Today’s polls. Liberals have a slight lead.
Keep in mind Sam is pro-Trump, so anything further left than fascism is leftist socialism/communism.
A few of the Conservative proposals seem fairly friendly to Labour. Clearly O’Toole is looking to Trump and Johnson for inspiration. It beats Orban or Bolsonaro, probably.
How could a minority Conservative government work? I suppose they could team up with the BQ, but I can’t see the NDP playing ball with them.
My guess is similar to the Harper years. IIRC, they had the support of the BQ. It makes sense for the BQ because a bunch of rapid elections will eventually result in a decisive win for CPoC/Liberal at the cost of everybody else.
We could be facing the proposed Liberal/NDP coalition again.
Mostly the same as it did during most of the Harper terms, I suspect. Throw sops to other parties to get them to vote for matters that require the confidence of Parliament.
The NDP can be “purchased” if one is artful about it. This is easier with the Liberals than it is with the Conservatives, because of their philosophical divide. They need to reward the NDP while, at the same time, not angering their own base. Things like “making jobs” may be a good approach here.
It lets the NDP crow about arm-twisting the Conservatives, which plays well to the NDP base. The Conservatives can just talk about “the jaaaawbs” and that’s fine political eatin’.
An easier path to navigate is to play to the interests of the bluer Liberals. Those two parties are closer in philosophy, and one only needs some of the Liberals, not all. So long as the vote isn’t whipped, it should be fine.
Neither the red nor blue party will be anxious to force another election any time soon. The perception of forcing an election is dangerous, and it’s a weapon the Conservatives can use if they’re willing to play a game of political chicken. So long as all bills that require a vote of confidence are reasonable, you can expect a minority Conservative government to survive, although a bit stutteringly.
Leaving aside that one can find dozens of statements from Sam to the contrary, let’s keep this to a discussion of the topic at hand, the September election. This is not a forum for getting personal.
RickJay
Moderator
My apologies.
Again, my position is the three parties are substantially similar. A look at the party platforms published today
suggests all parties are basically trying to appeal to a broad electorate with a mix of incentives including ones from both wings.
So supporting any minority government is largely a matter of optics. I’m not sure that any minority government willing to make enough concessions would have undue trouble.
I have to say none of the platforms have anything that knocks it out of the park for me. On the other hand, there’s not that much that enrages me either.
The election feels so pointless.
If someone started a Pointless Party, I wonder if they would get enough votes to win a debate spot. Short answer? Yes.
I’d like all ballots to have an option of “None of the above.” Anarchist sensibilities aside, it would be a good way to gauge “voter satisfaction.”
I agree. And if the “none of the above” wins then there should be a mandatory new by-election. None of the people who ran are allowed to run again.
Pretty funny. I like The Beaverton.
That’s what I’ve thought since the rumours it would be called. This election should be happening next year.
Well, as the anarchists like to say, “if voting could change anything, it would be illegal.”
Or as John Kenneth Galbraith, (1908-2006) Canadian-born economist, presidential advisor, JFK’s ambassador to India, and Harvard professor put it,
“When people put their ballots in the boxes, they are, by that act, inoculated against the feeling that the government is not theirs. They then accept, in some measure, that its errors are their errors, its aberrations their aberrations, that any revolt will be against them. It’s a remarkably shrewd and rather conservative arrangement when one thinks of it.”
That view might only apply, these days, if your preferred candidate wins. Did Democrats see Trump’s decisions as inclusive?
One hears the expression, “if you don’t vote, you can’t complain!” still, and I think JKG’s point spoke to the legitimation of the system rather than outcomes and the inclusivity of “my side won!” Trump of course threatened that but the system still righted itself and sails on. And it’s not the case that the US in earlier times was free from such stuff—the John Birch Society accused Eisenhower of being a Communist sympathizer
Given the negatives of calling an election now, my guess is that the government thinks this is a high water point for them - they’ve handed out lots of benefits, but we have yet to feel the pain from all the borrowing. That will be coming in the next couple of years, or may be starting now with inflation.
Please explain how governments can borrow massive amounts to fight wars without anyone worrying about the debt and inflation. Then explain why the same measures cannot be taken in peace time.