Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[Benjamin Frank]

I think Burnaby North-Seymour might be a better choice.  Still an uphill battle, but at least might have a fighting chance never mind Conservatives were unusually low there as candidate disqualified last time so since that is not likely to happen again, I expect Conservatives to get higher than 19% and probably more likely to come at expense of Liberals than NDP.

The NDP has already has a candidate there - North Vancouver councillor Jim Hanson.  He seems like a good pick for them since they need to improve their showing in the Seymour part of the riding.

To be completist: this is North Vancouver District, not the city of North Vancouver (as is the Federal riding.)  Jim Hanson ran for the NDP provincially in 2013 and did relatively well there, possibly presaging the NDP winning the riding in 2021.  He is also a prominent lawyer in the Greater Vancouver area.

[Benjamin Frank]

I don't wanna open a thread up yet since it's way too soon but we all think its better than 50/50 odds for a fall election?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-electoral-urgency-clause-1.6053095This along with the motion to allow for final speeches in mid-June seem to be pointing to an early call.

Oh it's happening. With vaccinations sorted out, there won't be a more opportune time for the Liberals to pull the plug. The Bloc has said they want an election too. The CPC will ring their hands for a few days about Trudeau calling an early election - then again, the man could hardly breathe air without causing a Conservative outrage. The NDP and Greens probably don't want an election though, the latter are in an internal crisis (not that it matters what a caucus of three thinks), and the NDP doesn't have anything to gain from a potential Liberal majority. But the Liberals seem to want an election, so they'll get it. The only real roadblock is the LPC's class of 2015 worrying about their sweet sweet pensions, which won't be an issue in a couple of months.

Does the pensions thing, in your opinion, feel like a concern that is particularly valid?

I don't know if this was a factor, but the 2020 New Brunswick provincial was also held right around the 2 year mark of the 2018 election.

M.Ps don't talk about it publicly, but privately it's said that it's something they're very protective of. So, they're likely very sympathetic to getting through the 2 year mark.

As Liberal M.P David Dingwall said about 15 years ago now "I'm entitled to my entitlements."

[Benjamin Frank]

With Greens infighting, I cannot see how this ends well for them.  Mind you BQ faced similar problem back around 2017, but at least it was a majority so enough time to change leaders and recover.  Greens lack that.  Wouldn't be surprised if Paul Manly's seat goes NDP.  Elizabeth May's seat is a tougher one as not exactly favourable to any of the other three parties.  A bit too affluent for NDP although possible but BC NDP is more moderate than federal NDP.  Liberals are very weak on Vancouver Island so seems unlikely.  Tories have won the riding in past, but Greater Victoria area has really shifted left in last decade.  More importantly Saanich-Gulf Islands has a lot of your educated well to do types and that group not just in Canada, but globally has really swung left over last decade. 

Overall probably good news for NDP as a lot of Green supporters are types who dislike both Liberals and Tories so I see NDP benefitting most.  Liberals could get some too as a fair bit of overlap.  Probably Tories being most harm as weaker splits although ironically on a lot of issues, Green voters aren't that left wing so if O'Toole runs on a moderate enough platform, there is some potential, but still overall probably a net loss for party. 

By my understanding, Bloc got saved in 2019 by the politically astute and dangerously charismatic YFB. There was also a vacuum for them to exploit - the Liberals were declining in popularity, Scheer was an awful fit for Quebec in so many ways, and the NDP was spiraling in Quebec. I don't think such a vacuum exists for the Greens now though, both the LPC and NDP are polling better than their 2019 results.

Also, the Bloc is (rightly) seen as a party that can actually win seats in Quebec and play a serious role in national politics. Whereas for the Greens, even if the events of the Atwin affair hadn't happened, they're just not taken seriously.

I think the Green collapse will help the Liberals most on balance, even if Green voters are more likely to switch to the NDP. Most of the seats that hold the keys to a LPC majority are LPC-CPC races, so even a minor consolidation of the centre-left vote could have a noticeable impact.

If Elizabeth May steps in as interim Green Party leader for the next election, most voters probably won't even be aware she ever stepped down and it would end up that she has a chance to learn from her mistakes in 2019.

I don't dispute that they have other problems though, especially in candidate recruitment, but there are really only maybe a dozen ridings that matter for them.

[Benjamin Frank]

The problem with the Green Party is that it doesn't have much practical reason to exist anymore. There may be some younger voters who are attracted to the 'newer' Green Party who don't see the 'new' in the 60 year old New Democratic Party, but I don't think that's a strong argument for the party's existence.

1.I believe there was a poll of voters, not even just party members or party officials, who said they could see little difference between the platforms of the N.D.P and the Green Party.

Before the ban on corporate and union donations, there was a clear difference, at least in perception, between the largely union funded NDP and the Greens, which sold themselves as not beholden to anybody, but this really isn't the case anymore in regards to the NDP.  As has been mentioned here previously, there also used to be a much larger contingent of right leaning greens (conservatives who ride bicycles) but they also don't really exist anymore.

2.The practical consequence of this is that the Green Party organization, with I suppose something of an exception in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Vancouver Island, is controlled by politically immature amateurs, and that's certainly what we saw here.

[Benjamin Frank]

More on the fissures in the Conservative Party:

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-conservative-party-is-at-odds-with-itself-can-otoole-pull-it-together/

Very interesting.  I think as said earlier biggest challenge for Tories is being conservative enough to appeal to base and moderate enough to appeal to swing voters.  A decade ago that was a challenge but there was enough overlap a good leader could accomplish that as Harper did.  Since then I believe the divergence has meant gap is too big.

Reason median voters have swung leftward is really two fold:

1.  Income Inequality: While greatest increases in income inequality came in 90s, Occupy Wall Street really put that in the spotlight and took it from a peripheral issue to central issue.  While free market may be good at creating prosperity, it tends to lead to fairly unequal outcomes.  Otherwise only way to reduce this is through a more activist government which off course any Conservative party will oppose thus helps parties on left.

2.  Climate Change: As risks from it are getting nearer and nearer, its become a bigger issue.  For left it is easy to win on as they tend to favour bigger government and most solutions here involve bigger government.  Yes a revenue neutral carbon tax is a market mechanism which if Tories had some foresight should have run on but problem is most of their base thinks climate change is a hoax while it is left who want strong action.  Not surprisingly those in the middle that want something done but open to different solutions are gravitating towards parties that believe it is a serious issue, not ones still debating whether it is real or a hoax.

By contrast base has become even more right wing than they were a decade ago and I blame three things primarily

1.  Social media echo chambers: Those who interact with people of different views are more likely to have moderate non-ideological viewpoints as they here a variety of viewpoints thus get a well rounded viewpoint.  If in an echo chamber only hearing one side, it tends to harden one's views and push them more to extremes.  Sort of like Fox News effect in US which has really pushed GOP to right.

2.  Election of Trump: With Trump pushing fake news and dark web conspiracy theories, that has drawn in a certain crowd and a lot come from base thus believe in ridiculous crazy ideas that are not grounded in any reality.  Yet trying to reason with them never works as they are convinced they are right.

3.  Social Conservatives:  Social Conservatives don't care about nuances, they feel strongly about issue and will never go away.  Since they thought Harper would advance their issues but didn't, they are determined to ensure next leader does and won't let them off the hook.  They figure like most eventually people will fatigue of Liberals and Tories will bounce back so they want to make sure their wishes get done this time.  They never consider possibility if Tories don't change, they may never win again.  They assume since all governments eventually get defeated and Tories only party to ever beat Liberals; party will eventually win someday no matter what position it takes.

I also think pandemic has really split right.  Left is pretty united in support of public health measures but right deeply split.  Red Tories tend to believe in policy serving greater good while more right wing believes in greater freedom.  In many cases common good and freedom are complimentary to each other so easy to stay on same page.  But with pandemic quite the opposite.  Common good is served by strict public health measures including lockdowns and mask mandates.  Right of party see this as infringement on freedom, which it is and thus oppose those measures.  Trying to take middle ground like Ford and Kenney did just angers both sides as moderates see putting lives at greater risk than necessary as a dereliction of duty while base sees this as an abuse of power and argue freedom trump everything else and health risk, especially if only a minority (around 1-2%) die is not sufficient reason to restrict one's freedom.

So in summary, I think a perfect storm has come about that basically puts right in a lose-lose situation.  Try to moderate and risk split on right.  Move further to right and only appeal to base and no one else.  And unlike in past where some middle ground between two could be found, now it seems doing that just angers both sides and pleases no one.

By contrast left is broadly united on most issues and differences are more over degree not direction.  Its very easy to compromise over degree.  Impossible to over direction.  

These are actually much bigger issues in the United States.  The issue I think is one of market failure and that what is good for an individual can be bad for the collective.  Overfishing is the classic example of that.

I remember a discussion on the PBS Newshour (McNeil Lehrer as it was called then) with an economist after the NAFTA debate between then Vice President Al Gore and Ross Perot and the subsequent passage of NAFTA in Congress.  The economist said that he was excited that the public supported an abstract economic concept like free trade and he predicted much benefit for the United States and continued support for free trade as long as the corporations and their executives did not take all the gains from trade for themselves.  

Canadian businesses I think have generally been more responsible than U.S businesses, but I think we all pretty much know how that economists' hope and warning went.  The problem was essentially that each corporation thought to themselves 'there is no harm if I take the gains from trade for myself.'  But, when virtually every corporation did it, they pretty much poisoned the well on free trade for tens of millions of Americans.

Of course, it's quite ironic that the initial beneficiary of the turn against globalization that was so championed by Republican free market ideologues in the 1990s was Donald Trump.  

I think this is also a large part of what is going on with global warming. In order to be a laissez faire/free market ideologue you have to deny the reality of market failures. So, specifically in this case, you have to deny the reality of global warming.

I don't know that it's so much that Canadians want 'big government' but most Canadians recognize that free market excesses and individual greed need to be reigned in and regulated to address market failures.  

I disagree the issue on the right in Canada and the United States is between degree and direction.  I think it's between 'principle' and practicality.  It isn't a new argument that Republican candidates tend to run on broad 'principle': 'freedom!' 'Constitutional conservative!" and Andrew Scheer in Canada was the exact same: right wing platitudes to pass for policy.

I agree that Erin O'Toole seems to be trying to move the Conservatives past this to some extent, but obviously a good deal of the party is resistant.


I don't listen to much talk radio in the United States (which thankfully seems to be mostly dying out in favor of interview podcasts) but there is clearly a schism on the right with older conservatives as represented by, say, John Batchelor (who clearly no longer has many listeners) but who does interviews (and doesn't take phone calls.) He styles himself as 'more intellectual' but his guests on economics are all from the CATO Institute who all mouth versions of 'business good, government bad' (or government baaaaaaaad if you like Animal Farm.)

In contrast, many younger right wing podcasters apparently minimize discussing economics, and when they do they tend to focus on bashing big tech.  (Interestingly, Batchelor also has guests on who bash big tech.)

In British Columbia, radio station CKNW which used to be the 'top dog' but now usually finishes third in the ratings and skews heavily to older listeners still has the idiot economist Michael Campbell (the much worse brother of former Premier Gordon Campbell) spouting free market nostrums as if the Financial Meltdown and rising income inequality never occurred.

[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?"

[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.

[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.

[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.  

[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.

[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.

[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.  

[Benjamin Frank]

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

And she is now a PCQ MNA.

Did the provincial Conservatives run candidates in Quebec in the last provincial election?

[Benjamin Frank]

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.

The problem for the Conservative Party is that they frequently act like a wholly owned subsidiary of the fossil fuel sector.

[Benjamin Frank]

In terms of the Conservative Party being in a bubble, I think it says something that their two leading M.Ps on political shows are Michelle Rempel Garner and Pierre Polievre.  Michelle Rempel Garner is a flaky joke and Pierre Polievre is a noxious hyper partisan.

There must be more reasonable people in their caucus who would be far better spokespeople than these two, but these two are, I believe, the two most popular M.Ps of the party's base.

[Benjamin Frank]

A thought occurs to me:

The People's and Maverick parties are doing very well by fringe party standards, particularly in Alberta. Have there been any discussions between them about not running candidates against each other? It would be pretty silly if the Liberals or NDP won a seat put West off a three way right wing vote split

What ridings have a large progressive population AND a large right wing populist population for that to happen though?

Back of the envelope, I can find Calgary Confederation, Edmonton Griesbach, and Edmonton Mill Woods.

It would require both a bad Conservative campaign and a disappointing NDP performance for these right-wing splits to lead to a Liberal win, though.

1.I don't think these far right wing parties will gain much support in urban Alberta.

2.Based on the polling, I think it's far more likely -in Edmonton- that the NDP will gain additional seats than the Liberals winning any riding in Alberta.

[Benjamin Frank]

Out here in the West Coast we are experiencing an early heat wave with potential record (100+ years) temperatures.

I don't know if anybody was planning for this to be an election on climate change, but the more this election is called in the late summer for an earlier fall vote, the more it could be again a huge issue.

The Conservative Party has made some strides to address climate change, but I don't know if it's enough.  What may have been enough for them even in 2019 may not be enough for them now.  For fans of science fiction, politically and addressing the problem is the Cold Equations.

Also, I don't know how much of a factor in Alberta the unpopularity of Jason Kenney is hurting the Conservative Party vs. the people of Alberta slowly moving on from fossil fuels and being a fossil fuel sector dominated petro state vs. simply bad summer polling, but it is interesting to see the Conservatives start to possibly lose support in their base.  Some Albertans have long said that Alberta was not the right wing caricature it had been painted as being, especially on social issues, and that may be true.

[Benjamin Frank]

There has been a spate of church burnings, and that has a very dark history in this part of the world. It took eight churches to burn before Trudeau stated these acts are unacceptable.

I think this guy is a jerk, but I agree with him here:

https://twitter.com/kinsellawarren/status/1410324914427604992
These arson attacks are getting a backlash from many moderate types, who are often not religious at all. They recognize these as a threat to public order, and Trudeau's slow response as emboldening these attacks. For someone like Trudeau, being accused of neglecting public order will be lethal, far more than attacks about socks, selfies, SNC Lavalin, or WE.

To be fair, it took Trudeau three days to call out the fires.  I don't know that it was that slow.

If politics is going to be played over fires and deaths, looking at fire destruction of the town of Lytton and the heat dome over the west,  I think the Conservatives inaction on global warming is a willful neglect that is going to be far more lethal.

[Benjamin Frank]

From the latest polls of a week ago, I think this provides some evidence to not read too much into the regional breakdowns of any single poll:

Leger
British Columbia
Liberal: 43%
Conservative: 34%
NDP: 20%
Green: 11%

Abacus Data
British Columbia
NDP: 37%
Liberal: 30%
Conservative: 27%
Green: 5%

Leger
Manitoba/Saskatchewan
Conservative: 47%
NDP: 27%
Liberal: 19%
Green: 5%

Abacus Data
Manitoba/Saskatchewan
Liberal: 34%
Conservative: 33%
NDP: 25%
Green: 5%

At least the NDP and the Greens are consistent here.

Of course, this is the most extreme difference in the polling.

[Benjamin Frank]

If that's likely, Poilievre losing would be satisfying. Alleslev is surely a goner too? And the Tories would lose nearly half their seats in BC, surely.

The NDP and the Liberals (and the Greens in some ridings) could split the votes enough to allow the Conservatives to keep most/all of their ridings. Of course, that's if the election were held now, in 2-3 months, who knows?

[Benjamin Frank]

This is apropos of nothing being discussed here at the present, but I was thinking of it, and it's a reason why I'm so skeptical of politicians who make absolutist principled arguments.

I doubt I can find a newspaper article on this, but I remember this quite clearly.

In 1993, the Reform Party elected 52 M.Ps including 24 in British Columbia and 22 in Alberta.  The Reform Party was a generally right wing populist party that argued for 'common sense conservatism' and against things like what is now referred to as 'wokeism' and affirmative action.

At the time the Reform Party was nominating candidates in British Columbia the party brass clearly didn't pay a lot of attention and they nominated people like Herb Grubel, an intelligent but fairly extreme reactionary economics professor, Ted White, a generally likeable but fairly flaky engineer who occasionally got a little too close to extremist groups like white nationalists.  (His problem seemed to be that he believed that EVERYBODY deserved to have their views represented) and Randy White an intelligent but volatile management accountant whose outburst before the 2004 election of "to heck with the courts" may have cost the Conservatives the election.

The only two of these M.Ps from British Columbia to make Stephen Harper's cabinet were John Duncan a professional forester (a person who maps out forests for cutting) who seemed to be reasonably capable and Jay Hill, who is now the leader of the pro-Alberta independence Maverick Party.

In contrast, in addition to Preston Manning and Deborah Grey, the only Reform M.P with federal Parliamentary experience as she was elected in a byelection shortly after the 1988 federal election were other capable people like Diane Ablonczy, a lawyer and farmer, Stephen Harper, Ian McClelland, the owner of a successful chain of photo processing outlets, Ray Speaker, a provincial Social Credit cabinet minister, Monte Solberg, an articulate radio station general manager and John Williams, an accountant with a capacity for detail.

All of these Alberta M.Ps were probably more capable than any Reform M.P from British Columbia. So, not surprisingly, as a believer in the principle of 'the best person for the job' Preston Manning initial shadow cabinet was dominated by Albertans who received most of the senior critic positions.

So, how did the British Columbia contingent take this?  Did they agree with Preston Manning that these Alberta M.Ps were the most capable and that they needed at least a couple years in Parliament before moving up in the ranks?  No! They demanded affirmative action arguing that British Columbia needed to be equally represented in the shadow cabinet especially since there were more Reform M.Ps from British Columbia than Alberta.  Not only that, they asked Reform Party supporters in British Columbia to flood Preston Manning with mail demanding that British Columbia receive equal shadow cabinet representation.

So much for these Reform Party M.Ps belief in absolutist principles when it was they who were the ones who felt unfairly treated.

[Benjamin Frank]

One other old time story that I just realized a couple days ago.  Peter Fenwick, the hardline pro union Newfoundland (and Labrador) provincial NDP leader in the 1980s ran for the Canadian Alliance Party in 2000.

Does anybody know more about this?

[Benjamin Frank]

At the time the Reform Party was nominating candidates in British Columbia the party brass clearly didn't pay a lot of attention and they nominated people like Herb Grubel, an intelligent but fairly extreme reactionary economics professor, Ted White, a generally likeable but fairly flaky engineer who occasionally got a little too close to extremist groups like white nationalists.  (His problem seemed to be that he believed that EVERYBODY deserved to have their views represented) and Randy White an intelligent but volatile management accountant whose outburst before the 2004 election of "to heck with the courts" may have cost the Conservatives the election.

The idea of Herb Grubel and Ted White representing Vancouver's North Shore just seems inconceivable today.  Reform had a strong ultra-right wing reactionary suburbia element.  Even in Calgary these two would be a bad fit today.

I don't think Ted White was a bad person, and I don't think he was ultra right wing personally, I used to hear him regularly on Rafe Mair and other talk shows.  He was just a democratic absolutist who didn't bother to think if the views he was representing were valid/sound.

In regards to Herb Grubel, I think he was better in many ways than John Reynolds who succeeded him.  

[Benjamin Frank]

This is apropos of nothing being discussed here at the present, but I was thinking of it, and it's a reason why I'm so skeptical of politicians who make absolutist principled arguments.

I doubt I can find a newspaper article on this, but I remember this quite clearly.

In 1993, the Reform Party elected 52 M.Ps including 24 in British Columbia and 22 in Alberta.  The Reform Party was a generally right wing populist party that argued for 'common sense conservatism' and against things like what is now referred to as 'wokeism' and affirmative action.

At the time the Reform Party was nominating candidates in British Columbia the party brass clearly didn't pay a lot of attention and they nominated people like Herb Grubel, an intelligent but fairly extreme reactionary economics professor, Ted White, a generally likeable but fairly flaky engineer who occasionally got a little too close to extremist groups like white nationalists.  (His problem seemed to be that he believed that EVERYBODY deserved to have their views represented) and Randy White an intelligent but volatile management accountant whose outburst before the 2004 election of "to heck with the courts" may have cost the Conservatives the election.

The only two of these M.Ps from British Columbia to make Stephen Harper's cabinet were John Duncan a professional forester (a person who maps out forests for cutting) who seemed to be reasonably capable and Jay Hill, who is now the leader of the pro-Alberta independence Maverick Party.

In contrast, in addition to Preston Manning and Deborah Grey, the only Reform M.P with federal Parliamentary experience as she was elected in a byelection shortly after the 1988 federal election were other capable people like Diane Ablonczy, a lawyer and farmer, Stephen Harper, Ian McClelland, the owner of a successful chain of photo processing outlets, Ray Speaker, a provincial Social Credit cabinet minister, Monte Solberg, a smart radio station manager and John Williams, an accountant.

All of these Alberta M.Ps were probably more capable than any Reform M.P from British Columbia. So, not surprisingly, as a believer in the principle of 'the best person for the job' Preston Manning initial shadow cabinet was dominated by Albertans who received most of the senior critic positions.

So, how did the British Columbia contingent take this?  Did they agree with Preston Manning that these Alberta M.Ps were the most capable and that they needed at least a couple years in Parliament before moving up in the ranks?  No! They demanded affirmative action arguing that British Columbia needed to be equally represented in the shadow cabinet especially since there were more Reform M.Ps from British Columbia than Alberta.  Not only that, they asked Reform Party supporters in British Columbia to flood Preston Manning with mail demanding that British Columbia receive affirmative action shadow cabinet representation.

So much for these Reform Party M.Ps belief in absolutist principles when it was they who were the ones who felt unfairly treated.

Interesting, though not surprising. Most people are only interested in principles as far as it advances their interests. Like how a lot of American conservatives talk about free speech and expression as one of their guiding principles, but get upset when black athletes kneel during the national anthem. I'm with you on not trusting "principled ideologues" because they very rarely are as principled as advertised (and those who are rarely get anywhere in the world of politics, because politics is ultimately about getting things done and not grandstanding about ideological purity).

Yes, the other point I was trying to get at was how easy it is for grandstanding politicians to flip from one absolutist principle to another, even when the other is completely the opposite of the first.

So, the absolutist principle for these M.Ps was 'best person for the job' until it became equal provincial representation through affirmative action.

I think we obviously see this with Republicans who are (or claim to be) anti 'cancel culture' except when it comes to the transgendered and to the teaching of actual history in schools, when they completely demand cancel culture.