Canada General Discussion (2019-)

[Upper Canada Tory]

For provincial politics the full results are on the French side of their website.

For the federal vote intentions / possible alliance, the result was in a son of Léger column (result at the bottom). It doesn't give regional numbers which could be interesting (does the race in the prairies get more competitive? what happens in Ontario?) He says the Bloc would gain 4% with a Lib-NDP alliance.

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2023/04/29/sondage-lalliance-entre-les-liberaux-et-le-npd-pourrait-etre-la-voie-de-sortie-de-trudeau

Merci!

[Upper Canada Tory]

I was polled by Léger and there were a couple of questions on an alliance LIB-NDP and merger of the two. I hope it's for a public poll.

I would also like to see the provincial numbers. The CAQ abandoned its promise to get another link for cars between Quebec City and Lévis. Many in the region will feel betrayed.

It is public. Normal federal vote intentions from Léger:
CPC 36%
LIB 30%
NDP 19%
Bloc 7%
Green 4%
PPC 2%

If there is an alliance between LIB and NDP, with only one of the two parties running a candidate in a riding:
LIB-NDP 41%
CPC 39%
Bloc 8%
Green 6%
PPC 3%

For Quebec provincial voting intentions, CAQ drops 4% since February:

CAQ 36%
PQ 22%
QS 16%
LPQ 14%
PCQ 10%

In the Quebec City region, CAQ has declined by 14%, PQ and PCQ benefit. It's PQ 28, CAQ 26. PCQ 23.

Quebec City is split on the decision to abandon building a tunnel for cars between Québec and Lévis.  46% agree with the decision, 45% disagree. The whole province number is 47% agree, 29% disagree.

One thing that surprises me a bit in the polling regarding the Lib-NDP alliance is that the CPC doesn't get more of a boost from Blue Grits and moderate former Liberal voters. The CPC only gets a 3% boost post Lib-NDP alliance. Also, the smaller parties mostly have mostly similar amounts of support pre and post Lib-NDP alliance, interestingly.

[Hatman 🍁]

If the parties merge, I would be one of the one's switching to the Greens.

[Benjamin Frank]

If the parties merge, I would be one of the one's switching to the Greens.

I don't know if this is anything you don't know, but there has been media commentary of the NDP and the Liberals merging basically since the founding of the NDP and nothing has ever come of it.

The NDP-Liberal agreement from 1972-1974 is still fairly frequently discussed, New Democrats still point to it as the example of when the NDP used its position to 'achieve positive things for Canadians' but seemingly forgotten is the period from 1963-1968 when the Liberals were also in a minority government and frequently turned to the NDP for support passing legislation.

At that time, NDP leader Tommy Douglas was asked by the media about a possible merger with the Liberals.

I don't know if there were media commentary from 1972-1974, but Ed Broadbent in 1988 mused of a two party system in which blue Liberals would join the P.Cs and red Liberals would join the NDP.

There was also the offer from Pierre Trudeau sometime after the 1980 election for a coalition with the NDP which Ed Broadbent dismissed out of hand.

Then after the 2011 election, both New Democrats and Liberals discussed joint nomination meetings with Nathan Cullen running for the NDP leadership on that platform and Joyce Murray doing the same running for the Liberal leadership.

These things never go anywhere because, leaving the officials in both parties who tend to be the most partisan aside, the two parties are ultimately too far apart on too many issues.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

I was polled by Léger and there were a couple of questions on an alliance LIB-NDP and merger of the two. I hope it's for a public poll.

I would also like to see the provincial numbers. The CAQ abandoned its promise to get another link for cars between Quebec City and Lévis. Many in the region will feel betrayed.

It is public. Normal federal vote intentions from Léger:
CPC 36%
LIB 30%
NDP 19%
Bloc 7%
Green 4%
PPC 2%

If there is an alliance between LIB and NDP, with only one of the two parties running a candidate in a riding:
LIB-NDP 41%
CPC 39%
Bloc 8%
Green 6%
PPC 3%

For Quebec provincial voting intentions, CAQ drops 4% since February:

CAQ 36%
PQ 22%
QS 16%
LPQ 14%
PCQ 10%

In the Quebec City region, CAQ has declined by 14%, PQ and PCQ benefit. It's PQ 28, CAQ 26. PCQ 23.

Quebec City is split on the decision to abandon building a tunnel for cars between Québec and Lévis.  46% agree with the decision, 45% disagree. The whole province number is 47% agree, 29% disagree.

One thing that surprises me a bit in the polling regarding the Lib-NDP alliance is that the CPC doesn't get more of a boost from Blue Grits and moderate former Liberal voters. The CPC only gets a 3% boost post Lib-NDP alliance. Also, the smaller parties mostly have mostly similar amounts of support pre and post Lib-NDP alliance, interestingly.

I really don't think there's much evidence for the existence of "Blue Grits" in today's day and age, at least not in any sizeable number. Similar thing with "Red Tories". Swing voters obviously exist, but they seem to be the kind of people who are all over the place, not people with a particularly clear ideology that can be defined as "Blue Grit"

[Hatman 🍁]

Hmm, what would you call all those Ford Liberals?

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

God I love Scott Aitchison.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the CPC should go all-in on YIMBY politics. O'Toole started the shift, but he was a terrible messenger and it didn't land. Poilievre has continued going in that direction, but it's mostly rhetoric so far. But he's made a very smart choice in giving Aitchison the housing portfolio and letting him loose on that file.

Aitchison isn't the kind of guy to inspire the rank-and-file, which is why he's not cut out for leadership in today's age of GOTV. But he's the kind of guy who can soothe the concerns of undecided voters who may not like the leader's hard edge. I believe the next election will be the election of the single-issue housing voter, so housing is exactly where you want a more moderate and conciliatory messenger.

I've always been skeptical of the idea that the way for Canadian Conservatives to win elections is to pivot to the center, because there's very little evidence to actually suggest that. The way Tories typically win elections is not by running as centrists, but by flanking the Liberals on their weak spots. Harper did this with the Accountability Act. Paul Martin was trusted on the economy, environment, childcare, healthcare, foreign policy, pretty much everything except for ethics/accountability, due to the sponsorship scandal. So Harper used this weak spot to put forward a message that non-Tories could get on board with. For Poilievre, housing in particular and CoL in general could be the breakthrough, and Aitchison is the guy who can push "YIMBY Toryism" into the mainstream.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

Hmm, what would you call all those Ford Liberals?

So I'm not sure there really are all that many "Ford Liberals". Bear with me here - the CPC got 35% of the vote in Ontario in 2021, and PCPO got 40%. Also, turnout was lower in the Ontario election, so presumably some voters who came out for Trudeau didn't come out for Del Duca/Horwath. If we assume that most CPC voters went PC, a reasonable assumption, that leaves a pretty small cohort of LPC-PC voters (not to mention "Ford Dippers").

Anyway, obviously there are a fair few Trudeau-Ford voters. But are these people "Blue Grits" or "Red Tories"? Well, Ford isn't much of a Red Tory. In fact, he's basically the quintessential "Blue Tory". And Trudeau is far from a Blue Grit. O'Toole was far more "red" than Ford, you'd think he would do better with the Blue Grit/Red Tory cohort than Ford did. And yet, O'Toole didn't do as well as Ford in the suburbs where this cohort supposedly resides.

So to answer your question, while I'm sure Blue Grits and Red Tories were a factor, there are other cohorts such as:

1. Ford Nation Liberals - A smaller cohort than in Rob Ford's 2010 campaign, but clearly a factor in Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough. These people are the opposite of your stereotypical red tory/blue grit - lower income, lower educational attainment, racially diverse.

2. Issue-based voters - Think about how Ford's warm relations with some private-sector unions did wonders in places like Windsor and Timmins, or how Brampton saw a huge PC swing, arguably because of the 413. There are voters who think the Tories are better on things like economy and infrastructure, and the Liberals are better on things like healthcare and environment. They simultaneously hold these positions, and vote based on which issue is top-of-mind. This is anecdotal, but I'm basically describing my parents. They both thought Ford handled COVID terribly and don't trust him on healthcare at all, but both ended up voting PC, because other issues were top-of-mind.

3. Personality-based voters - A lot of people vote based on leadership approval, not issues. So you can imagine someone who likes Trudeau and wanted to give him a second term, but also likes Ford and wanted to give him a second term too.

Anyway, I've typed more than enough and need to get back to work but I think political observers are too quick to create neat little segments based on a vague understanding of the political spectrum. The reality is, voters make decisions based on a number of factors, not just which party is closest to them on the political compass. Again, O'Toole is a great example of someone who appealed to those theoretical blue liberals, but not to the three segments I mentioned above.

[Hatman 🍁]

I do think - as evidenced by the 2011 federal election and the 2018 provincial election, that there are a group of usually reliable Liberal voters that do swing to the right and vote Tory when the NDP bogeyman appears. You often see this group vote against progressives in municipal elections too.  I suppose 2011 was a long time ago now, but that wasn't exactly a low turnout election.

[Benjamin Frank]

God I love Scott Aitchison.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the CPC should go all-in on YIMBY politics. O'Toole started the shift, but he was a terrible messenger and it didn't land. Poilievre has continued going in that direction, but it's mostly rhetoric so far. But he's made a very smart choice in giving Aitchison the housing portfolio and letting him loose on that file.

Aitchison isn't the kind of guy to inspire the rank-and-file, which is why he's not cut out for leadership in today's age of GOTV. But he's the kind of guy who can soothe the concerns of undecided voters who may not like the leader's hard edge. I believe the next election will be the election of the single-issue housing voter, so housing is exactly where you want a more moderate and conciliatory messenger.

I've always been skeptical of the idea that the way for Canadian Conservatives to win elections is to pivot to the center, because there's very little evidence to actually suggest that. The way Tories typically win elections is not by running as centrists, but by flanking the Liberals on their weak spots. Harper did this with the Accountability Act. Paul Martin was trusted on the economy, environment, childcare, healthcare, foreign policy, pretty much everything except for ethics/accountability, due to the sponsorship scandal. So Harper used this weak spot to put forward a message that non-Tories could get on board with. For Poilievre, housing in particular and CoL in general could be the breakthrough, and Aitchison is the guy who can push "YIMBY Toryism" into the mainstream.

I thought of joining the Conservatives to vote for Scott Aitchison but I decided not to because I didn't think he had a chance of winning anyway and because I didn't think it was right to be a tourist in the Conservative Party.

[Upper Canada Tory]

God I love Scott Aitchison.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the CPC should go all-in on YIMBY politics. O'Toole started the shift, but he was a terrible messenger and it didn't land. Poilievre has continued going in that direction, but it's mostly rhetoric so far. But he's made a very smart choice in giving Aitchison the housing portfolio and letting him loose on that file.

Aitchison isn't the kind of guy to inspire the rank-and-file, which is why he's not cut out for leadership in today's age of GOTV. But he's the kind of guy who can soothe the concerns of undecided voters who may not like the leader's hard edge. I believe the next election will be the election of the single-issue housing voter, so housing is exactly where you want a more moderate and conciliatory messenger.

I've always been skeptical of the idea that the way for Canadian Conservatives to win elections is to pivot to the center, because there's very little evidence to actually suggest that. The way Tories typically win elections is not by running as centrists, but by flanking the Liberals on their weak spots. Harper did this with the Accountability Act. Paul Martin was trusted on the economy, environment, childcare, healthcare, foreign policy, pretty much everything except for ethics/accountability, due to the sponsorship scandal. So Harper used this weak spot to put forward a message that non-Tories could get on board with. For Poilievre, housing in particular and CoL in general could be the breakthrough, and Aitchison is the guy who can push "YIMBY Toryism" into the mainstream.

Sounds like someone has a conflict of interest here, eh, Doug Ford's Developer Buddy?  

In all seriousness, Aitchison's YIMBY politics is one of the reasons I supported him in the leadership race. At the same time, I think even the conservatives who have campaigned on YIMBYism could to a better job of coming up with well-thought out policy to that effect. For example, Aitchison promised in his 2022 leadership race platform to end exclusionary zoning, but that's not something the federal government could do since that is implemented by municipal governments.

To do so, the federal government would need to create an incentive system for the provinces to increase housing supply, which is likely what candidates at the federal level should be talking about more than solutions that should be implemented by municipal/provincial governments.

[The Right Honourable Martin Brian Mulroney PC CC GOQ]

God I love Scott Aitchison.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the CPC should go all-in on YIMBY politics. O'Toole started the shift, but he was a terrible messenger and it didn't land. Poilievre has continued going in that direction, but it's mostly rhetoric so far. But he's made a very smart choice in giving Aitchison the housing portfolio and letting him loose on that file.

Aitchison isn't the kind of guy to inspire the rank-and-file, which is why he's not cut out for leadership in today's age of GOTV. But he's the kind of guy who can soothe the concerns of undecided voters who may not like the leader's hard edge. I believe the next election will be the election of the single-issue housing voter, so housing is exactly where you want a more moderate and conciliatory messenger.

I've always been skeptical of the idea that the way for Canadian Conservatives to win elections is to pivot to the center, because there's very little evidence to actually suggest that. The way Tories typically win elections is not by running as centrists, but by flanking the Liberals on their weak spots. Harper did this with the Accountability Act. Paul Martin was trusted on the economy, environment, childcare, healthcare, foreign policy, pretty much everything except for ethics/accountability, due to the sponsorship scandal. So Harper used this weak spot to put forward a message that non-Tories could get on board with. For Poilievre, housing in particular and CoL in general could be the breakthrough, and Aitchison is the guy who can push "YIMBY Toryism" into the mainstream.

Sounds like someone has a conflict of interest here, eh, Doug Ford's Developer Buddy?  

In all seriousness, Aitchison's YIMBY politics is one of the reasons I supported him in the leadership race. At the same time, I think even the conservatives who have campaigned on YIMBYism could to a better job of coming up with well-thought out policy to that effect. For example, Aitchison promised in his 2022 leadership race platform to end exclusionary zoning, but that's not something the federal government could do since that is implemented by municipal governments.

To do so, the federal government would need to create an incentive system for the provinces to increase housing supply, which is likely what candidates at the federal level should be talking about more than solutions that should be implemented by municipal/provincial governments.

What conflict of interest? Anyway, Dougie's on the phone, he wants to sell me a beautiful piece of wetland.

I joke, I'm not actually a developer, but without giving away too much personal information, my line of work is very close to the development industry. In fact, housing/planning/zoning is probably the singular political issue that I feel most confident and qualified speaking about. And yes, it's fundamentally a supply imbalance, however you cut it - the federal government and BoC subsidize demand, and local governments restrict supply, you get higher prices. Speculation is a problem, but the very thing that made housing speculation such a lucrative business in Canada is the supply imbalance. Flipping houses for a profit only works when you have 50 people desperately lining up to buy.

So on the incentives thing, Poilievre has actually been talking about it, because really this is the only lever the federal government has. The idea of tying federal transfers to the easing of supply-restricting policies is easier said than done and would have complications, but is still the most realistic way of getting anything done on this file from the federal level. Thing is, I'm not sure how effective Pierre's messaging on this issue is. His line is "get the gatekeepers out of the way", which appeals to people like me, but people like me are going to vote Conservative anyway. There's also the promise of selling off unused government buildings (which wouldn't make much of a difference, but is better than nothing), and requiring high-density housing around federally-funded transit stations (which is a great policy, but again, would only make a difference in limited cases).

The main thing has to be to get municipal governments to massively reform zoning and cut red tape so we can actually get some supply. Some of this is already happening on the provincial level, from politicians of all stripes, like Ford in Ontario and Eby in BC. So "get the gatekeepers out of the way" is a pretty good way of going about it, but I'm not sure this message really lands with voters concerned about the housing issue, at least in the way he delivers it.

That's where I think Aitchison comes in. I think the housing issue is the singular thing that could drive Conservative turnout in the next election (although the way this whole China business is going, we may get an election sooner than expected fought on a completely different set of issues). Poilievre needs to keep delivering his message, but I'm glad he's given Aitchison this file, and I hope he lets Scott do his thing and speak directly to voters, to drive the YIMBY message home.

[Upper Canada Tory]

God I love Scott Aitchison.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the CPC should go all-in on YIMBY politics. O'Toole started the shift, but he was a terrible messenger and it didn't land. Poilievre has continued going in that direction, but it's mostly rhetoric so far. But he's made a very smart choice in giving Aitchison the housing portfolio and letting him loose on that file.

Aitchison isn't the kind of guy to inspire the rank-and-file, which is why he's not cut out for leadership in today's age of GOTV. But he's the kind of guy who can soothe the concerns of undecided voters who may not like the leader's hard edge. I believe the next election will be the election of the single-issue housing voter, so housing is exactly where you want a more moderate and conciliatory messenger.

I've always been skeptical of the idea that the way for Canadian Conservatives to win elections is to pivot to the center, because there's very little evidence to actually suggest that. The way Tories typically win elections is not by running as centrists, but by flanking the Liberals on their weak spots. Harper did this with the Accountability Act. Paul Martin was trusted on the economy, environment, childcare, healthcare, foreign policy, pretty much everything except for ethics/accountability, due to the sponsorship scandal. So Harper used this weak spot to put forward a message that non-Tories could get on board with. For Poilievre, housing in particular and CoL in general could be the breakthrough, and Aitchison is the guy who can push "YIMBY Toryism" into the mainstream.

Sounds like someone has a conflict of interest here, eh, Doug Ford's Developer Buddy?  

In all seriousness, Aitchison's YIMBY politics is one of the reasons I supported him in the leadership race. At the same time, I think even the conservatives who have campaigned on YIMBYism could to a better job of coming up with well-thought out policy to that effect. For example, Aitchison promised in his 2022 leadership race platform to end exclusionary zoning, but that's not something the federal government could do since that is implemented by municipal governments.

To do so, the federal government would need to create an incentive system for the provinces to increase housing supply, which is likely what candidates at the federal level should be talking about more than solutions that should be implemented by municipal/provincial governments.

What conflict of interest? Anyway, Dougie's on the phone, he wants to sell me a beautiful piece of wetland.

I joke, I'm not actually a developer, but without giving away too much personal information, my line of work is very close to the development industry. In fact, housing/planning/zoning is probably the singular political issue that I feel most confident and qualified speaking about. And yes, it's fundamentally a supply imbalance, however you cut it - the federal government and BoC subsidize demand, and local governments restrict supply, you get higher prices. Speculation is a problem, but the very thing that made housing speculation such a lucrative business in Canada is the supply imbalance. Flipping houses for a profit only works when you have 50 people desperately lining up to buy.

So on the incentives thing, Poilievre has actually been talking about it, because really this is the only lever the federal government has. The idea of tying federal transfers to the easing of supply-restricting policies is easier said than done and would have complications, but is still the most realistic way of getting anything done on this file from the federal level. Thing is, I'm not sure how effective Pierre's messaging on this issue is. His line is "get the gatekeepers out of the way", which appeals to people like me, but people like me are going to vote Conservative anyway. There's also the promise of selling off unused government buildings (which wouldn't make much of a difference, but is better than nothing), and requiring high-density housing around federally-funded transit stations (which is a great policy, but again, would only make a difference in limited cases).

The main thing has to be to get municipal governments to massively reform zoning and cut red tape so we can actually get some supply. Some of this is already happening on the provincial level, from politicians of all stripes, like Ford in Ontario and Eby in BC. So "get the gatekeepers out of the way" is a pretty good way of going about it, but I'm not sure this message really lands with voters concerned about the housing issue, at least in the way he delivers it.

That's where I think Aitchison comes in. I think the housing issue is the singular thing that could drive Conservative turnout in the next election (although the way this whole China business is going, we may get an election sooner than expected fought on a completely different set of issues). Poilievre needs to keep delivering his message, but I'm glad he's given Aitchison this file, and I hope he lets Scott do his thing and speak directly to voters, to drive the YIMBY message home.

To this, I would also add that the CMHC is part of the problem by subsidizing the mortgage insurance market & by not recognizing we have a supply problem while doing so. This is another area of federal government policy that can be reformed.

Otherwise, I agree. Bring the YIMBY message home!

[Upper Canada Tory]

Ontario has passed a bill allowing private clinics to provide certain OHIP-covered surgeries.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9681967/ontario-passes-health-reform-bill-private-care/

[oldtimer]

Something very bad has happened in canadian society especially among the young there, they are a lot in favour of killing people on the basis of poverty, that's some way radical conservatism there:

https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1655394452817555469

[Neo-Malthusian Misanthrope]

Something very bad has happened in canadian society especially among the young there, they are a lot in favour of killing people on the basis of poverty, that's some way radical conservatism there:

https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1655394452817555469

You see this as radical conservatism, I see it as pervasive hopelessness and a widespread belief that capitalism is broken with no way out (an incorrect belief if you ask me, of course).

[oldtimer]

Something very bad has happened in canadian society especially among the young there, they are a lot in favour of killing people on the basis of poverty, that's some way radical conservatism there:

https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1655394452817555469

You see this as radical conservatism, I see it as pervasive hopelessness and a widespread belief that capitalism is broken with no way out (an incorrect belief if you ask me, of course).

It is radical conservatism, some Reagan and Thatcher people proposed doing the same to the poor and the homeless in the 1980's.

Cruelty instead of reform is a radical conservative thing.

Young Canadians are behaving like this:

[Upper Canada Tory]

Something very bad has happened in canadian society especially among the young there, they are a lot in favour of killing people on the basis of poverty, that's some way radical conservatism there:

https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1655394452817555469

You see this as radical conservatism, I see it as pervasive hopelessness and a widespread belief that capitalism is broken with no way out (an incorrect belief if you ask me, of course).

It is radical conservatism, some Reagan and Thatcher people proposed doing the same to the poor and the homeless in the 1980's.

Cruelty instead of reform is a radical conservative thing.

Young Canadians are behaving like this:

How is it 'radical conservatism' if the Liberals (often with the support of other left-of-centre parties like the NDP) have significantly expanded medical assistance in dying in Canada, a policy which was opposed by the Conservatives?

[Hatman 🍁]

Perhaps those people interpreted the question as people should have access to euthanasia in general, regardless of the reasoning.

[Benjamin Frank]

Something very bad has happened in canadian society especially among the young there, they are a lot in favour of killing people on the basis of poverty, that's some way radical conservatism there:

https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1655394452817555469

You see this as radical conservatism, I see it as pervasive hopelessness and a widespread belief that capitalism is broken with no way out (an incorrect belief if you ask me, of course).

It is radical conservatism, some Reagan and Thatcher people proposed doing the same to the poor and the homeless in the 1980's.

Cruelty instead of reform is a radical conservative thing.

Young Canadians are behaving like this:

How is it 'radical conservatism' if the Liberals (often with the support of other left-of-centre parties like the NDP) have significantly expanded medical assistance in dying in Canada, a policy which was opposed by the Conservatives?

Whereas Conservatives thought that doing anything to prevent the spread of Covid was Nazism.

Conservatives are concerned about the sancitity of life...as long as it doesn't impinge on their life.

Of course, I recognize that Progressive Conservative governments were mostly responsible, but the 'freedom' loving terrorist sympathizer Pierre Poilievre won the Conservative leadership overwhelmingly, and many Conservatives did argue that Covid protections were a violation of their 'rights.'

I find it reasonable to believe that a fair number of the people responding to this survey, especially young people, have the attititude of 'if people thought it was their 'right' to pass on a potentially deadly virus and kill somebody else, who am I to tell somebody that they can't commit suicide?'

[Estrella]

Anyway, to change the subject completely: Gus Etchegary, one of N.L.'s fiercest fisheries advocates, dies at 98.

This is a very niche thing, but find it fascinating that after four or five centuries, there are still (what I presume are) some old Basque whalers' surnames holding on in Newfoundland.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Anyway, to change the subject completely: Gus Etchegary, one of N.L.'s fiercest fisheries advocates, dies at 98.

This is a very niche thing, but find it fascinating that after four or five centuries, there are still (what I presume are) some old Basque whalers' surnames holding on in Newfoundland.

At least John Crosbie didn’t take the fish from the goddamn water.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Something very bad has happened in canadian society especially among the young there, they are a lot in favour of killing people on the basis of poverty, that's some way radical conservatism there:

https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1655394452817555469

You see this as radical conservatism, I see it as pervasive hopelessness and a widespread belief that capitalism is broken with no way out (an incorrect belief if you ask me, of course).

It is radical conservatism, some Reagan and Thatcher people proposed doing the same to the poor and the homeless in the 1980's.

Cruelty instead of reform is a radical conservative thing.

Young Canadians are behaving like this:

How is it 'radical conservatism' if the Liberals (often with the support of other left-of-centre parties like the NDP) have significantly expanded medical assistance in dying in Canada, a policy which was opposed by the Conservatives?

Whereas Conservatives thought that doing anything to prevent the spread of Covid was Nazism.

Conservatives are concerned about the sancitity of life...as long as it doesn't impinge on their life.

Of course, I recognize that Progressive Conservative governments were mostly responsible, but the 'freedom' loving terrorist sympathizer Pierre Poilievre won the Conservative leadership overwhelmingly, and many Conservatives did argue that Covid protections were a violation of their 'rights.'

I find it reasonable to believe that a fair number of the people responding to this survey, especially young people, have the attititude of 'if people thought it was their 'right' to pass on a potentially deadly virus and kill somebody else, who am I to tell somebody that they can't commit suicide?'

I don't think that COVID public health restrictions were 'Nazism' & share your frustration with those who didn't adhere to them at the time. With that said, much of the opposition to COVID restrictions was motivated by the far-reaching effects the lockdowns had on people's lives. Many people lost their jobs and were unemployed, others were unable to access healthcare, others didn't have social interaction and had their mental health negatively impacted.

I don't see an analogy for this with euthanasia. Supporting MAID for the poor and the homeless is just a much more unreasonable position from my point of view.

[Benjamin Frank]

Something very bad has happened in canadian society especially among the young there, they are a lot in favour of killing people on the basis of poverty, that's some way radical conservatism there:

https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1655394452817555469

You see this as radical conservatism, I see it as pervasive hopelessness and a widespread belief that capitalism is broken with no way out (an incorrect belief if you ask me, of course).

It is radical conservatism, some Reagan and Thatcher people proposed doing the same to the poor and the homeless in the 1980's.

Cruelty instead of reform is a radical conservative thing.

Young Canadians are behaving like this:

How is it 'radical conservatism' if the Liberals (often with the support of other left-of-centre parties like the NDP) have significantly expanded medical assistance in dying in Canada, a policy which was opposed by the Conservatives?

Whereas Conservatives thought that doing anything to prevent the spread of Covid was Nazism.

Conservatives are concerned about the sancitity of life...as long as it doesn't impinge on their life.

Of course, I recognize that Progressive Conservative governments were mostly responsible, but the 'freedom' loving terrorist sympathizer Pierre Poilievre won the Conservative leadership overwhelmingly, and many Conservatives did argue that Covid protections were a violation of their 'rights.'

I find it reasonable to believe that a fair number of the people responding to this survey, especially young people, have the attititude of 'if people thought it was their 'right' to pass on a potentially deadly virus and kill somebody else, who am I to tell somebody that they can't commit suicide?'

I don't think that COVID public health restrictions were 'Nazism' & share your frustration with those who didn't adhere to them at the time. With that said, much of the opposition to COVID restrictions was motivated by the far-reaching effects the lockdowns had on people's lives. Many people lost their jobs and were unemployed, others were unable to access healthcare, others didn't have social interaction and had their mental health negatively impacted.

I don't see an analogy for this with euthanasia. Supporting MAID for the poor and the homeless is just a much more unreasonable position from my point of view.

There were negative effects caused by the pandemic. These would have been lessened with mandatory vaccine requirements after the vaccine became available.

It's not a case of supporting MAID for the poor and the homeless as saying that it should be their choice. Saying that people have the 'right' to pass on a deadly virus and kill others but don't have the right to access MAID and kill themselves is about as unreasonable a position as possible from my point of view.

I personally am very uncomfortable with the idea of supporting MAID for the poor and homeless, but, then I supported mandatory vaccines.

[Upper Canada Tory]

Something very bad has happened in canadian society especially among the young there, they are a lot in favour of killing people on the basis of poverty, that's some way radical conservatism there:

https://twitter.com/yuanyi_z/status/1655394452817555469

You see this as radical conservatism, I see it as pervasive hopelessness and a widespread belief that capitalism is broken with no way out (an incorrect belief if you ask me, of course).

It is radical conservatism, some Reagan and Thatcher people proposed doing the same to the poor and the homeless in the 1980's.

Cruelty instead of reform is a radical conservative thing.

Young Canadians are behaving like this:

How is it 'radical conservatism' if the Liberals (often with the support of other left-of-centre parties like the NDP) have significantly expanded medical assistance in dying in Canada, a policy which was opposed by the Conservatives?

Whereas Conservatives thought that doing anything to prevent the spread of Covid was Nazism.

Conservatives are concerned about the sancitity of life...as long as it doesn't impinge on their life.

Of course, I recognize that Progressive Conservative governments were mostly responsible, but the 'freedom' loving terrorist sympathizer Pierre Poilievre won the Conservative leadership overwhelmingly, and many Conservatives did argue that Covid protections were a violation of their 'rights.'

I find it reasonable to believe that a fair number of the people responding to this survey, especially young people, have the attititude of 'if people thought it was their 'right' to pass on a potentially deadly virus and kill somebody else, who am I to tell somebody that they can't commit suicide?'

I don't think that COVID public health restrictions were 'Nazism' & share your frustration with those who didn't adhere to them at the time. With that said, much of the opposition to COVID restrictions was motivated by the far-reaching effects the lockdowns had on people's lives. Many people lost their jobs and were unemployed, others were unable to access healthcare, others didn't have social interaction and had their mental health negatively impacted.

I don't see an analogy for this with euthanasia. Supporting MAID for the poor and the homeless is just a much more unreasonable position from my point of view.

There were negative effects caused by the pandemic. These would have been lessened with mandatory vaccine requirements after the vaccine became available.

It's not a case of supporting MAID for the poor and the homeless as saying that it should be their choice. Saying that people have the 'right' to pass on a deadly virus and kill others but don't have the right to access MAID and kill themselves is about as unreasonable a position as possible from my point of view.

I personally am very uncomfortable with the idea of supporting MAID for the poor and homeless, but, then I supported mandatory vaccines.

Sorry, I misspoke. I meant to say supporting legalizing MAID for the poor and homeless.

Vaccine mandates were implemented by the federal government and provincial governments did have vaccine passports (which is not the same as a mandate but the purpose and end result is the same).