that voting Tory risks putting abortion at risk.

Their best hope is with rising interest rates and inflation, people will turn more towards fiscal conservatism down the road and instead focus on saving the furniture this time and hope by 2025 people will have fatigued of left.  

I disagree with the term 'deference to authority.'  I think most Canadians recognize that Covid-19 is a public health issue that requires shared action.  

I think part of what we see in the United States, and I know there are people with other reasons who oppose mask requirements, is a whole lot of people who are extremely authoritarian when it comes to telling other people what to do (they're anti abortion, anti LGBTQ+, anti marijuana/drug legalization for instance) don't want other people telling them what to do.  These are people who are all about power and control, which is why many on the religious right, for instance, weaponize the Bible in order to maintain a patriarchy.

In terms of Covid-19, this is why many of these horrible people refer to all sorts of loony conspiracy theories that Covid-19 is 'fake news' from governments to justify a 'power grab.'

The argument that Americans, especially those on the right, are anti-authoritarian is a complete myth.  They want a great deal of authoritarian rule as long as it isn't used against them and as long as they solely decide on the rules.

I think US has a much stronger libertarian streak than Canada.  Canadians aren't scared of big government the way Americans are.  Doesn't mean we want government doing everything, but we don't tend to mind an interventionist government as long as it serves some greater good.  We do mind it when we feel it is done as a power grab.  In US, I would argue religious right and libertarians have little in common and they are only in same party due to common enemy.  Also two groups have strengths in very different regions.  Religious right is strongest in Deep South while libertarians strongest in Mountain West (which asides Utah is not very religious).

I disagree.  Republicans all over, especially Republican politicians, are still almost universally opposed to even marijuana legalization.  Also, for instance, both Ron and Rand Paul, despite claiming to be libertarian are both also anti-abortion.  

I agree with you in that I did say that there are others who also oppose mask requirements, and I was thinking of libertarians and the young people who don't think they need to wear masks, but I disagree that there really are all that many actual libertarians in the United States.  Most of those who claim to be libertarians are really either second amendment absolutists or are anti tax or both.  Those who are part of the religious right also tend to be second amendment absolutes and anti tax, so I think they have a lot more in common than you claim.

I think you could also look at how poorly both Ron and Rand Paul did when they ran for President. Ron Paul especially had a lot of online support, but he actually did not receive many votes.  So, I think there is a fair amount of evidence that this American 'libertarian streak' is a myth.

[mileslunn]

I think Americans are not full blown libertarians, but I do think still on spectrum, Americans tend to be less supportive of interventionist government than Canadians although on some moral issues more so, but certainly on economic and personal less so.  If anything in US, they tend to favour less government in areas socialist want more while more in areas socialist want less while Canadians I think are more based on what are end results and does it serve some greater good or is it just an abuse of power. 

[Benjamin Frank]

I think Americans are not full blown libertarians, but I do think still on spectrum, Americans tend to be less supportive of interventionist government than Canadians although on some moral issues more so, but certainly on economic and personal less so.  If anything in US, they tend to favour less government in areas socialist want more while more in areas socialist want less while Canadians I think are more based on what are end results and does it serve some greater good or is it just an abuse of power.  

We seem to just disagree on this.  I know there are all sorts of people who run as Republicans who claim to be for 'freedom' but then support all sorts of government intervention based on 'morality.'

Leave aside their rhetoric to what they actually propose, and many Republicans are highly authoritarian.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

In other news, Annamie Paul is now hands down the worst leader of a party with a seat in the house. Congrats Erin.

She's taken to calling Chrystia Freeland a human shield and a token female to bolster Trudeau's feminist cred. Not only does this undermine Paul's own case, it shows unbelievably bad political instincts to go after Trudeau's most broadly popular minister.

[Benjamin Frank]

In other news, Annamie Paul is now hands down the worst leader of a party with a seat in the house. Congrats Erin.

She's taken to calling Chrystia Freeland a human shield and a token female to bolster Trudeau's feminist cred. Not only does this undermine Paul's own case, it shows unbelievably bad political instincts to go after Trudeau's most broadly popular minister.

I sympathize with Annamie Paul to some degree given the attacks against her, but, while I don't know how much of this is just theater on her part, she certainly does seem to be a paranoid political leader.

There is definitely an 'everybody is against me personally' vibe from her which really isn't true.  There is nothing personal against her in what the Liberals did.  It may well be true from the Green Party executive council and, according to some sources, from Elizabeth May, but some of that also goes with the territory and is also nothing personal. Erin O'Toole has also faced significant criticism from Conservative insiders as well, and, at least publicly, he has not called them personal attacks.

Her arguments against the Liberals are also contradictory.  Even leaving aside that her arguments deny the autonomy of Jenica Atwin (who presumably must be one of those out to get Paul), she has both crowed about how the Green Party was making inroads in Liberal ridings, while at the same time argued that for the Liberals to attempt to counter this in any way is unacceptable.  

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

In other news, Annamie Paul is now hands down the worst leader of a party with a seat in the house. Congrats Erin.

She's taken to calling Chrystia Freeland a human shield and a token female to bolster Trudeau's feminist cred. Not only does this undermine Paul's own case, it shows unbelievably bad political instincts to go after Trudeau's most broadly popular minister.

I sympathize with Annamie Paul to some degree given the attacks against her, but, while I don't know how much of this is just theater on her part, she certainly does seem to be a paranoid political leader.

There is definitely an 'everybody is against me personally' vibe from her which really isn't true.  There is nothing personal against her in what the Liberals did.  It may well be true from the Green Party executive council and, according to some sources, from Elizabeth May, but some of that also goes with the territory and is also nothing personal. Erin O'Toole has also faced significant criticism from Conservative insiders as well, and, at least publicly, he has not called them personal attacks.

Her arguments against the Liberals are also contradictory.  Even leaving aside that her arguments deny the autonomy of Jenica Atwin (who presumably must be one of those out to get Paul), she has both crowed about how the Green Party was making inroads in Liberal ridings, while at the same time argued that for the Liberals to attempt to counter this in any way is unacceptable.  

Blaming the Liberals is what really gets to me. Of course the Liberals will take up an opportunity to weaken a rival party, any party would, but the notion that this is somehow an inside job by Trudeau is a bit much. And now she's saying some pretty nasty things about Chrystia Freeland which is completely unnecessary.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

To add my two cents on the CPC social issues discussion, I honestly think they could win an election without changing the current line on abortion/LGBT rights etc. The Liberals will always portray the CPC as unhinged right wing lunatics, hell the Martin Liberals suggested that Harper would deploy the forces to the streets of Canada. Harper lost that election, 2004, but less than two years later he won a pretty decent minority.

The CPC's main thing in 2006 was the Accountability Act and just generally fighting corruption. That was the Liberals' weak point, and the CPC put forward a platform that appealed to a broader tent. The Liberals still kept saying that Harper was a religious extremist who would take away people's rights, but Harper actually spoke to the concerns of Canadians this time and the attacks fell flat.

The problem with the CPC right now is they stand for absolutely nothing. They don't have a coherent message for what kind of future they want for Canada, or what solutions they'd propose to Canada's problems, and that's ultimately what people want to hear. The "we won't get vaccines until 2030" saga shows the problem with this current strategy of only reacting to the latest negative news about the Liberals - now we're crushing vaccinations, top of the world in first doses, and the CPC is scrambling for something again.

Scheer had a great opportunity in 2019. Trudeau's main weakness with moderate LPC-CPC swing voters was the perception of corruption that resulted from SNC. Scheer could have made that campaign about increasing accountability, strengthening lobbying rules, or at least being more transparent about the government's dealings with corporations. What kind of policies he would put forward, or whether they would be effective, are completely immaterial as long as people believed that he could succeed where Trudeau failed.

But Scheer didn't do that. The whole campaign was about abolishing the carbon tax, making some tax cuts that were pretty much the same as the Liberals', and not much else. He attacked Trudeau for SNC but didn't show why he would be better.

The point is, when you run an empty campaign that doesn't speak to Canadians, the Liberals' fear mongering about the social conservatives resonates. If the CPC had a platform that people were sympathetic to, they'd be more willing to give Scheer the benefit of the doubt.

It may actually be a blessing in disguise if the LPC wins a majority this year because it will give the CPC four years to recuperate and try to carve out a niche that goes beyond Liberal-hating. The housing crisis is out of control in big cities and if the CPC comes up with a reasonable conservative plan to deal with the crisis, I could see the 905 going blue again. But they need to stand for something, or else the only thing that defines them will continue to be the crazies.

[mileslunn]

To add my two cents on the CPC social issues discussion, I honestly think they could win an election without changing the current line on abortion/LGBT rights etc. The Liberals will always portray the CPC as unhinged right wing lunatics, hell the Martin Liberals suggested that Harper would deploy the forces to the streets of Canada. Harper lost that election, 2004, but less than two years later he won a pretty decent minority.

The CPC's main thing in 2006 was the Accountability Act and just generally fighting corruption. That was the Liberals' weak point, and the CPC put forward a platform that appealed to a broader tent. The Liberals still kept saying that Harper was a religious extremist who would take away people's rights, but Harper actually spoke to the concerns of Canadians this time and the attacks fell flat.

The problem with the CPC right now is they stand for absolutely nothing. They don't have a coherent message for what kind of future they want for Canada, or what solutions they'd propose to Canada's problems, and that's ultimately what people want to hear. The "we won't get vaccines until 2030" saga shows the problem with this current strategy of only reacting to the latest negative news about the Liberals - now we're crushing vaccinations, top of the world in first doses, and the CPC is scrambling for something again.

Scheer had a great opportunity in 2019. Trudeau's main weakness with moderate LPC-CPC swing voters was the perception of corruption that resulted from SNC. Scheer could have made that campaign about increasing accountability, strengthening lobbying rules, or at least being more transparent about the government's dealings with corporations. What kind of policies he would put forward, or whether they would be effective, are completely immaterial as long as people believed that he could succeed where Trudeau failed.

But Scheer didn't do that. The whole campaign was about abolishing the carbon tax, making some tax cuts that were pretty much the same as the Liberals', and not much else. He attacked Trudeau for SNC but didn't show why he would be better.

The point is, when you run an empty campaign that doesn't speak to Canadians, the Liberals' fear mongering about the social conservatives resonates. If the CPC had a platform that people were sympathetic to, they'd be more willing to give Scheer the benefit of the doubt.

It may actually be a blessing in disguise if the LPC wins a majority this year because it will give the CPC four years to recuperate and try to carve out a niche that goes beyond Liberal-hating. The housing crisis is out of control in big cities and if the CPC comes up with a reasonable conservative plan to deal with the crisis, I could see the 905 going blue again. But they need to stand for something, or else the only thing that defines them will continue to be the crazies.

Also if deficits get real bad may offer an opening for Tories.  Main challenge on housing is how to deal with it while sticking to principles.  On tax cuts, I think that will be a tough sell in short term but perhaps could dangle them in final year of mandate after budget balanced.    I think biggest challenge for Tories in 2025 is Freeland or Carney will likely be Liberal leader not Justin Trudeau so won't carry same baggage.  But at same time not sure what their campaign chops are like.  Possible like Jim Prentice or Paul Martin, they may sound good on paper, but flop when on the campaign trail. 

[MaxQue]

Scheer had a great opportunity in 2019. Trudeau's main weakness with moderate LPC-CPC swing voters was the perception of corruption that resulted from SNC. Scheer could have made that campaign about increasing accountability, strengthening lobbying rules, or at least being more transparent about the government's dealings with corporations. What kind of policies he would put forward, or whether they would be effective, are completely immaterial as long as people believed that he could succeed where Trudeau failed.

SNC was a very tricky weapon. Using it was toxic in Quebec (SNC going down meant 10000 persons losing their jobs) and there was a counter-argument that EU countries makes deals like that all the time and that Canada refusing to do so was putting European businesses in front of Canadian ones. I think it's less damaging to look corrupt than anti-Canadian business.

[MaxQue]

CAQ MNA Claire Samson (Iberville) expelled from CAQ for sending a donation to the Quebec Conservative Party.

And she is now a PCQ MNA.

[2952-0-0]

Scheer had a great opportunity in 2019. Trudeau's main weakness with moderate LPC-CPC swing voters was the perception of corruption that resulted from SNC. Scheer could have made that campaign about increasing accountability, strengthening lobbying rules, or at least being more transparent about the government's dealings with corporations. What kind of policies he would put forward, or whether they would be effective, are completely immaterial as long as people believed that he could succeed where Trudeau failed.

SNC was a very tricky weapon. Using it was toxic in Quebec (SNC going down meant 10000 persons losing their jobs) and there was a counter-argument that EU countries makes deals like that all the time and that Canada refusing to do so was putting European businesses in front of Canadian ones. I think it's less damaging to look corrupt than anti-Canadian business.

The Conservatives used SNC as proof that the Liberals were coddling Quebec at Alberta's expense again.

"They gave SNC a pass to save Quebec jobs, while wanting to shut down Alberta tar sands" was the line they repeated, even when Scheer refused to explain how he would have handled SNC differently. It was completely dishonest, which was fitting, given Scheer's own dishonesty about himself.

[mileslunn]

I think Tories focusing too much on Alberta was a mistake.  Yes Alberta has had a rough past few years, but reality is Tories have most of those seats locked up and forming government comes down to gaining in BC, Ontario, and Quebec which under Scheer they made no real efforts at.  O'Toole is trying, but much of party is quite happy to be an Alberta/Saskatchewan party and I think real problem is party comes across as divided between those who want to modernize it and those who want to keep it stuck in the past.  And latter makes up most of its membership even if O'Toole wants to move it in another direction.

[MaxQue]

Scheer had a great opportunity in 2019. Trudeau's main weakness with moderate LPC-CPC swing voters was the perception of corruption that resulted from SNC. Scheer could have made that campaign about increasing accountability, strengthening lobbying rules, or at least being more transparent about the government's dealings with corporations. What kind of policies he would put forward, or whether they would be effective, are completely immaterial as long as people believed that he could succeed where Trudeau failed.

SNC was a very tricky weapon. Using it was toxic in Quebec (SNC going down meant 10000 persons losing their jobs) and there was a counter-argument that EU countries makes deals like that all the time and that Canada refusing to do so was putting European businesses in front of Canadian ones. I think it's less damaging to look corrupt than anti-Canadian business.

The Conservatives used SNC as proof that the Liberals were coddling Quebec at Alberta's expense again.

"They gave SNC a pass to save Quebec jobs, while wanting to shut down Alberta tar sands" was the line they repeated, even when Scheer refused to explain how he would have handled SNC differently. It was completely dishonest, which was fitting, given Scheer's own dishonesty about himself.

Making the SNC scandal about poor Alberta  being a victim again was also very stupid, as the average Ontarian probably doesn't like Alberta any more than Québec.