News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.4K     0 

Why are the Liberal and NDP numbers sinking, while the Conservatives are surging? In a Liberal riding.

Because voters are fed up with a minority Liberal government propped up by the NDP. Changing leaders won't make much of a difference. It's the policies that are the problem.

I'll go back to my original question. You are saying you know people whose preferences have changed from NDP to CPC because of Trudeau. You never asked them what specifically about Trudeau they disliked and whether a change of LPC or NDP leader would bring them back? Seems strange to stop the conversation there.
 
One posbsac
Because voters are fed up with a minority Liberal government propped up by the NDP. Changing leaders won't make much of a difference. It's the policies that are the problem.

I'll go back to my original question. You are saying you know people whose preferences have changed from NDP to CPC because of Trudeau. You never asked them what specifically about Trudeau they disliked and whether a change of LPC or NDP leader would bring them back? Seems strange to stop the conversation there.
The carbon tax is the problem. Both Trudeau and the Carbon Tax need to go. The problem is that Trudeau's ego won't allow him to consider alternatives to the carbon tax, even though it is costing them big time in the polls.
Also, people are sick of Justin Trudeau's leadership. A simple question? "Are their Liberals MPs named in the NSICOP report"? Trudeau-doesn't answer the question.
People are sick and tired by his bullshit.
 
The carbon tax isn't really the whole problem. If you eliminated the carbon tax tomorrow, it would do near enough to nothing for affordability as to be irrelevant.

Incumbents are getting ousted across the developed world.
 
The carbon tax isn't really the whole problem. If you eliminated the carbon tax tomorrow, it would do near enough to nothing for affordability as to be irrelevant.

Incumbents are getting ousted across the developed world.
Canadians hate the carbon tax. 80% of Canadian want it gone, and it is killing them in the polls. What is worst is that it goes up every year. It is stupid politics.
I agree with you on affordability, but the carbon tax is horrible optics.
 
One posbsac

The carbon tax is the problem. Both Trudeau and the Carbon Tax need to go. The problem is that Trudeau's ego won't allow him to consider alternatives to the carbon tax, even though it is costing them big time in the polls.
Also, people are sick of Justin Trudeau's leadership. A simple question? "Are their Liberals MPs named in the NSICOP report"? Trudeau-doesn't answer the question.
People are sick and tired by his bullshit.

Again, you seem to assume that all policy comes from Trudeau and that it would completely change if he left. For example, I don't think you understand how deep support for carbon pricing run in the LPC.

The carbon tax isn't really the whole problem. If you eliminated the carbon tax tomorrow, it would do near enough to nothing for affordability as to be irrelevant.
The argument on carbon pricing has been lost. In no small part due to LPC incompetence. All the things they are doing now, like sending rebates quarterly and forcing banks to properly rebate it should have been done earlier. Heck, they should have had monthly rebates after $50/t. And they most definitely shouldn't have given an exemption to some fuels and then openly admitted it was about electioneering.

More broadly it's hard to make climate policy a real focus and not have it get blamed when they pursued several other inflationary policies at the same time.

Lastly, in hindsight, perhaps the only way to actual implement a carbon price system that won't be repealed is to do what Stephane Dion proposed with the Green Shift and replaces other taxes with a carbon tax. His mistake was pledging to reduce income tax and increase family benefits.


I would argue they should replace one consumption tax (GST/HST) with another (carbon tax). Once that is done any government that wants to scrap it will have to reimpose GST/HST something that will be highly unpopular. Something the Liberals suck at is making the Machiavellian moves that preserve their policy long term. Not much of what the Trudeau Liberals have done will survive.
 
Again, you seem to assume that all policy comes from Trudeau and that it would completely change if he left. For example, I don't think you understand how deep support for carbon pricing run in the LPC.


The argument on carbon pricing has been lost. In no small part due to LPC incompetence. All the things they are doing now, like sending rebates quarterly and forcing banks to properly rebate it should have been done earlier. Heck, they should have had monthly rebates after $50/t. And they most definitely shouldn't have given an exemption to some fuels and then openly admitted it was about electioneering.

More broadly it's hard to make climate policy a real focus and not have it get blamed when they pursued several other inflationary policies at the same time.

Lastly, in hindsight, perhaps the only way to actual implement a carbon price system that won't be repealed is to do what Stephane Dion proposed with the Green Shift and replaces other taxes with a carbon tax. His mistake was pledging to reduce income tax and increase family benefits.


I would argue they should replace one consumption tax (GST/HST) with another (carbon tax). Once that is done any government that wants to scrap it will have to reimpose GST/HST something that will be highly unpopular. Something the Liberals suck at is making the Machiavellian moves that preserve their policy long term. Not much of what the Trudeau Liberals have done will survive.
It's not helping them in the polls.
 
Seems like a miscalculation to me. Even if he succeeds in pushing Trudeau out, the Liberals are cooked in the next election. I don't see why he would want to become leader just to go down with the ship, unless he wants to be in the books as a PM for a few months along with the likes of Campbell.
 
I disagree. If Mark Carney comes in with new policies, he could do well in the new election, or at least hold the Conservatives to a minority government.

If Justin Trudeau's polls numbers don't improve over the next few months, I wonder if the calls to replace him with get louder. Right now he is a dead man walking.
 
I disagree. If Mark Carney comes in with new policies, he could do well in the new election, or at least hold the Conservatives to a minority government.

Go ask your friends if they'd vote red for Mark Carney. That little poll should tell you the chances of holding the CPC to a minority.
 
Given the amount of time it would take to hold a convention, assemble a stable, etc., etc. I still don't think Carney would have enough time to move the dial much. Like it or not, political leadership involves a fair bit of rah-rah and 'cult of personality' and, much like Dion and Ignatieff, I don't think he has it. I think his calm, academic approach is possible, but takes a whole lot longer to sink in.
 
So, the Trudeau government again showing the intent to drive down wages rather than implement intelligent policy.


Marc Miller talking about the need to buy (more) hotels in order to house asylum seekers. Don't get me wrong, if we had (in the largest number) genuine asylum seekers as we generally define them....

Those fleeing persecution based on ethnicity/religion etc, or fleeing famine or war.......... I would have no issue w/making every effort to be as generous as possible.

But by the government's own admission, most claimants are arriving from countries at peace, with food, and without evidence of wide-spread persecution.

From the above:

1720006707724.png


Of the above countries, Columbia has generally had a very good economy, is democratic, and features a rising standard of living....... less true for Kenya and Nigeria, but the the majority of residents in those countries, it would be economic
opportunity they are seeking, not asylum was we normally define it. Venezuela is a bit different; though more stable than it was a year ago.

But a veritable dictatorship aside, its principle issue standard of living wise is U.S. imposed oil sanctions.....

****

Here's the thing, if we're getting lots of people claiming asylum from places that don't justify such a claim, we ought to be imposing/toughening VISA requirements. We should also be turning people away when they make a claim, as-of-right, if it doesn't meet the prima facie standard of legitimacy. (Meaning on its face the claim stands no chance of success).

But instead of tackling the issue, by choking off the flow of people, we are instead going to spend a few billion housing them....sigh.
 
Last edited:
So, the Trudeau government again showing the intent to drive down wages rather than implement intelligent policy.


Marc Miller talking about the need to buy (more) hotels in order to house asylum seekers. Don't get me wrong, if we had (in the largest number) genuine asylum seekers as we generally define them....

Those fleeing persecution based on ethnicity/religion etc, or fleeing famine or war.......... I would have no issue w/making every effort to be as generous as possible.

But by the government's own admission, most claimants are arriving from countries at peace, with food, and without evidence of wide-spread persecution.

From the above:

View attachment 577255

Of the above countries, Columbia has generally had a very good economy, is democratic, and features a rising standard of living....... less true for Kenya and Nigeria, but the the majority of residents in those countries, it would be economic
opportunity they are seeking, not asylum was we normally define it. Venezuela is a bit different; though more stable than it was a year ago.

But a veritable dictatorship aside, its principle issue standard of living wise is U.S. imposed oil sanctions.....

****

Here's the thing, if we're getting lots of people claiming asylum from places that don't justify such a claim, we ought to be imposing/toughening VISA requirements. We should also be turning people away when they make a claim, as-of-right, if it doesn't meet the prima facie standard of legitimacy. (Meaning on its face the claim stands no chance of success).

But instead of tackling the issue was we should and choking off the flow of people, we are instead going to spend a few billion housing them....sigh.

You have to wonder about the level of ideological inflexibility at play - when you have a domestic homelessness issue (to say nothing of underhousing) the optics of buying hotels (and using hotels) to house economic migrants is just terrible. The inability of the current government to read the room would ironically help to pave way for a new government that is highly likely to go for a more draconian policy.

AoD
 
Last edited:

Back
Top