Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[mileslunn]

I think CAQ is a weird mix and probably closer to BQ federally than Tories.  Yes is like Tories in some way, but still strong differences.  For PCQ, they are very much like Poilievre Conservatives less so like O'Toole.  Also rise of PCQ and PLQ moving leftward means more space in centre and Legault seems like a more tactical than ideological type so will go where thinks best opportunity for party is. 

That being said, I suspect most of the federal Tory caucus will vote CAQ not PCQ and while unlikely they disclose who they vote for, I kind of have feeling those who endorsed Charest go CAQ and the one who endorsed Poilievre goes PCQ.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I think CAQ is a weird mix and probably closer to BQ federally than Tories.  Yes is like Tories in some way, but still strong differences.  For PCQ, they are very much like Poilievre Conservatives less so like O'Toole.  Also rise of PCQ and PLQ moving leftward means more space in centre and Legault seems like a more tactical than ideological type so will go where thinks best opportunity for party is.  

That being said, I suspect most of the federal Tory caucus will vote CAQ not PCQ and while unlikely they disclose who they vote for, I kind of have feeling those who endorsed Charest go CAQ and the one who endorsed Poilievre goes PCQ.

Approximating Quebec parties to federal ones is a bit of a fool's errand anyway. Take the recent controversy around a CAQ minister complaining about immigrants "moving to Montreal, not learning French, not getting jobs". This kind of sentiment is held by some federal conservatives too but not mainstream and is more right-wing than normal CPC policy. You could imagine Bernier saying this, but not Poilievre or anyone in his front bench. Yet on other issues, CAQ is firmly to the left of the CPC, like when it comes to resource/pipeline development.

If anything, Quebec parties are best approximated to European parties (if you take out the sovereignty issue, because that complicates things). CAQ is like a hybrid of standard liberal conservatism and national conservatism with a lot of support with older voters. PCQ is a more libertarian right-wing party that normally has less support in European countries. The Liberals are a "Renew Europe" type party, PQ are traditional labour-oriented "boomer soc dems", and QS is a more millennial/zoomer oriented leftist party.

My point is, there isn't a clear PCQ=CPC or CAQ=CPC analogy to be drawn, or even a PLQ=LPC or QS=NDP one. The lines can get very blurred when you switch between provincial and federal voting coalitions.

[Benjamin Frank]

Mattea Roach first episode as host of The Backbench.

She is the young Canadian who is a 23 game winner on Jeopardy!

https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-backbench/id1344871955?i=1000579998092

Our new host, Mattea Roach, ponders Poilievre’s political playbook with Riley Yesno, David Moscrop and Catherine Griwkowsky on this week’s panel episode. And you know the saying, leaders come and go. As Pierre Poilievre makes his way into the Conservative leadership, Queen Elizabeth II has left us. Is it time to crack open our constitution and jettison the monarchy once and for all?

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Mattea Roach first episode as host of The Backbench.

She is the young Canadian who is a 23 game winner on Jeopardy!

https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-backbench/id1344871955?i=1000579998092

Our new host, Mattea Roach, ponders Poilievre’s political playbook with Riley Yesno, David Moscrop and Catherine Griwkowsky on this week’s panel episode. And you know the saying, leaders come and go. As Pierre Poilievre makes his way into the Conservative leadership, Queen Elizabeth II has left us. Is it time to crack open our constitution and jettison the monarchy once and for all?

Jeopardy-Canadaland crossover, now I've seen it all.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Mattea Roach first episode as host of The Backbench.

She is the young Canadian who is a 23 game winner on Jeopardy!

https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-backbench/id1344871955?i=1000579998092

Our new host, Mattea Roach, ponders Poilievre’s political playbook with Riley Yesno, David Moscrop and Catherine Griwkowsky on this week’s panel episode. And you know the saying, leaders come and go. As Pierre Poilievre makes his way into the Conservative leadership, Queen Elizabeth II has left us. Is it time to crack open our constitution and jettison the monarchy once and for all?

Welp, this podcast made me realize that I'm going to weep like a baby when Steve Paikin retires from TVO, because I swear that man is the only Canadian media personality able to host an unbiased and thought-provoking show on Canadian public affairs.

[Benjamin Frank]

Mattea Roach first episode as host of The Backbench.

She is the young Canadian who is a 23 game winner on Jeopardy!

https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-backbench/id1344871955?i=1000579998092

Our new host, Mattea Roach, ponders Poilievre’s political playbook with Riley Yesno, David Moscrop and Catherine Griwkowsky on this week’s panel episode. And you know the saying, leaders come and go. As Pierre Poilievre makes his way into the Conservative leadership, Queen Elizabeth II has left us. Is it time to crack open our constitution and jettison the monarchy once and for all?

Welp, this podcast made me realize that I'm going to weep like a baby when Steve Paikin retires from TVO, because I swear that man is the only Canadian media personality able to host an unbiased and thought-provoking show on Canadian public affairs.

I saw Steve Paikin on CBC television years ago when he hosted the 1990 Ontario election I think and I know what he looks like, but I don't really know anything about him.  

I don't know that it's possible to be completely unbiased (and not just in politics) and I'm not sure that it makes for a good program anyway. I'm not sure that anything that doesn't have a point of view but what? asks a series of questions to receive random facts is all that interesting or thought-provoking.

My preference is for more narrowly tailored programs that try to discuss all valid opinions on a topic (like ABC's All in the Mind), so they don't necessarily have a bias, but I don't really see that as all that possible for a great deal of public affairs programs.

I certainly think there is a place for a program in Canadian public affairs like ABC's Rear Vision that discusses the historical context of public policy, but those programs require a great deal of knowledge.

Of course, it's also impossible in a 30 minute program to seriously discuss all valid sides of an issue. If you agree with David Moscrop, as I more or less do, that wealthy elites have subverted democracy and use faux populism to dupe a certain segment of the population into supporting these wealthy elites, that takes at least 30 minutes in an episode to discuss.

If you, on the other hand, believe that right wing populism is really a spontaneous force and that claiming they've been duped is intellectual elitism, that also takes at least 30 minutes to begin to explain.

Then there are people like me, for instance, who agree with David Moscrop's premise, but disagree with his conclusion in response of social democracy.

Mattea Roach and David Moscrop are about as intelligent as 99% of humans can be, I'm not sure you can get much better for radio/podcast programs. I haven't heard Steve Paikan, is he really unbiased or do you just share his biases and don't recognize it?

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Mattea Roach first episode as host of The Backbench.

She is the young Canadian who is a 23 game winner on Jeopardy!

https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-backbench/id1344871955?i=1000579998092

Our new host, Mattea Roach, ponders Poilievre’s political playbook with Riley Yesno, David Moscrop and Catherine Griwkowsky on this week’s panel episode. And you know the saying, leaders come and go. As Pierre Poilievre makes his way into the Conservative leadership, Queen Elizabeth II has left us. Is it time to crack open our constitution and jettison the monarchy once and for all?

Welp, this podcast made me realize that I'm going to weep like a baby when Steve Paikin retires from TVO, because I swear that man is the only Canadian media personality able to host an unbiased and thought-provoking show on Canadian public affairs.

I saw Steve Paikin on CBC television years ago when he hosted the 1990 Ontario election I think and I know what he looks like, but I don't really know anything about him.  

I don't know that it's possible to be completely unbiased (and not just in politics) and I'm not sure that it makes for a good program anyway. I'm not sure that anything that doesn't have a point of view but what? asks a series of questions to receive random facts is all that interesting or thought-provoking.

My preference is for more narrowly tailored programs that try to discuss all valid opinions on a topic (like ABC's All in the Mind), so they don't necessarily have a bias, but I don't really see that as all that possible for a great deal of public affairs programs.

I certainly think there is a place for a program in Canadian public affairs like ABC's Rear Vision that discusses the historical context of public policy, but those programs require a great deal of knowledge.

Of course, it's also impossible in a 30 minute program to seriously discuss all valid sides of an issue. If you agree with David Moscrop, as I more or less do, that wealthy elites have subverted democracy and use faux populism to dupe a certain segment of the population into supporting these wealthy elites, that takes at least 30 minutes in an episode to discuss.

If you, on the other hand, believe that right wing populism is really a spontaneous force and that claiming they've been duped is intellectual elitism, that also takes at least 30 minutes to begin to explain.

Then there are people like me, for instance, who agree with David Moscrop's premise, but disagree with his conclusion in response of social democracy.

Mattea Roach and David Moscrop are about as intelligent as 99% of humans can be, I'm not sure you're can get much better for radio/podcast programs. I haven't heard Steve Paikan, is he really unbiased or do you just share his biases and don't recognize it?

My focus wasn't so much on the "unbiased" part vis-a-vis Steve Paikin, but no, I don't think it's a case of him sharing my biases. I have yet to hear anyone of any stripe describe Paikin as partisan or biased, except maybe people on the fringes of the far-left and far-right. I've been watching his show for years, for much of which I was a Liberal supporter, and I never saw a conservative bias in him then either.

To your point though, I agree that a fair panel is not necessarily always one that has a pure balance of political views. I can't stand CNN's panels for example, where they always try to stir up drama by always having some contrarian on. Sometimes you actually want a panel that comes at things from a narrow set of views - in fact, Paikin specifically does this. However, I don't think the best way to do this is to have a panel of left-leaning people analyzing a right-wing politician - or for that matter, a panel of right-leaning people analyzing a left-wing politician.

In his segment on Poilievre, for example, where he had Ginny Roth and Andrew Coyne. That was a panel that leaned right for sure, whereas this segment on the NDP exclusively involves NDP people. So it's not a matter of being completely neutral and balanced - I think the host should try their best to be, but the guests are certainly entitled to their angles. But this is where guest selection matters.

With the Ginny Roth/Andrew Coyne dynamic, you have a duo where one person is a Poilievre supporter and can argue where his politics is coming from, and the other is someone who is critical of Poilievre and can ground that criticism in a small-c conservative framework which leads to far more specific critiques of the shortcomings and inconsistencies in a conservative's message. But with David Moscrop for example, while his criticism may well be valid and substantive, I think it ultimately does listeners a disservice to only hear about a right-wing politician from a distinctly left-wing lens - and this would apply the other way too.

[Benjamin Frank]

Mattea Roach first episode as host of The Backbench.

She is the young Canadian who is a 23 game winner on Jeopardy!

https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-backbench/id1344871955?i=1000579998092

Our new host, Mattea Roach, ponders Poilievre’s political playbook with Riley Yesno, David Moscrop and Catherine Griwkowsky on this week’s panel episode. And you know the saying, leaders come and go. As Pierre Poilievre makes his way into the Conservative leadership, Queen Elizabeth II has left us. Is it time to crack open our constitution and jettison the monarchy once and for all?

Welp, this podcast made me realize that I'm going to weep like a baby when Steve Paikin retires from TVO, because I swear that man is the only Canadian media personality able to host an unbiased and thought-provoking show on Canadian public affairs.

I saw Steve Paikin on CBC television years ago when he hosted the 1990 Ontario election I think and I know what he looks like, but I don't really know anything about him.  

I don't know that it's possible to be completely unbiased (and not just in politics) and I'm not sure that it makes for a good program anyway. I'm not sure that anything that doesn't have a point of view but what? asks a series of questions to receive random facts is all that interesting or thought-provoking.

My preference is for more narrowly tailored programs that try to discuss all valid opinions on a topic (like ABC's All in the Mind), so they don't necessarily have a bias, but I don't really see that as all that possible for a great deal of public affairs programs.

I certainly think there is a place for a program in Canadian public affairs like ABC's Rear Vision that discusses the historical context of public policy, but those programs require a great deal of knowledge.

Of course, it's also impossible in a 30 minute program to seriously discuss all valid sides of an issue. If you agree with David Moscrop, as I more or less do, that wealthy elites have subverted democracy and use faux populism to dupe a certain segment of the population into supporting these wealthy elites, that takes at least 30 minutes in an episode to discuss.

If you, on the other hand, believe that right wing populism is really a spontaneous force and that claiming they've been duped is intellectual elitism, that also takes at least 30 minutes to begin to explain.

Then there are people like me, for instance, who agree with David Moscrop's premise, but disagree with his conclusion in response of social democracy.

Mattea Roach and David Moscrop are about as intelligent as 99% of humans can be, I'm not sure you're can get much better for radio/podcast programs. I haven't heard Steve Paikan, is he really unbiased or do you just share his biases and don't recognize it?

My focus wasn't so much on the "unbiased" part vis-a-vis Steve Paikin, but no, I don't think it's a case of him sharing my biases. I have yet to hear anyone of any stripe describe Paikin as partisan or biased, except maybe people on the fringes of the far-left and far-right. I've been watching his show for years, for much of which I was a Liberal supporter, and I never saw a conservative bias in him then either.

To your point though, I agree that a fair panel is not necessarily always one that has a pure balance of political views. I can't stand CNN's panels for example, where they always try to stir up drama by always having some contrarian on. Sometimes you actually want a panel that comes at things from a narrow set of views - in fact, Paikin specifically does this. However, I don't think the best way to do this is to have a panel of left-leaning people analyzing a right-wing politician - or for that matter, a panel of right-leaning people analyzing a left-wing politician.

In his segment on Poilievre, for example, where he had Ginny Roth and Andrew Coyne. That was a panel that leaned right for sure, whereas this segment on the NDP exclusively involves NDP people. So it's not a matter of being completely neutral and balanced - I think the host should try their best to be, but the guests are certainly entitled to their angles. But this is where guest selection matters.

With the Ginny Roth/Andrew Coyne dynamic, you have a duo where one person is a Poilievre supporter and can argue where his politics is coming from, and the other is someone who is critical of Poilievre and can ground that criticism in a small-c conservative framework which leads to far more specific critiques of the shortcomings and inconsistencies in a conservative's message. But with David Moscrop for example, while his criticism may well be valid and substantive, I think it ultimately does listeners a disservice to only hear about a right-wing politician from a distinctly left-wing lens - and this would apply the other way too.

I haven't listened to your links with Andrew Coyne, but I think it's not accurate to label him as 'small c conservative.' In many ways he's more of a contrarian than anything else. However, he also has a masters in economics who understands economics conceptually. It is true, that he is still something of a doctrinaire Monetarist which limits his appreciation of newer economic theories including behavioral economics at times, but he is an interesting person who is more interested in ideas than in promoting an ideological viewpoint, which I think is the real problem with David Moscrop.

So, I think what makes Coyne work is that he also incorporates arguments like Moscrop's (and mine) that right wing populism is an astroturf movement that dupes a lot of people into supporting performative politicians like Poilievre who don't offer solutions. If Coyne wasn't a contrarian who advances ideas from multiple points of view, I think having a 'small c conservative' challenging a Poilievre supporter would be much less effective.

Of course, Coyne is such a contrarian that in addition to criticizing Poilievre, he has a 'genuine' case of 'Trudeau Derangement Syndrome.'

If you go back far enough, CTV News briefly tried a segment featuring a debate between former B.C Social Credit cabinet minister and radio talk show host Rafe Mair and far right wing extremist Diane Francis (though she is also a never Trumper, but she also, for instance, held Hilary Clinton's policies responsible for Trump winning.) Rafe Mair became more and more left wing the older he got as he loved fly fishing and became obsessed with the environment (as he had been previously obsessed with the constitution) but at that time, he was still generally center right. This segment did not last long.

[SnowLabrador]

Out of curiosity, how much do most Canadians hate the US? I know 81% of Canadians support keeping the border closed, not that I disagree.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Mattea Roach first episode as host of The Backbench.

She is the young Canadian who is a 23 game winner on Jeopardy!

https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-backbench/id1344871955?i=1000579998092

Our new host, Mattea Roach, ponders Poilievre’s political playbook with Riley Yesno, David Moscrop and Catherine Griwkowsky on this week’s panel episode. And you know the saying, leaders come and go. As Pierre Poilievre makes his way into the Conservative leadership, Queen Elizabeth II has left us. Is it time to crack open our constitution and jettison the monarchy once and for all?

Welp, this podcast made me realize that I'm going to weep like a baby when Steve Paikin retires from TVO, because I swear that man is the only Canadian media personality able to host an unbiased and thought-provoking show on Canadian public affairs.

I saw Steve Paikin on CBC television years ago when he hosted the 1990 Ontario election I think and I know what he looks like, but I don't really know anything about him.  

I don't know that it's possible to be completely unbiased (and not just in politics) and I'm not sure that it makes for a good program anyway. I'm not sure that anything that doesn't have a point of view but what? asks a series of questions to receive random facts is all that interesting or thought-provoking.

My preference is for more narrowly tailored programs that try to discuss all valid opinions on a topic (like ABC's All in the Mind), so they don't necessarily have a bias, but I don't really see that as all that possible for a great deal of public affairs programs.

I certainly think there is a place for a program in Canadian public affairs like ABC's Rear Vision that discusses the historical context of public policy, but those programs require a great deal of knowledge.

Of course, it's also impossible in a 30 minute program to seriously discuss all valid sides of an issue. If you agree with David Moscrop, as I more or less do, that wealthy elites have subverted democracy and use faux populism to dupe a certain segment of the population into supporting these wealthy elites, that takes at least 30 minutes in an episode to discuss.

If you, on the other hand, believe that right wing populism is really a spontaneous force and that claiming they've been duped is intellectual elitism, that also takes at least 30 minutes to begin to explain.

Then there are people like me, for instance, who agree with David Moscrop's premise, but disagree with his conclusion in response of social democracy.

Mattea Roach and David Moscrop are about as intelligent as 99% of humans can be, I'm not sure you're can get much better for radio/podcast programs. I haven't heard Steve Paikan, is he really unbiased or do you just share his biases and don't recognize it?

My focus wasn't so much on the "unbiased" part vis-a-vis Steve Paikin, but no, I don't think it's a case of him sharing my biases. I have yet to hear anyone of any stripe describe Paikin as partisan or biased, except maybe people on the fringes of the far-left and far-right. I've been watching his show for years, for much of which I was a Liberal supporter, and I never saw a conservative bias in him then either.

To your point though, I agree that a fair panel is not necessarily always one that has a pure balance of political views. I can't stand CNN's panels for example, where they always try to stir up drama by always having some contrarian on. Sometimes you actually want a panel that comes at things from a narrow set of views - in fact, Paikin specifically does this. However, I don't think the best way to do this is to have a panel of left-leaning people analyzing a right-wing politician - or for that matter, a panel of right-leaning people analyzing a left-wing politician.

In his segment on Poilievre, for example, where he had Ginny Roth and Andrew Coyne. That was a panel that leaned right for sure, whereas this segment on the NDP exclusively involves NDP people. So it's not a matter of being completely neutral and balanced - I think the host should try their best to be, but the guests are certainly entitled to their angles. But this is where guest selection matters.

With the Ginny Roth/Andrew Coyne dynamic, you have a duo where one person is a Poilievre supporter and can argue where his politics is coming from, and the other is someone who is critical of Poilievre and can ground that criticism in a small-c conservative framework which leads to far more specific critiques of the shortcomings and inconsistencies in a conservative's message. But with David Moscrop for example, while his criticism may well be valid and substantive, I think it ultimately does listeners a disservice to only hear about a right-wing politician from a distinctly left-wing lens - and this would apply the other way too.

I haven't listened to your links with Andrew Coyne, but I think it's not accurate to label him as 'small c conservative.' In many ways he's more of a contrarian than anything else. However, he also has a masters in economics who understands economics conceptually. It is true, that he is still something of a doctrinaire Monetarist which limits his appreciation of newer economic theories including behavioral economics at times, but he is an interesting person who is more interested in ideas than in promoting an ideological viewpoint, which I think is the real problem with David Moscrop.

So, I think what makes Coyne work is that he also incorporates arguments like Moscrop's (and mine) that right wing populism is an astroturf movement that dupes a lot of people into supporting performative politicians like Poilievre who don't offer solutions. If Coyne wasn't a contrarian who advances ideas from multiple points of view, I think having a 'small c conservative' challenging a Poilievre supporter would be much less effective.

Of course, Coyne is such a contrarian that in addition to criticizing Poilievre, he has a 'genuine' case of 'Trudeau Derangement Syndrome.'

If you go back far enough, CTV News briefly tried a segment featuring a debate between former B.C Social Credit cabinet minister and radio talk show host Rafe Mair and far right wing extremist Diane Francis (though she is also a never Trumper, but she also, for instance, held Hilary Clinton's policies responsible for Trump winning.) Rafe Mair became more and more left wing the older he got as he loved fly fishing and became obsessed with the environment (as he had been previously obsessed with the constitution) but at that time, he was still generally center right. This segment did not last long.

Coyne is known to be all over the place politically, but I'd still characterize him as a small-c conservative in a very broad sense of the word. He's certainly not in-tune with the modern day Conservative Party, it's a more elitist, patrician conservatism that doesn't play very well in Canada, where the conservative movement has always been inherently populist and grassroots-oriented.

[Benjamin Frank]

Mattea Roach first episode as host of The Backbench.

She is the young Canadian who is a 23 game winner on Jeopardy!

https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/the-backbench/id1344871955?i=1000579998092

Our new host, Mattea Roach, ponders Poilievre’s political playbook with Riley Yesno, David Moscrop and Catherine Griwkowsky on this week’s panel episode. And you know the saying, leaders come and go. As Pierre Poilievre makes his way into the Conservative leadership, Queen Elizabeth II has left us. Is it time to crack open our constitution and jettison the monarchy once and for all?

Welp, this podcast made me realize that I'm going to weep like a baby when Steve Paikin retires from TVO, because I swear that man is the only Canadian media personality able to host an unbiased and thought-provoking show on Canadian public affairs.

This is an example of a more narrowly focused program, although I'm sure you've heard them before. I post this because it actually fits with Danielle Smith, since her whole 'Sovereignty Act' act is, at best, an attempt at hardball negotiations.


https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/the-art-of-negotiation/14050848
You might not think of yourself as a negotiator but big or small we all negotiate daily.

Getting better at it could make your life easier.

So what's the most effective way to negotiate?

Is playing hardball ever a useful strategy?

And what do you do when you're at a power disadvantage?

[sting in the rafters]

Newfoundland and Labrador joined Quebec, Ontario, and Nova Scotia in withholding league dues from Hockey Canada in light of the sexual abuse scandal.

If you play(ed )junior hockey, are a parent whose child is currently enrolled, or have a sibling who does/did, your league dues went towards this. I implore posters from the Prairie provinces and points west to contact their MPP and voice their displeasure, as well as Canucks far and wide to tell their MP/other relevant federal officials of their support for the ongoing audit into Hockey Canada's misuse of public funds. It's going to take a lot more to uproot the misogynistic culture rampant in Canada (and mine's) favorite sport, but this seems a good starting point for action.

[MaxQue]

Newfoundland and Labrador joined Quebec, Ontario, and Nova Scotia in withholding league dues from Hockey Canada in light of the sexual abuse scandal.

If you play(ed )junior hockey, are a parent whose child is currently enrolled, or have a sibling who does/did, your league dues went towards this. I implore posters from the Prairie provinces and points west to contact their MPP and voice their displeasure, as well as Canucks far and wide to tell their MP/other relevant federal officials of their support for the ongoing audit into Hockey Canada's misuse of public funds. It's going to take a lot more to uproot the misogynistic culture rampant in Canada (and mine's) favorite sport, but this seems a good starting point for action.

Also, Eastern and Northwestern Ontario, as they are seperate federations.

[Central Lake]

Atlantic Canada interesting and Newfoundland seems has really moved right in recent years.  Maybe perhaps as William's ABC campaign becomes distant memory but also I think view Liberals hostile to energy sector may hurt them there never mind most Tory gains are in traditionally Liberal ridings, i.e. Rural Newfoundland not St. John's so Newfoundland seems to be starting to vote like rest of Canada.

Something interesting I've heard re: Newfoundland is that the large number of Alberta expats who came back to the rock brought their newfound conservatism with them. Surely that doesn't explain the whole shift, but it has probably played a role.

I think also feeling a left behind and feeling Liberals are too much of a big city party.  Fairly or not, I think Liberals and NDP have image they are large city parties whereas Tories more rural one so that probably plays some role as not always ideology but also views on which party most understands my issues.

I might be ignorant on this but to me rural P.E.I and rural Nova Scotia stand out in this regard. Parts of rural New Brunswick being Liberal due to the French/Acadian factor. With Newfoundland moving right, and Tories doing better in NDP areas in Ontario, P.E.I and N.S seem to be the only places with no movement.

In the 2021 election LPC got 46% in Egmont, 42% in Malpeque, 47% in Charlottetown, and 51% in Cardigan. Instead of rural, non-metropolitan might be a better descriptor. Still if P.E.I was transposed in Ontario, or Alberta won't it make sense for Charlottetown to go Liberal and the other three ridings going Conservative. Or a notable difference when Liberals do much better/Cons do much worse in Charlottetown as an urban centre.

Any thoughts why this might be the case.

[Benjamin Frank]

Atlantic Canada interesting and Newfoundland seems has really moved right in recent years.  Maybe perhaps as William's ABC campaign becomes distant memory but also I think view Liberals hostile to energy sector may hurt them there never mind most Tory gains are in traditionally Liberal ridings, i.e. Rural Newfoundland not St. John's so Newfoundland seems to be starting to vote like rest of Canada.

Something interesting I've heard re: Newfoundland is that the large number of Alberta expats who came back to the rock brought their newfound conservatism with them. Surely that doesn't explain the whole shift, but it has probably played a role.

I think also feeling a left behind and feeling Liberals are too much of a big city party.  Fairly or not, I think Liberals and NDP have image they are large city parties whereas Tories more rural one so that probably plays some role as not always ideology but also views on which party most understands my issues.

I might be ignorant on this but to me rural P.E.I and rural Nova Scotia stand out in this regard. Parts of rural New Brunswick being Liberal due to the French/Acadian factor. With Newfoundland moving right, and Tories doing better in NDP areas in Ontario, P.E.I and N.S seem to be the only places with no movement.

In the 2021 election LPC got 46% in Egmont, 42% in Malpeque, 47% in Charlottetown, and 51% in Cardigan. Instead of rural, non-metropolitan might be a better descriptor. Still if P.E.I was transposed in Ontario, or Alberta won't it make sense for Charlottetown to go Liberal and the other three ridings going Conservative. Or a notable difference when Liberals do much better/Cons do much worse in Charlottetown as an urban centre.

Any thoughts why this might be the case.

My understanding is that PEI is becoming the Canadian version of Vermont with a lot of retired wealthy environmentalists living there.

In regards to Nova Scotia, parts of rural Nova Scotia are Conservative (and conservative) but the Annapolis Valley region seems to still be much more Liberal (and liberal.)  The Conservatives won that riding in the 2021 election due to a significant fishery dispute and the Liberal M.P there happening to be the Fisheries Minister. If she had held any other portfolio, she likely would have been reelected.

[Benjamin Frank]

New episode of The Backbench with Mattea Roach.

https://www.canadaland.com/podcast/48-ndp-new-dental-plan/

Our host Mattea Roach, tackles the “new” and “exciting” Federal dental plan with Riley Yesno, Stuart Thomson, and Nick Taylor-Vaisey. The NDP are patting themselves on the back for getting something done in Ottawa—but how much have they really accomplished here? Speaking of “new” and “exciting” we need to talk about the IRCC’s new proposed immigration pathways that seem to be recycled old ones.

[mileslunn]

Out of curiosity, how much do most Canadians hate the US? I know 81% of Canadians support keeping the border closed, not that I disagree.

That was back before vaccines when covid was running wild.  I think that has less to due with anti-Americanism and more wanting to keep covid out.  I suspect now support for closing border is probably at most 20%, maybe lower.  With how many back to travelling, I think most like elsewhere wish to put pandemic behind them even if not fully over.  What would be more interesting would be what percentage of Canadians think unvaccinated Americans should be allowed to visit Canada since we opened border to vaccinated Americans on August 9, 2021 but only opened for unvaccinated Americans on October 1, 2022.

Likewise I could see a fair number even saying only Americans who have gotten their third or fourth shot can cross, but those that want to ban tourism outright are very much a minority now.  During covid most countries to varying degrees closed borders but have since re-opened.

[mileslunn]

Atlantic Canada interesting and Newfoundland seems has really moved right in recent years.  Maybe perhaps as William's ABC campaign becomes distant memory but also I think view Liberals hostile to energy sector may hurt them there never mind most Tory gains are in traditionally Liberal ridings, i.e. Rural Newfoundland not St. John's so Newfoundland seems to be starting to vote like rest of Canada.

Something interesting I've heard re: Newfoundland is that the large number of Alberta expats who came back to the rock brought their newfound conservatism with them. Surely that doesn't explain the whole shift, but it has probably played a role.

I think also feeling a left behind and feeling Liberals are too much of a big city party.  Fairly or not, I think Liberals and NDP have image they are large city parties whereas Tories more rural one so that probably plays some role as not always ideology but also views on which party most understands my issues.

I might be ignorant on this but to me rural P.E.I and rural Nova Scotia stand out in this regard. Parts of rural New Brunswick being Liberal due to the French/Acadian factor. With Newfoundland moving right, and Tories doing better in NDP areas in Ontario, P.E.I and N.S seem to be the only places with no movement.

In the 2021 election LPC got 46% in Egmont, 42% in Malpeque, 47% in Charlottetown, and 51% in Cardigan. Instead of rural, non-metropolitan might be a better descriptor. Still if P.E.I was transposed in Ontario, or Alberta won't it make sense for Charlottetown to go Liberal and the other three ridings going Conservative. Or a notable difference when Liberals do much better/Cons do much worse in Charlottetown as an urban centre.

Any thoughts why this might be the case.

PEI with its small town charm has lots of urban retirees from Central Canada so its more akin to Southern Vancouver Island where Tories also quite weak only difference goes Liberal instead of NDP or Greens.  Annapolis Valley is like PEI thus similar swing.  Rural Nova Scotia is a real mix.  Cape Breton Island is like rural Newfoundland and swinging right.  Yes still Liberal, but O'Toole outperformed Harper 2011 there much like rural Newfoundland.  Rural Mainland Nova Scotia an interesting mix.  Central Nova I think is more a case of local candidate.  Sean Fraser is very popular as provincially this area goes massively PC since Tim Houston from there and quite popular so tough to read exact ideological leanings.

Cumberland-Colchester is definitely most conservative part of province.  West Nova went Conservative due to MP so again local factor.  South Shore-St. Margaret's saw Liberal minister Bernadette Jordan lose over lobster fishery dispute.  So I would say mainland Rural Nova Scotia is more a case where local candidate still matters and party label is less important.  Not exactly sure why.

[SnowLabrador]

Trudeau had better sever diplomatic ties with the US immediately. Would you want to live in a country bordering Nazi Germany in the 1930s? This is why if I leave the US, I'd prefer the UK over Canada.

[Continential]

Trudeau had better sever diplomatic ties with the US immediately. Would you want to live in a country bordering Nazi Germany in the 1930s? This is why if I leave the US, I'd prefer the UK over Canada.

lol

[Benjamin Frank]

Pierre Poilievre has appointed the Conservative Shadow Cabinet.

There are always two directions these things can go, either a slimmed down critics list to show focus, especially supposedly in contrast to the government, or an expansive list to make sure pretty much every M.P gets something and that every conservative interest group gets represented.  

Despite being the undisputed champion of the Conservative Party, Poilievre went the latter route with 52 senior critics (including himself), 20 associate critics, and, I gather 18 assistant critics. I only heard this on a news talk radio discussion and haven't yet looked at the list myself.

This is in addition to the 9 caucus officers, 3 committee chairs and Deputy Speaker Chris D'Entremont.

Jasraj Singh Hallan is the Shadow Finance Minister, a significant promotion but he apparently essentially shares the role with several other related critics (including Poilievre himself presumably) including John Williamson who was appointed Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

Covid denier Marilyn Gladu was appointed as Civil Liberties critic, which should be interesting, especially in light of Premier Danielle Smith's comments today.

Gerard Deltell was appointed the Shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change, which is interesting given Quebec being a leading province on environmental issues.

The media has highlighted three left off:
1.Ed Fast. I don't think this is a surprise. He had previously requested not being part of Andrew Scheer's Shadow Cabinet, has been an M.P since 2006 and is very unlikely to run again. The expectation is that longtime provincial Liberal MLA, provincial cabinet minister and Poilievre supporter Mike deJong will seek the nomination in Ed Fast's Abbotsford riding.

2.Erin O'Toole. He apparently asked to be left out saying that he didn't want to be a distraction. I think this pretty much confirms that he won't run again. Being nonpartisan, I think the Liberals might do well to make use of his talents and experience and appoint him to some senior position. The goal would not be to cause a byelection as I think the Conservatives should hold his Durham riding but to appoint him to some senior position.

Although his judgement was called into question quite a bit, I could see him possibly appointed to a federal court, though not the Supreme Court, given an Ambassadorship or appointed to the Senate, for instance.

3.Michelle Rempel Garner. I certainly thought at the time that Rempel Garner yelled out in Parliament for the government to 'stop being woke' that she was trying to get back into the good graces of the Federal Conservatives and Pierre Poilievre, and I'm not surprised that her stunt didn't work. I think she is washed up as a Federal Conservative, and possibly in politics.  I was surprised the polling in Alberta showed her as a front runner for the UCP leadership race, even if I'm sure some of that was merely higher name recognition, but, while I don't like to make predictions, I predict that if she wanted to run for reelection, that she'd lose renomination.

Given Danielle Smith's performance so far, I think it's possible the UCP leadership may be open again soon, but, like I said, I don't like making predictions and that's quite far ahead.

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

It's a total mystery why recent New Brunswick elections have trended towards increasingly ugly levels of ethnic polarisation when this guy can be Premier propped up by a party that runs on 'French-speakers are why you can't get an ambulance', isn't it?

https://twitter.com/poitrasCBC/status/1580568307903578113?t=YR8Fo5yBo8CNFOfI97FG...

[Independents for Nihilism]

[float=right][/float]

It's a total mystery why recent New Brunswick elections have trended towards increasingly ugly levels of ethnic polarisation when this guy can be Premier propped up by a party that runs on 'French-speakers are why you can't get an ambulance', isn't it?

https://twitter.com/poitrasCBC/status/1580568307903578113?t=YR8Fo5yBo8CNFOfI97FG...

Higgs' PCs have straight up been the party of "French speakers are why you can't get an ambulance" ever since they absorbed the People's Alliance, it's like the UCP of Alberta on a smaller scale. New Brunswick exists as a more efficient model of merging cultural grievance and soulless corporate interests than DeSantis could dream of.

[Hatman 🍁]

Will Cardy try to join the Greens or Liberals next? :-P

[Leading Political Consultant Ma Anand Sheela]

Will Cardy try to join the Greens or Liberals next? :-P

I understand there's a vacancy at the head of the NDP again.