PERB election poll
- Thread starter MB Mod
- Start date
I haven't decided as of yet. I'm on the fence with 2 as of now. But I will go out on a limb ---- my call--- Trudeau will take office....... AGAIN.
I don't believe any of these candidates have to goods to defeat Justin. I think we're stuck with Justin for a loooong time and he could set a record for time as Canadian P.M lol.
I don't believe any of these candidates have to goods to defeat Justin. I think we're stuck with Justin for a loooong time and he could set a record for time as Canadian P.M lol.
I think that a lot of people have assessed Trudeau as a narcistic airhead, but do not see any real leadership in the other parties - a really sad day for Canada. My best hope is that Trudeau wins another minority, and gets booted out by the party, and that the party has the wisdom to select the real leader that this country needs - maybe Carney. Hopefully, there is a real leader available somewhere.
I figure the Liberals will form the government again. My plan is to watch the polls in my riding, and ultimately vote for whichever candidate has the best chance of defeating the Liberal. It might be the Conservative, it might be the NDP, I suppose it might even be the the Green.
The riding is held by a Liberal right now. I we can defeat him, that will contribute to holding them to a minority. I figure I don't need to worry about accidentally contributing to the election of a Conservative, NDP or Green government.
Anyone voting liberal and especially Trudeau wouldn't get my vote.
My politics are pretty well-informed, but also (or as a result of that) pretty aggressive. I'm not going to take sides here in this thread, but give general advice to people who only switch on their political radar when they're forced to (by elections or something):
- What you thought they were, they still are: Campaigns are chock full of bullshit. It is wrong to say the parties and leaders are "all the same", but at the same time, understand now is the time they'll promise things that they either don't really mean or which would be considered unworkable nonsense at any other time. If you really want to know what they're about, pay attention to what they say and do between campaigns, and the more constant beliefs they express among their own kind over many years. In that way, they're persistent - they do not really change their real objectives, but rather try to come up with new ways to sell you the same old thing.
- Silly season: The opening phase of any campaign is finding out what embarrassing shit their candidates have done in the past, and axing them for it. Half the time it's just that people discover "holy shit, political activists have strong views, and speak in harsh terms towards their foes" (and at election time, leaders become risk-averse to the point of expecting everyone to be a goody two-shoes). The other half is stuff that genuinely makes people go "what the fuck is wrong with this person, and why the fuck would we risk having them in charge of anything?" - basically people who are genuinely nuts or just have really bad judgement. Example: That guy one or two elections ago who was peeing into someone's coffee mug.
- Debates are a usually a clown show (that's just not funny): Don't bother tuning in for intellectual discussion of the issues. A good debate is a rare thing, maybe an ancient myth in this age where candidates are just trying to hit the mark for twitter-ready zingers. The audience wants to see the proverbial blood on the floor, but what they get 9/10ths of the time is just a bunch of people squabbling like seagulls descending on a pile of french fries. The media organizers just want to wrap this shit up in as conventional way as they can fit into that too-short time slot. They won't give enough screen time for some real answers (or real questions for that matter). They also do not handle complexity well - if it was up to their lazy asses, every election would be just a choice between red and blue, left versus right, coke versus pepsi. This shit's got more in common with pro wrestling hype spots than it does with actual governance. I can't wait for the day when someone at a leaders' debate gets clobbered with a folding chair.
- The myth of the "horse race" - part 1: Our voting system's official name is "Single member Plurality" - calling it "First-Past-The-Post" is a just nickname that stuck because of how it works in each riding. But this is a distortion of how elections actually go. The coverage these days is all about the leaders and how they are doing. Truth is, we're watching 338 races not just one - the general polling numbers are pretty meaningless. Most votes are cast in "safe" ridings where thanks to plurality rules, the same party wins it over and over. In terms of contesting anything, the votes in those ridings are generally wasted. Also keep this in mind: only a small part of the electorate actually shifts its allegiance - a swing of 5% on election day is major, and 10% can cause a [so-called] landslide. Does this mean that the public has really decisively chosen to go all-in behind one party or reduce another to almost non-existence? Nope. The truth is that almost every "majority government" is still only supported by a minority of voters. The voting system is distorting the results, and small shifts in general preference get amplified into big changes of seat count. This is especially true when dealing with regionalism that concentrates parties' support into smaller geographic areas; parties with general support across the country fare worse in seat count than parties that care about maybe only one region or one province. (Perfect example: Greens versus Bloc Quebecois.) In a way, the strategic reality of the voting system incentivizes regional cleavages; undermining national unity becomes okay because it's a winning strategy. If the purpose of an election is that the views of Canadian citizens should be represented in the ranks of those we send to parliament, then why do we tolerate a voting system where parties do not get the numbers they actually deserve? The people getting swindled by that systemic failure are not the politicians - it's us.
- The myth of the "horse race" - part 2: It's also called this because that's how the media cover it. Supposedly we (the voting public) are all going to weigh the integrity and beliefs of each candidate and party, and make a choice based on how we want to shape our future. If that's what an election is for, ask yourself this: Why do the media spend time covering the campaign as if it's some sports event, instead of actual issues that are the reason why a leader/party should win or lose? If governing wisely is what it's all about, then why do we expect these people to act like charisma and personal style matters more than intellect or judgement? Basically, the media love to cover the contest, not get into the meaning behind it. Shallowness wins because the media are not interested in anything deep; the media are quite content to be the ones who decide what issues you the voters are allowed to consider important. As if the whole point was to just watch a horse race and place bets on the outcome.
- Local Matters: Since the election is really an aggregate of local contests, at least try to figure out which candidates in your riding are good, which are bad, and which are loopy fucktards. Be skeptical of the pronouncements from the central campaign; like I said, that shit is 90% noise. Go to local all-candidates events, or follow local news. Don't be that person who just voted for a mindless sock-puppet who was wearing the right team colours.
- Saying "Fuck You All" Is An Option (but make sure to actually say it) : Even if you hate literally all the candidates and parties available, you should go vote - and spoil your ballot.
- What you thought they were, they still are: Campaigns are chock full of bullshit. It is wrong to say the parties and leaders are "all the same", but at the same time, understand now is the time they'll promise things that they either don't really mean or which would be considered unworkable nonsense at any other time. If you really want to know what they're about, pay attention to what they say and do between campaigns, and the more constant beliefs they express among their own kind over many years. In that way, they're persistent - they do not really change their real objectives, but rather try to come up with new ways to sell you the same old thing.
- Silly season: The opening phase of any campaign is finding out what embarrassing shit their candidates have done in the past, and axing them for it. Half the time it's just that people discover "holy shit, political activists have strong views, and speak in harsh terms towards their foes" (and at election time, leaders become risk-averse to the point of expecting everyone to be a goody two-shoes). The other half is stuff that genuinely makes people go "what the fuck is wrong with this person, and why the fuck would we risk having them in charge of anything?" - basically people who are genuinely nuts or just have really bad judgement. Example: That guy one or two elections ago who was peeing into someone's coffee mug.
- Debates are a usually a clown show (that's just not funny): Don't bother tuning in for intellectual discussion of the issues. A good debate is a rare thing, maybe an ancient myth in this age where candidates are just trying to hit the mark for twitter-ready zingers. The audience wants to see the proverbial blood on the floor, but what they get 9/10ths of the time is just a bunch of people squabbling like seagulls descending on a pile of french fries. The media organizers just want to wrap this shit up in as conventional way as they can fit into that too-short time slot. They won't give enough screen time for some real answers (or real questions for that matter). They also do not handle complexity well - if it was up to their lazy asses, every election would be just a choice between red and blue, left versus right, coke versus pepsi. This shit's got more in common with pro wrestling hype spots than it does with actual governance. I can't wait for the day when someone at a leaders' debate gets clobbered with a folding chair.
- The myth of the "horse race" - part 1: Our voting system's official name is "Single member Plurality" - calling it "First-Past-The-Post" is a just nickname that stuck because of how it works in each riding. But this is a distortion of how elections actually go. The coverage these days is all about the leaders and how they are doing. Truth is, we're watching 338 races not just one - the general polling numbers are pretty meaningless. Most votes are cast in "safe" ridings where thanks to plurality rules, the same party wins it over and over. In terms of contesting anything, the votes in those ridings are generally wasted. Also keep this in mind: only a small part of the electorate actually shifts its allegiance - a swing of 5% on election day is major, and 10% can cause a [so-called] landslide. Does this mean that the public has really decisively chosen to go all-in behind one party or reduce another to almost non-existence? Nope. The truth is that almost every "majority government" is still only supported by a minority of voters. The voting system is distorting the results, and small shifts in general preference get amplified into big changes of seat count. This is especially true when dealing with regionalism that concentrates parties' support into smaller geographic areas; parties with general support across the country fare worse in seat count than parties that care about maybe only one region or one province. (Perfect example: Greens versus Bloc Quebecois.) In a way, the strategic reality of the voting system incentivizes regional cleavages; undermining national unity becomes okay because it's a winning strategy. If the purpose of an election is that the views of Canadian citizens should be represented in the ranks of those we send to parliament, then why do we tolerate a voting system where parties do not get the numbers they actually deserve? The people getting swindled by that systemic failure are not the politicians - it's us.
- The myth of the "horse race" - part 2: It's also called this because that's how the media cover it. Supposedly we (the voting public) are all going to weigh the integrity and beliefs of each candidate and party, and make a choice based on how we want to shape our future. If that's what an election is for, ask yourself this: Why do the media spend time covering the campaign as if it's some sports event, instead of actual issues that are the reason why a leader/party should win or lose? If governing wisely is what it's all about, then why do we expect these people to act like charisma and personal style matters more than intellect or judgement? Basically, the media love to cover the contest, not get into the meaning behind it. Shallowness wins because the media are not interested in anything deep; the media are quite content to be the ones who decide what issues you the voters are allowed to consider important. As if the whole point was to just watch a horse race and place bets on the outcome.
- Local Matters: Since the election is really an aggregate of local contests, at least try to figure out which candidates in your riding are good, which are bad, and which are loopy fucktards. Be skeptical of the pronouncements from the central campaign; like I said, that shit is 90% noise. Go to local all-candidates events, or follow local news. Don't be that person who just voted for a mindless sock-puppet who was wearing the right team colours.
- Saying "Fuck You All" Is An Option (but make sure to actually say it) : Even if you hate literally all the candidates and parties available, you should go vote - and spoil your ballot.
Last edited:
Conservatives, why its time for Trudeau to go.
Conservatives will win on fiscal responsibility. All they have to do is put the liberal government into perspective of the last 60 years. 60 years of liberals leading Canada into a considerable debt from the early 70s. It is time to be responsible with money.
Tell people the truth, its gonna be hard.
Need a stable platform, no stupid shit like making abortion illegal, get rid of escorting laws, get tough on crime especially violent crime (this crap about the supreme court and prompt trials - get rid of it; if people committed a crime they are on notice).
Get tough on drugs (hard stuff) especially drugs like fentenyl, heroin, coke, meth- caught selling it and you lose Canadian Citizenship and you are deported to the middle of the pacific ocean without a boat. You lose your house, bank accounts etc. After all Canadians don't want those type of people anyway in Canada.
Tell people they can practice their religion, any religion, as long as they don't harm other people.
They will have to raise taxes, I know no one wants to hear that, but it will have to be done, be forward with it, unlike the Trudeau tax on carbon increase for the gas tax (every one knows its a tax grab).
Promise all electric cars/vehicles will be built in Canada, not in another country. Make solar cells and associated equipment and make it affordable. Change the building code for areas (eg fire areas- brick or cement board with metal roofs with roof sprinklers. ).
Conservatives are based on small time businesses, stick to them. Manufacture stuff Canada needs, don't import, give Canadian jobs long term, not some Candy ass short term that knock the numbers down.
Knock the cost of safety equipment down.
Stick to science not mumble jumbo crap.
Cut down on raw exports, more manufacturing in Canada. Trees and metals.
Help the environment-do green shit- its what Canadians want anyway. plants more trees, more parks.
Reform tax system. Straight tax no write offs- less hassle, no wheeling and dealing.
Again I say its gonna be hard.
Conservatives will win on fiscal responsibility. All they have to do is put the liberal government into perspective of the last 60 years. 60 years of liberals leading Canada into a considerable debt from the early 70s. It is time to be responsible with money.
Tell people the truth, its gonna be hard.
Need a stable platform, no stupid shit like making abortion illegal, get rid of escorting laws, get tough on crime especially violent crime (this crap about the supreme court and prompt trials - get rid of it; if people committed a crime they are on notice).
Get tough on drugs (hard stuff) especially drugs like fentenyl, heroin, coke, meth- caught selling it and you lose Canadian Citizenship and you are deported to the middle of the pacific ocean without a boat. You lose your house, bank accounts etc. After all Canadians don't want those type of people anyway in Canada.
Tell people they can practice their religion, any religion, as long as they don't harm other people.
They will have to raise taxes, I know no one wants to hear that, but it will have to be done, be forward with it, unlike the Trudeau tax on carbon increase for the gas tax (every one knows its a tax grab).
Promise all electric cars/vehicles will be built in Canada, not in another country. Make solar cells and associated equipment and make it affordable. Change the building code for areas (eg fire areas- brick or cement board with metal roofs with roof sprinklers. ).
Conservatives are based on small time businesses, stick to them. Manufacture stuff Canada needs, don't import, give Canadian jobs long term, not some Candy ass short term that knock the numbers down.
Knock the cost of safety equipment down.
Stick to science not mumble jumbo crap.
Cut down on raw exports, more manufacturing in Canada. Trees and metals.
Help the environment-do green shit- its what Canadians want anyway. plants more trees, more parks.
Reform tax system. Straight tax no write offs- less hassle, no wheeling and dealing.
Again I say its gonna be hard.
...and this is why the Conservatives will lose, again. Not that I ever wanted those morons to win an election again.
Panther
So here we have the interior of BC on fire, countless homes burned, who knows how to calculate the loss of wealth going up in flames and a federal election has been called. While a pandemic is still raging.
Is there any federal help pouring in, like it does when Quebec has a disaster? If there is it's well hidden. And how about our leader showing up? Not that I have seen or heard. And frankly not that I give a flying fuck.
I think this one may go down as one of the gross political miscalculations in a long long time.
Is there any federal help pouring in, like it does when Quebec has a disaster? If there is it's well hidden. And how about our leader showing up? Not that I have seen or heard. And frankly not that I give a flying fuck.
I think this one may go down as one of the gross political miscalculations in a long long time.
Actually that's horseshit. Prior to the pandemic, Conservative regimes were responsible for most of Canada's debt. Mulroney ran up $450 billion, and Harper another $160 billion. Two Conservative PMs were responsible for nearly 70% of Federal debt. Yeah, those Cons are really responsible with money.
At any rate, Canada's debt position really isn't that bad. And in spite of what witless Pierre Poilievre claims, sovereign debt isn't anything like credit card debt.
Canadian Federal debt in billions of dollars.
Liberal were in from 63 to 79 (80 B), 80 to 84 (80B), 93 to 2006 (-20B), 2015 to present (100 B) (number in brackets approximate)
Conservative from 79-80 (10 B), 84 to 93 (320), 2006 to 2015 (160B)
Overall it is conservative (490B) to liberal (240B)
A few notes to take on this graph:
1. GST 1991 to 2006 (7%), 2006 (6%), 2008 (5%)
2. Conservatives bought new equipment for the military - CF-18 planes, New Frigates, new tanks, new rifles, new uniforms between 84 and 93.
3. 2014 oil prices tanked and dropped from over 100/barrel to 38/barrel, due to US fracking their oil reserves
4. the Liberal made a dent in the debt, only because they still had 7% GST going. Also was alot of government cutback and budget restraints. Some departments still call it the decade of darkness.
5. The conservative lowered the GST to 6 then 5% in 2008, the rise in debt mostly because of low oil price and low GST at 5%.
Looking at this graph it should be noted that to pay off Federal debt the GST should be more like 6.5%.
Historically Liberal government slash military budgets and squash needed equipment for Canadian Troops. In return for increased spending on social issues.
Ref for Political governments.
th1958Progressive Conservatives, led by Prime Minister Diefenbaker,
1962Progressive Conservatives, led by Prime Minister Diefenbaker,
1963Liberals, led by Lester Pearson,
1965Liberals, led by Prime Minister Pearson,
1968Liberals, led by new Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau,
1972Liberals, led by Prime Minister Trudeau,
1974Liberals, led by Prime Minister Trudeau,
1979Progressive Conservatives, led by Joe Clark,
1980Liberals, led by former Prime Minister Trudeau,
1984Progressive Conservatives, led by Brian Mulroney,
1988Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Mulroney
1993Liberals, led by Jean Chrétien,
1997Liberals, led by Prime Minister Chrétien,
2000Liberals, led by Prime Minister Chrétien,
2004Liberals are re-elected under new Prime Minister Paul Martin
2006Conservatives, led by Stephen Harper,
2011Conservatives, under Prime Minister Harper
2015Liberals under Justin Trudeau
2019Liberals, led by Justin Trudeau, win a minority.
Conservatives= Republicans. No thanks
Conservatives= Are are voted in by big biz. No thanks.
Conservatives= Jason Kenney. No thanks
This would no longer be the conservative party. Plus, without the religeous hardliners their constituency would halve and i dont think what you're saying here would draw enough people to replace those vote.
Really you'd have to be a bit more 'liberal' on a couple of things to get enough support...move more left if you will.
Debt in isolation is meaningless. Talk debt to GDP, then maybe we'll get somewhere.
Debt to GDP is meaningless without a plan to pay down said debt! At least when a person takes out a mortgage at 3-5X their salary (or whatever multiple people these days take a mortgage at), there is a plan to repay that mortgage. People that like to talk about "debt to GDP" without a plan to repay that debt ASSUMES that GDP will go up and debt to GDP will fall - but that brings you back to square one, a lack of a clear plan to repay that debt! People (seems like you are one of them) that pin their hopes on paying down debt with a decreasing "debt to GDP ratio" is like someone taking out a mortgage that they cannot afford and their plan for repayment is simply "I'll just make more money in the future." Hate to break it to you, that's not a viable plan to repay - it's simply wishful thinking! Saying nothing for the fact that if you believe that "it's okay" to have a debt to GDP ratio at X, well, if GDP goes up with zero debt repayment, that just means the ratio goes down and people like you would say "we can borrow even more because the debt to GDP ratio is lower than X right now". Debt to GDP is meaningless - in fact, it's a disgusting little way (assuming GDP rises) to simply justify more borrowing when GDP does rise!
Last edited:
1) Debt to GDP is a better picture than debt alone.
2) Debt to GDP alone "without a plan is meaningless".
Both of these things can be true. Nobody said (or has said) that debt to GDP alone will tell you everything you need to know. I think it's a fair assumption that if debt to GDP is low, it's easier to pay off that debt, no different than if your mortgage is 20x your salary, you may have a harder time paying it back than if it was 5x your salary. A nation's economy isn't going to collapse overnight (i.e. your inference for the lack of a "plan"). Calling the ratio (quantifiable) meaningless and then referring to the lack of a "plan" (difficult to quantify, and even harder in hindsight after implementation of said plan) simply drives any conversation to a dead end when plans are subjective measures.
There is no "low" or "high" (per se) when it comes to a debt to GDP ratio - unless you presuppose that there is a debt to GDP ratio that a country must always be at (which is asinine) - there is no "target" debt to GDP ratio that one should "strive for". Such asinine thinking is what leads to more and more debt simply because you have artificially created a justification (i.e. "a low debt to GDP ratio") to take on more debt for the sake of "wanting things." The only certainty about debt is that if you need debt to pay for something - you can't afford that "thing" to begin with - your bank gives you a mortgage because you can afford the repayment plan, not because you can afford the house - they certainly don't give you a mortgage WITHOUT a repayment plan and say "but your debt to income level is low right now so what the heck, we don't need a repayment plan."
Debt to GDP ratio is just simple math - it does not "tell a picture." The preoccupation by a certain political party on debt to GDP ratio is simply political framing - they are framing an artificially created justification for more debt! And people like you, simply fell for it - instead of asking the logical question of how it will be paid back. Case in point, in theory it is possible for debt to continually increase while at the same time debt to GDP ratio continually decreases. Based on that theoretical picture - people like you would still support such a scenario of endless debt simply because GDP is increasing at a rate greater than new debt (i.e. debt to GDP ratio is falling), and that would be foolish! Again, debt to GDP ratio was simply brought into the discussion by a certain political party to justify MORE DEBT - and it appears to have worked, at least it has worked on you!
