Canada Election 2019

I have often described myself as socially liberal and economically conservative.

But what does such a person do when the choices you have are for a mildly socially conservative, fiscally conservative candidate, or a socially liberal candidate who blows money and grows government like a drunken sailor? Neither candidate is perfect, but you have to hold your nose and vote for one of them.

Normally, I would decide based on what I think is the lesser evil at the time. A big spender might be more tolerable when the economy is good, the global economy is fine, and the debt is low. A social conservative would be terrible in a time where there are increasing tensions between groups and a generally restrictive and intolerant populace persecuting visible minorities.

On the other hand, if there are economic storm clouds everywhere and your deficit is already huge and growing, and most of the threats to civil society and freedom are coming from the ‘social liberals’ (hate speech laws, freedom of association attacks, etc), then it becomes an easier choice.

Trudeau could not manage our finances during a time of relative well being and a reasonable economy. He promised a balanced budget in 2019, but instead we have a deficit about twice as large as he promised the deficit would ever go. And it wasn’t because of a crisis or something unforseen - it was because of choices his government made.

And we have very little to show for that money. Having that idiot in charge when a major financial collapse or other crisis comes along is terrifying. And also, he really needs to be punished for breaking his election promises so badly - not just on finances, but on a lot of things that matter to the left as well.

Also, let’s admit that if Trump got caught in an SNC-Lavalin type affair, you’d all be screaming for impeachment. Yet you’re willing to vote for Trudeau, who clearly tried to strong-arm an attorney general into twisting the law for a favored constituent, then destroyed her career when she wouldn’t play ball, but he has shown almost no remorse for what he did. That simply can’t be rewarded.

Scheer is not Trump. He’s not an old reactionary, or a racist. He’s a modern conservative in the mainstream tradition. I don’t like all his policies, and if he was running against someone like Paul Martin and the old liberals, they might get my vote. But Trudeau is a dangerous man-child of a leader who continually embarrasses Canada on the world stage and makes stupid decisions at home. He is also in the process of creating a new western separatist movement with his clear favoritism of the east, as seen in his willingness to break the law to save a few hundred jobs in Quebec while being almost indifferent to 180,000 jobs being lost in the prairies due to government choices.

Let me know when that does a damned bit of good for Alberta. We don’t want federal nationalized infrastructure, and Kinder Morgan wasn’t looking to sell. They just wanted a guarantee that the Trans-Mountain pipeline could be built without massive delays from lawsuits. Instead, Trudeau bought them out. Then the very day the shareholders voted to approve the sale, the National Energy Board’s approval of the pipeline was overturned by a court of appeals due to lack of consultation with indigenous groups. What a screw-up.

Now Trudeau is ‘looking for investors’ to complete the project, but no one is biting because there is no evidence it will ever be allowed to be built. He has even offered to indemnify investors against the cost of delays, which essentially will open a blank cheque on the federal government. The purchase of the Trans-Mountain pipeline project was one of the stupidest things Trudeau has done. He could have achieved the same thing by simply giving the same assurances to Kinder Morgan that he’s willing to give anyone else now that the government owns it, and he could have done it without spending a penny. And if that guarantee wasn’t possible because of legal roadblocks, he was an idiot to buy it.

And shouldn’t this be a strike against Trudeau from the perspective of the environmental movement? He just spent 4.5 billion supposedly to guarantee that the world’s dirtiest (in terms of CO2) oil can make it to market. Why aren’t they enraged at this? Maybe it’s because they believe that pipeline will never be built, and the 4.5 billion could better be seen as a bailout.

Finally, Trudeau himself supported a ban on BC oil tankers. Bill C-48 is going to be law. So what good is the pipeline supposed to be if the oil can’t be moved out of BC ports? And what kind of idiot buys a pipeline to the coast, then bans the tankers that would take it to market?

Then it should be an easy argument for the Conservatives to make and so regain people in that surprisingly voted Liberal in the last election. The Liberals were in 3rd place - they won by getting Conservative and some NDP voters. It can not possibly be that hard for the Conservative party to woe them back given it’s only been 4 bloody years.

And yet they are failing at it.

That’s not a voter problem, it’s a platform framing problem.

Be fair. KM shot down non-essential work in April of 2018, the purchase offer was May and the approval by KM shareholders was August. Oilsands crude price also worsened in the 2nd half of 2018. Do you seriously believe KM would have keep working on the project? I suppose you could argue that a Liberal federal government should let a pipeline die in Alberta. I mean that could only have gone well.

Of course the purchase of the pipeline cost Liberals votes - they knew it would cost votes and they did it anyway to keep the pipeline project active. Do you not remember the discussion around linking pipeline completion with carbon tax (or equivalent) with the idea of balancing resource exploitation with environmental action on CO[sub]2[/sub]

The entire pipeline is a screwup, though I see it more as an untenable balancing act between oilsands and the environment with a gaggle of political figures in provincial and federal in BC, Alberta, Quebec (energy east) and the ROC.

But we’ve moved away from the previous point about Liberal fortunes only being floated by vote buying in the east.

CBC has a nice little summary of the various party platforms: 2019 federal election: Compare the party platforms

I’ve had a couple party volunteers show up to convince me to vote, but never got anything substantial out of them–so this is nice.

Do you have more confidence in Sheer’s understanding of this stuff? When he writes things like this?

Not a lot of fun choosing between Trudeau and the guy who doesn’t understand how percentages work.

Almost as funny as “compassionate conservative.” But not quite.

What would “electoral reform” constitute in Canada, where you already have a system where a nonpartisan commission of civil servants draws the riding-boundaries? Seriously, what would it be – proportional representation?

Civil servants do not draw electoral boundaries.

There is a three-person boundaries commission appointed for each province, consisting of a superior court judge, an individual recommended by the government, and an ndividual recommended by the official Opposition.

The Commissions file their reports with Parliament, which invariably adopts them.

PR and single transferable votes seem to be the two alternatives that get the most discussion.

I wish we had proportional representation so I could confidently vote for who I want to. However the recent referendum in BC proved to me that it’s supposed popularity on the internet are off-base when it comes up against people who actually show up to vote.

So back to strategic voting. Federal elections are always Liberals vs. Conservatives - the only two parties that ever have a real chance to win. Between those two choices my support is with the Liberals. However I live in a BC riding where the real contenders are NDP and Conservatives. Subsequently - unless one of those parties pulls far ahead in my riding I’ll strategically vote NDP to help the Liberals win.

Ummmmm No. Not even close. Let’s imagine for a moment that Trump puts pressure on a cabinet secretary to make a decision that lets a company off the hook so that they can employ thousands of people…

That would be about #3,674 on the list of things he has done that are not good.

“Screaming for impeachment”. Good lord. I think you are serious. Why not call us “shrill” while you are at it for good measure?

Yep, this is what I see in on-line commentary as the reason people are planning to vote for Scheer:

  1. I hate Trudeau with the passion of a thousand burning suns
  2. Alberta is being treated so UNFAAAAAAAIR. It’s Trudeau’s fault that Alberta’s economy was not diversified over the past 40 years, and the world oil prices have made the oil sands uneconomical.

Can I just quickly ask where the 180,000 jobs lost comes from?

This Alberta government PDF puts employment in Albert on Forestry, Fishing, Mining, Oi and Gas at 138,300. Even if you assume 25% of construction jobs are linked to oil (25% of 241,900) and assume all 138,300 are tagged to oil you only get 199,000 jobs.

So how does the 180,000 get calculated - genuinely curious.

Green Party candidate has no shot in your riding?

And that’s if you equate a deferred prosecution agreement to “letting a company off the hook”.

The Liberal majority has been too good for them that they felt no need to even fake an interest in voting reform. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

They did that survey for it and it revealed people liked the status quo so they didn’t do anything.

Scheer may not be a racist but he seems awfully keen to curry their support. And that’s one of the things that worries me about him. He might have to continue to curry their favour. 69% (Oh my! Takei get outta here) percent of CPoC supporters believe there are too many non-white immigrants coming into the country. The white nationalist are in the CPoC. Scheer attempts to curry their favour without upsetting the rest of Canada is actually pretty comical. Ultimately Scheer is anti-LGBTQ, anti-abortion, pro-nationalism (whether intentionally or not), and pro-trickle down economics. It is not possible for me to vote for that. That’s not the Canada I want to see.

After the usual “let us travel across the country and survey all the local people” nonsense, it is true support for a different voting system is not strong.

But it is hard to believe the drop in enthusiasm is not related to a desire not to permanently split the leftish vote, since PR (for example) would presumably benefit the NDP and Greens.

Scheer claims he’ll cover the tax cuts by removing (some) corporate subsidies.

Water is still wet? Check.
Gravity makes things fall? Check.

We haven’t entered the negaverse yet, but you’ll forgive me if I feel really bewildered about the Conservatives taking anything even remotely close to a business-hostile stance.