Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[DC Al Fine]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-tells-canadians-parliament-is-dysfunctional-fueling/?cmpid=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Paywalled, but the headline says it all really.

We've seen this before. A leader of a minority government saying "parliament is dysfunctional" is just one step removed from calling an election.

Ah yes, because the NDP have been totally unwilling to play ball and work with the Liberals to pass stuff. Damn it Jagmeet, forcing the Libs to call an election

[mileslunn]

Liberals want to go now as one good chance of a majority.  But more importantly they say Tories getting a real shellacking.  Their thinking is Tories will mistaken this as they weren't right wing enough, so will elect an even more right wing leader ensuring they lose in 2025.  While this might be a bit arrogant, I've heard many Liberals actually think they have a shot at ensuring the Conservatives are knocked out of power for a generation.  Again things change quickly in Canadian politics so seems over the top.  But unlike Liberals, Tories known for infighting and quite divided so knocking party out of power for another decade is definitely feasible and in fact likely.

[Geoffrey Howe]

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

But unlike Liberals, Tories known for infighting and quite divided so knocking party out of power for another decade is definitely feasible and in fact likely.

That's one of the oddities of Canadian politics, that the Canadian right is much more factional and self-devouring than the left, when in almost every other country, the opposite is the case. I wonder if there's any academic work into this.

My theory is that:

1. The Canadian left (left of Liberal that is) is relatively ideologically unsophisticated. The spectrum really only runs between SocDems and DemSocs, and historically the divide in the left was about means, not ends. Ironically, this lack of ideological sophistication is what has kept the NDP/CCF united for so long, because generally speaking the NDP can agree on priorities, it's really just a question of how aggressive they should be.

2. The Canadian right encompasses too many traditions. Ultimately, conservatism is centred around preserving a shared identity, usually that of the majority/most powerful group. But it's incredibly hard to reconcile the different cultural identities in Canada.

3. The Liberals are ruthlessly pragmatic, often to a nauseating extent. But I can't put my finger on how this political pragmatism comes about, other than a desire for power which all parties have. Today's LPC has virtually no factions despite the LPC encompassing a pretty broad spectrum of Canadian politics, and the broad spectrum tends to hold pretty firm for the Liberals, with usually a corruption scandal and/or major fatigue required to dislodge them.

These three conditions combine to make Canada a perfect place for a party like the LPC. The NDP is resilient and relatively united, which prevents a bipolarization of Canadian politics. The CPC struggles to find a single unifying message. The Liberals take power, which halts the NDP and forces them to re-assert their relevance, and throws the CPC into yet another identity crisis.

[mileslunn]

But unlike Liberals, Tories known for infighting and quite divided so knocking party out of power for another decade is definitely feasible and in fact likely.

That's one of the oddities of Canadian politics, that the Canadian right is much more factional and self-devouring than the left, when in almost every other country, the opposite is the case. I wonder if there's any academic work into this.

My theory is that:

1. The Canadian left (left of Liberal that is) is relatively ideologically unsophisticated. The spectrum really only runs between SocDems and DemSocs, and historically the divide in the left was about means, not ends. Ironically, this lack of ideological sophistication is what has kept the NDP/CCF united for so long, because generally speaking the NDP can agree on priorities, it's really just a question of how aggressive they should be.

2. The Canadian right encompasses too many traditions. Ultimately, conservatism is centred around preserving a shared identity, usually that of the majority/most powerful group. But it's incredibly hard to reconcile the different cultural identities in Canada.

3. The Liberals are ruthlessly pragmatic, often to a nauseating extent. But I can't put my finger on how this political pragmatism comes about, other than a desire for power which all parties have. Today's LPC has virtually no factions despite the LPC encompassing a pretty broad spectrum of Canadian politics, and the broad spectrum tends to hold pretty firm for the Liberals, with usually a corruption scandal and/or major fatigue required to dislodge them.

These three conditions combine to make Canada a perfect place for a party like the LPC. The NDP is resilient and relatively united, which prevents a bipolarization of Canadian politics. The CPC struggles to find a single unifying message. The Liberals take power, which halts the NDP and forces them to re-assert their relevance, and throws the CPC into yet another identity crisis.

British Tories and CDU in Germany are opposite as both of those parties extremely pragmatic and willing to shift positions in which way they think country is going.  Both have strong factions but they manage to stay united.  In US, it seems divisions are equally strong on both sides so ends up being a wash.

BC Liberals were an interesting one as they cover a larger span of spectrum than Tories do yet have largely managed to stick together.  And unlike Tory race, current race hasn't attracted any hard right or crazy types and focus more on issues, not who can be most right wing.  Although wonder if having Liberal name does trick as gets vast majority of small c conservatives who care about policy, but keeps up the more crazy types who find the word offensive. 

Also another big reason is power of Laurentian Elites.  In Canada outside Prairies, there is generally a high level of deference to authority and establishment more so than in most countries.  That comes from our history as New France only allowed those who were Catholic and loyal to king to settle while United Empire Loyalists played a big role in shaping English Canada here.  Since our establishment tends to be united on most issues, there isn't same level of debate as most countries so less divisions.  And those challenging establishment even if idea is hardly radical elsewhere are portrayed as radicals.  An example of this would be a parallel private health system which is considered quite radical in Canada, yet norm in pretty much every industrialized country even ones we think of as being fairly socialistic.

In UK, establishment is more split with academia heavily leaning Labour, but business community heavily Tory.  Whereas in Canada unions and business at least in Central Canada both generally support Liberals.  In US, you have a strong anti-establishment element so if they had an equivalent of Laurentian Elites, that party would be doing horrible.

Part of reason I think establishment united is feeling with two languages and two cultures, allowing too much division would split up country and so much of our history based on reconciling two linguistic groups thus less time to focus on other issues.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I do fear that the Liberals may end up pulling a Theresa May, because there isn't really a legitimate case for a new election, and saying "you should give us a majority because we said so lol" can be bad for one's health.

That said, Justin Trudeau is not Theresa May. Guy's an electoral machine, and Theresa May definitely was not that. There's a reason why Liberals love the guy so much. It's not a Trudeau cult anymore like it used to be in 2015/16/17, but he embodies the kind of soft progressivism that traditionally wins elections for the LPC.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

But unlike Liberals, Tories known for infighting and quite divided so knocking party out of power for another decade is definitely feasible and in fact likely.

That's one of the oddities of Canadian politics, that the Canadian right is much more factional and self-devouring than the left, when in almost every other country, the opposite is the case. I wonder if there's any academic work into this.

My theory is that:

1. The Canadian left (left of Liberal that is) is relatively ideologically unsophisticated. The spectrum really only runs between SocDems and DemSocs, and historically the divide in the left was about means, not ends. Ironically, this lack of ideological sophistication is what has kept the NDP/CCF united for so long, because generally speaking the NDP can agree on priorities, it's really just a question of how aggressive they should be.

2. The Canadian right encompasses too many traditions. Ultimately, conservatism is centred around preserving a shared identity, usually that of the majority/most powerful group. But it's incredibly hard to reconcile the different cultural identities in Canada.

3. The Liberals are ruthlessly pragmatic, often to a nauseating extent. But I can't put my finger on how this political pragmatism comes about, other than a desire for power which all parties have. Today's LPC has virtually no factions despite the LPC encompassing a pretty broad spectrum of Canadian politics, and the broad spectrum tends to hold pretty firm for the Liberals, with usually a corruption scandal and/or major fatigue required to dislodge them.

These three conditions combine to make Canada a perfect place for a party like the LPC. The NDP is resilient and relatively united, which prevents a bipolarization of Canadian politics. The CPC struggles to find a single unifying message. The Liberals take power, which halts the NDP and forces them to re-assert their relevance, and throws the CPC into yet another identity crisis.

British Tories and CDU in Germany are opposite as both of those parties extremely pragmatic and willing to shift positions in which way they think country is going.  Both have strong factions but they manage to stay united.  In US, it seems divisions are equally strong on both sides so ends up being a wash.

BC Liberals were an interesting one as they cover a larger span of spectrum than Tories do yet have largely managed to stick together.  And unlike Tory race, current race hasn't attracted any hard right or crazy types and focus more on issues, not who can be most right wing.  Although wonder if having Liberal name does trick as gets vast majority of small c conservatives who care about policy, but keeps up the more crazy types who find the word offensive. 

Also another big reason is power of Laurentian Elites.  In Canada outside Prairies, there is generally a high level of deference to authority and establishment more so than in most countries.  That comes from our history as New France only allowed those who were Catholic and loyal to king to settle while United Empire Loyalists played a big role in shaping English Canada here.  Since our establishment tends to be united on most issues, there isn't same level of debate as most countries so less divisions.  And those challenging establishment even if idea is hardly radical elsewhere are portrayed as radicals.  An example of this would be a parallel private health system which is considered quite radical in Canada, yet norm in pretty much every industrialized country even ones we think of as being fairly socialistic.

In UK, establishment is more split with academia heavily leaning Labour, but business community heavily Tory.  Whereas in Canada unions and business at least in Central Canada both generally support Liberals.  In US, you have a strong anti-establishment element so if they had an equivalent of Laurentian Elites, that party would be doing horrible.

Part of reason I think establishment united is feeling with two languages and two cultures, allowing too much division would split up country and so much of our history based on reconciling two linguistic groups thus less time to focus on other issues.

I think this is generally right. Ultimately the Liberals' strength I think is that they can mean different things to different people. In Atlantic Canada and Northern Ontario, the Liberals are the party that supports economic development in the region and keeps out the big bad blue party. For Anglo Quebecers, the Liberals are the best-positioned party to counter nationalist forces, while for many Franco Quebecers the Liberals are the federal party most in touch with the interests of Quebec (except the Bloc). In Southern Ontario, Manitoba, and BC, they're the only party that can unite urban progressives (keep out the big bad blue party) with suburban moderates (transit good, middle class good, taxes meh, discrimination bad, guns bad, socially liberal).

[King of Kensington]

Re: Laurentian Elite, there's definitely been a shift toward "Brahmin Liberalism" in Rosedale, St. Paul's, North Toronto (Montreal's anglo elite has always been Liberal).  The Annex and Cabbagetown also have a "Brahmin Liberal" character.

[WMS]

Well, hell.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Well, hell.

Yep, I bet we're gonna find a whole lot more of these sites now that there's an active effort to search residential schools.

I think the 2020s are going to be a pretty big decade for indigenous-related politics in Canada. It's been brewing for some time. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Attawapiskat housing crisis, and the RCMP's MMIWG investigation all became frontpage news during the Harper years, and Trudeau capitalized on this by making reconciliation a big priority of his 2015 campaign. What I think Trudeau and the Liberal team didn't anticipate is the sheer volume of indigenous issues that would come to light, and how difficult it was going to be to actually reconcile differences between indigenous people and a nation born out of colonization.

We've opened up a can of worms, and rightly so, because we're the ones who put those worms there in the first place.

[2952-0-0]

From my personal experience, it was obvious that something like this was coming. So I was not surprised one tiny bit at the specific discoveries.

[mileslunn]

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/below-the-national-numbers-big-liberal-advantage/ar-AALserz?ocid=msedgntp .  It is Innovative which tends to slant Liberal but still I would be really worried if the Tories.  A lot is probably people are happy life is going back to normal, but I think in some ways if Tories had chosen Lewis or Sloan this might be a blessing in disguise as they would learn their lesson hard right doesn't work and choose a more moderate leader for 2025.  With O'Toole being moderate (I don't think any Tory leader could win right now, moderate or more right wing), good chance in 2025 they choose a more ideological type thus lose that election thus realistically 2029 is probably earliest they can return to office.  And that is provided they don't get wiped out.  While small samples, Abacus and Nanos suggest even in Prairies CPC has lost their advantage.  While I still think Tories will come out ahead in Alberta and Saskatchewan and maybe Manitoba (I think CPC wins popular vote here, but LPC more seats due to CPC running up margins in rural parts while LPC winning Winnipeg by narrower margins) it will probably be closer than normal while a real shellacking elsewhere.

Only thing that might deny Liberals a majority is BQ and NDP as both of them holding up and maybe even gaining.  That suggests to me Canadians are at least at moment clearly moving to left.  Yes pendulums swing back but also people's views tend to form when young and not change much.

[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.

[mileslunn]

Here is raw data on it https://innovativeresearch.ca/counting-seats-not-votes/?utm_campaign=CTM2021&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=CTM%202106%20Cluster%20Merge%20 .  Both CPC and NDP have lost a lot since 2011.  More interesting is Tories seeing biggest drop in Prairies (perhaps Kenney's unpopularity) thus may at least mean seat losses not as bad as a uniform swing would suggest since in Prairies they can drop 20 points and not lose many seats.

[Estrella]

I made a thing.



No cookies for guessing why I used the colour blue.

[DabbingSanta]

Quick update on polling and projected seats courtesy 338Canada's electoral calculator. 

At the provincial level, not much has changed since I last posted here in April.  It is amazing that politicians can be so unpopular here, garnering only 30-35% of the voting population's support, yet they still have a huge advantage because of the way our elections work.  Multi-party systems are great for representing diverse viewpoints, but they also allow for really terrible incumbents to keep getting re-elected.  The ideological differences between the left and right are too great to form a coalition to defeat either Ford or Trudeau, so it looks like we might be stuck with both for a while.

Ontario's 43rd election:  PC minority government
PC: 34% popular vote, 58 seats
NDP: 27% popular vote, 33 seats
Liberal: 28% popular vote, 32 seats
Green: 7% popular vote, 1 seat
Other parties: 4% popular vote

Canada's 44th election:  Liberal majority government
Liberal: 36% popular vote, 174 seats
PC: 29% popular vote, 103 seats
NDP: 19% popular vote, 33 seats
Bloc: 7% popular vote, 26 seats
Green: 6% popular vote, 2 seats
Other parties: 3% popular vote

[King of Kensington]

O'Toole said only an overwhelming vote for the Conservatives can put an end to a Liberal government propped up by Bloc Québécois, Green and NDP MPs largely sympathetic to its agenda.

Twelve years ago, O'Toole said, these parties signed a pact to govern Canada as a coalition — a reference to a failed agreement negotiated by former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion and his NDP counterpart, Jack Layton. Now, he said, left-leaning parties have aligned in this parliamentary session to pass bills "spending other people's money" and push the federal debt to an eye-popping level.

He said the progressive parties in Parliament are not distinct but rather "four different shades of red."

"They're all the same and they're all part of the problem," O'Toole said, adding voters have been left with an "illusion of choice" between parties bent on "overspending."

"There aren't five choices for Canadians — there are two," he added. "Canada's Conservatives on one side and the Liberal-NDP-Green-Bloc coalition on the other."

Doesn't he benefit from vote splitting on the center-left/left though?  Still, I guess this was about rallying the Conservative base.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-looming-last-session-parliament-1.6077204

[beesley]

I made a thing.



No cookies for guessing why I used the colour blue.

Obviously part of it is simply Conservatives voting in the way you'd expect, but it looks as if the MPs stance here is correlated with their district - obviously Alberta and Saskatchewan are socially conservative but outside of there it mostly seems to be Protestant heavy or Chinese-Canadian areas.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I made a thing.



No cookies for guessing why I used the colour blue.

Obviously part of it is simply Conservatives voting in the way you'd expect, but it looks as if the MPs stance here is correlated with their district - obviously Alberta and Saskatchewan are socially conservative but outside of there it mostly seems to be Protestant heavy or Chinese-Canadian areas.

A few that stood out for me:
- Aurora-Richmond Hill and Thornhill in the GTA. It makes sense because Alleslev and Kent are social moderates (and Alleslev is very vulnerable), but the former has a lot of Chinese-Canadians and the latter Orthodox Jews.
- Good old Andy Scheer in Regina-Qu'Appelle voting no, yet again ensuring that swing voters have no regrets about not making him PM
- Eric Duncan in Stormont-Dundas, the first (I think) openly gay CPC MP, voting yes. I mean, no surprise there either given who he is, but I'd imagine a straight MP for that riding would probably have very likely voted no.
- Interesting split in Southern Ontario, with rural SW and rural Eastern MPs overwhelmingly voting no, while most tories in rural central Ontario voting yes. Shows an interesting split in rural Ontario conservatism where the SW and east are much more influenced by religious conservatism and the middle much less so.
- Also, literally none in Quebec. Not surprising, this kind of GOP-esque religious conservatism is a huge turn-off for Quebec voters

[DC Al Fine]

https://twitter.com/Puglaas/status/1408057316344176650

In addition to her tireless efforts at reconciliation Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Carolyn Bennett also has time to snark First Nations MP's on Twitter

[Hatman 🍁]

Here is raw data on it https://innovativeresearch.ca/counting-seats-not-votes/?utm_campaign=CTM2021&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=CTM%202106%20Cluster%20Merge%20 .  Both CPC and NDP have lost a lot since 2011.  More interesting is Tories seeing biggest drop in Prairies (perhaps Kenney's unpopularity) thus may at least mean seat losses not as bad as a uniform swing would suggest since in Prairies they can drop 20 points and not lose many seats.

NDP seat numbers are always deflated between elections - it might be because people don't think strategically until actual campaigns, so NDP over-polls in non-NDP ridings and under-polls in their traditional territory during these pre-campaign periods. Back in June 2019, the NDP was *maybe* "winning" in one or 2 ridings.

[Hash]

In addition to her tireless efforts at reconciliation Crown-Indigenous Relations Minister Carolyn Bennett also has time to snark First Nations MP's on Twitter

Justin will need to stage a photo-op or take a knee to make up for this soon!

[mileslunn]

I made a thing.



No cookies for guessing why I used the colour blue.

Obviously part of it is simply Conservatives voting in the way you'd expect, but it looks as if the MPs stance here is correlated with their district - obviously Alberta and Saskatchewan are socially conservative but outside of there it mostly seems to be Protestant heavy or Chinese-Canadian areas.

A few that stood out for me:
- Aurora-Richmond Hill and Thornhill in the GTA. It makes sense because Alleslev and Kent are social moderates (and Alleslev is very vulnerable), but the former has a lot of Chinese-Canadians and the latter Orthodox Jews.
- Good old Andy Scheer in Regina-Qu'Appelle voting no, yet again ensuring that swing voters have no regrets about not making him PM
- Eric Duncan in Stormont-Dundas, the first (I think) openly gay CPC MP, voting yes. I mean, no surprise there either given who he is, but I'd imagine a straight MP for that riding would probably have very likely voted no.
- Interesting split in Southern Ontario, with rural SW and rural Eastern MPs overwhelmingly voting no, while most tories in rural central Ontario voting yes. Shows an interesting split in rural Ontario conservatism where the SW and east are much more influenced by religious conservatism and the middle much less so.
- Also, literally none in Quebec. Not surprising, this kind of GOP-esque religious conservatism is a huge turn-off for Quebec voters

Central Ontario probably due to GTA influence as a lot there are ex GTA residents and more upper middle income.  Southwestern Ontario is more your farm and rust belt so more socially conservative.  Even Liberals back in the days from this area like Roger Gallaway, Rose Marie Ur, Paul Steckle were quite socially conservative

Also looks like in Alberta much like on lockdowns strong urban/rural divide.  Most Calgary and Edmonton ones voted yea, but all but two rural voted nay and of those first Edmonton-Wetaskiwin is mixed while Banff-Airdrie includes Banff, Canmore, and Lake Louise which are quite socially progressive as well as many wealthy educated types who love just outside the city of Calgary so very right wing fiscally, but socially moderate. 

Quebec on the banning sex selective abortion also had all Tories voted nay so no surprise all voted yea.  Brian Mulroney had same thing in 1987 on private member's bill to bring back to death penalty and most of his caucus in English Canada voted yea, but his Quebec caucus overwhelmingly nay which is what killed it along with opposition.  On other hand seems Saskatchewan really stands out as a socially conservative province as all 14 voted yea to sex selective abortion and 13 of 14 nay on gay conversion.

[King of Kensington]

Saskatchewan is the Canadian North Dakota.

[mileslunn]

New Brunswick also has some fairly socially conservative parts and I believe is one of the more religious provinces.  They just don't wear it on their sleeves like people do further West or in US, its more a personal thing and keep it out of politics. 

Quebec being very secular is due to history.  Catholic church up until early 60s basically controlled everything in Quebec life so during Quiet Revolution strong backlash thus due to history Quebecers are quite wary of mixing religion and politics.  Protestant churches never exerted same level of control.

One interesting though is in Lower Mainland despite being socially liberal, you saw a number of nays on C-6 and yeas on C-233.  Back in 2005 on gay marriage also saw several Liberal MPs in GTA vote nay when they had free votes.  So I think in metro areas you do have a strong socially conservative element amongst recent immigrants.  But that is more transitional as I've found their children tend to be fairly socially liberal unlike parents.  In addition most immigrants understand our country is more socially liberal than their home country so many accept status quo here and don't try to push for change even if social conservatives themselves.  The biggest ones pushing for regression are overwhelmingly white.