Carney is a man who somehow, and I will never know how, convinced NDP voters the voting for an ex banker capitalist whose job it was to renovict people and hide the wealth of the 1% from taxation in Canada was the absolute best choice for progressives and left-wing voters to rally behind
Because literally the Conservative candidate was dramatically worse on progressive policies and there was only the slimmest chance of avoiding that fate. Until we reform voting the whole song and dance of strategic voting will favour the traditional tradeoffs of these two parties. Without vote reform we’re more or less doomed to be the frog that boils slow.
In what way was the candidate dramatically works on Progressive policies? Jimmy would have fired government workers? Do you mean he would have built more Pipelines and pumped more oil? Or is it that you are worried that he wouldn’t have attacked freedom of speech quite as aggressively as the liberals have with their online bills?
There was no threat to Progressive policies with Poilievre. Or at least none that are not threatened already.
And the simple fact of the matter is that the more the carney runs our economy and debt into the dirt, the more that Progressive people and poor people will suffer when eventually that has to be corrected and we can’t borrow any more money. You may be too young to remember how badly people suffered for the first Trudeau’s overspending when that had to be corrected, this time it’s going to be in order of magnitude worse and that date will come
Poilievere ran with a cabinet that had constant issues of candidates calling out support for MAGA-like policies and conduct across the board. He threatened jail time for political rivals, had issues with various perspective MPs talking about their personal stances on repealing abortion protections or saying things regarding indigenous affairs that were racist or in denial of a well documented genocide. He made clear his position as anti-trans which many queer people rightly see as being simply the first domino to fall in the repeal of queer and a whole host of women’s rights.
His economic policies were very much out loud every thing that Carney is up to now and perhaps you forgot that. Carney was in effect a traditional conservative politician with a liberal coat of paint. He wasn’t talking about vote reform or taxation policies on billionaires. The kind of person you run when you want to shore up Conservative style financial values while basically not actively threatening civil rights issues like your opponents do. He was a traditional Conservative wet dream of basically everything a Whig government wants without the culture war bullshit If you think progressives actually liked Carney at the point of voting him is that’s bloody insane. The man’s a banker who has been strengthening old colonial ties and wheeling and dealing during a sovereignty crisis where the US, our historical trading partner is softly threatening annexation. The only reasons Conservatives are critical is because they think “Conservative” means “fiscally Conservative” and not the branch of political philosophy of the likes of Edmund Burke that thinks channeling money into the hands of the rich and conserving a social hierarchy that keeps certain people at the bottom and punishing deviance from a social norm, removing safety nets because “families” are easier to control than individuals. Meanwhile “Conservative” government spending has never actually been fiscally conservative historically. They just pump money into whatever makes their friends rich because that’s kind of the point. It doesn’t matter who is in the seat for government if they don’t gave the pretty label that seems to say to them “This guy won’t waste money” you can what if any scenario where your guy wouldn’t be doing the same or worse. At least Carney had the shame to not say that shit out loud and feels like he needs to court the public instead of getting tacit endorsement for that kind of behavior right out the gate on election day the way Poilevre would of had.
My support for Carney was to keep PP out. Singh did not give me the confidence that he could do that. I still vote NDP at the provincial level (although my riding has been Conservative forever alas) - the federal NDP hasn’t really inspired much confidence but Marit is killing it at the provincial level in Ontario.
This is a perfect example of why things are very unlikely to change. Too many people have too little faith in things actually changing, so it remains conservatives vs liberals
We came very close to a PP government. Too close. I don’t like Carney much but Poulivre would have been disastrous. I would rank Singh above both, but my riding was heavily Tory.
If you genuinely thought a Bloomberg/Brookfield international banker with a history of renovictions and exploitation of slave-like labor whose primary job was to hide the wealth of the 1% was better than Poilievre then I think you need to seriously reconsider your judgments.
The damage being done to the economy currently is going to be generational and the people that will face and feel it the most are going to be the poor and disadvantaged that nDP voters normally care about. With Poilievre you would have gotten some of the same things, such as an oil pipeline, but you would have also gotten a healthy economy that wouldn’t been able to pay the needs of the week in the future
Instead an entire generation and probably too are going to grow up with a substandard life quality as a direct result of the liberal rule including Carney’s over the last 11 years.
I strongly encourage you to sit back and think about your choices. Watch what happens over the next few years and watch what happens as we attempt to recover for that in the years to follow and watch who suffers.
He’s announced PP’s policies but he never delivered on them. He’s pretty good at announcing things people want to hear but he doesn’t actually do any of it
PP entire career is just being contrarian to whatever liberal candidate he’s running against. Dudes never delivered anything in his life besides liberal party wins, lol. Stay delusional.
That’s complete nonsense. And let’s face it, because ideas are so bad why is mark carney running on them? 😆
Meanwhile under carney virtually every single metric is down and Canada’s economy is on the same negative ballistic course as it was under Justin Trudeau
I’ll give you that, although he’s not much better. He’s talking about the possibility of building a pipeline, Justin built a pipeline. And his price for doing that is a massive increase in carbon taxes for the oil fields which will make them far less competitive globally. So I don’t know about the whole nowhere close business. He may not be as bad but I don’t know that he’s that far off
Jagmeet went to our strike line and said he’d take Trudeau down if they forced a deal on us. When they forced a deal on us, Jagmeet was silent. That’s why I didn’t vote for the NDP. Hopefully their new leadership actually stands by their word.
And honestly I respect that. Conservatives have destroyed their parties provincially in federally when they perceived that the party had become corrupt or morally bankrupt. And the NDP has done the same and your statement is an expression of that. The willingness to destroy the political party because of bad behavior is an absolute requirement for good democracy
But the liberal supporters do not have that track record. Even when they punish their party it’s mild and temporary and most often they don’t. And that creates a problem. How long will others watch that before they decide they should behave the same way then the political parties know they can get away with anything
You know what killed me is I shook the guys hand and looked in his eyes and I knew he didn’t believe what he had just said. I could tell from the look in his eyes that he said what he said because it was what we wanted to hear. And that hurt because I like Jag and I respect the position the guy was in, unfortunately with the benefit of hindsight we can tell that in the end his decisions tanked the party. I couldn’t vote for the party after that. They needed a change. They got it. I hope it works out.
The liberal party has had the support of the “Always Liberal, forever Liberal, no matter what I’m voting liberal” people who are just as confounding as their conservative counterparts, for entirely different reasons.
The liberal party has had the support of the “Always Liberal, forever Liberal, no matter what I’m voting liberal” people
I see that type of voter more on the conservative side.
I personally know far more people who switch between liberal and NDP depending on the election than I do people who switch from conservative to anything else.
I gave up on the NDP after years of mismanagement. I voted for the party of Jack and was alright with Mulcair. But under Jagmeet the party has been run into the ground.
That year where Jagmeet and the NDP propped up the obviously dead Trudeau government was the final straw. Willfully choosing to support a wildly unpopular prime minister to avoid the election was gross and made a mockery of their name. If you want to be taken seriously as a party and a leader, you have to be in it to win. There could have been an opportunity to become the opposition again and maybe replace the Liberals in time. Instead they chose to sacrifice their own party. If they don’t even want to be a serious party, why the hell should I vote for them?
Why vote NDP? Because even if we concede that all your criticisms of the party are exactly right and unchanged under its new leadership, that still makes them the best of the main parties available to vote for.
Well obviously a fair number of NDP voters kind of felt the same. And this is kind of a point that I was bringing up, historically both provincially and federally we have seen conservative supporters utterly destroy their party when their signs of corruption or egregious Behavior. And likewise you can say the same thing about the NDP including the recent destruction of the party.
For some reason you can’t say that about liberals. No matter how bad the liberals get they still tend to survive and their voters are reluctant to punish them the same way
Well there are numerous examples of right wing parties or the NDP completely devastating or wiping out their parties in the face of corruption.
Consider the PC government federally after Brian Mulroney left and Kim Campbell disappointed by saying everything was fine and there’s no need to change. They went from being in power to being able to hold caucus meetings at a medium-sized booth at Denny’s. And then the party was eventually wiped out completely and replaced.
Consider the NDP in British Columbia when they had their scandal of the tail end of the 20th century and we’re reduced to two seats as I recall. Likewise the conservative party which was known as the social credit for absolutely bizarre reasons was wiped out after the Vanderzalm Scandals.
There is a willingness for Canadian voters on the right and the farther left to absolutely devastate if not completely destroy their political party if it is perceived that they have done something unethical. The conservatives most of all but the NDP as well
But there is no willingness on the part of the liberal sister they may knock their party out of power but they will never punish them even for severe corruption the way the conservatives and even the NDP will
The party loss after Mulroney was, IMO, primarily due to the during reform party - a division of the conservative party. If you look at voting percentages, the conservatives still claimed 30% of the vote, just divided differently.
The bigger difference I see is that Mulroney had managed to win nonconservative votes, which then left during the 93 election.
That means those liberal voters you claim never bote anything else voted VERY strongly against the liberal party and for the conservatives to give Mulroney his wins.
From my knowledge, the NDP has never been wiped out. They’ve been reduced down to a few seats, much like any other party, but they’re still the NDP. Liberals in Ontario were gutted entirely, not dissimilar to any of your conservative examples above, and lost official party status after nearly 15 years in power. Despite how awful Ford has been, they STILL haven’t clawed back to even a shadow of a party. If that isn’t an example of them being destroyed in public opinion I don’t know what is.
The reform party was a brand new party. The only reason it existed was because conservative voters were disgusted with the corruption and bad behavior of the PC party.
I mean if we’re being 100% honest Mulroney was actually doing a fairly decent job. And no conservative wanted to see chretien get in.
But conservatives determined that the party was toast, so they created a new party and through the old one in the garbage. That’s what they’re prepared to do when they see corruption
And no it is absolutely ridiculous to think that the liberal voters punish the liberal party by voting from over only. That absolutely did not happen. The liberal party continued on just fine it was not destroyed or wiped out in any way shape or form. People just like Mulroney better than they like John Turner
When you’re reduced to below party status you’ve been wiped out politically. You might recover but let’s not pretend otherwise. Conservative voters have wiped their parties out to the point where they are no longer official parties And so have the NDP. The liberals have never done so. So I’m afraid you’re 100% incorrect there
The liberals lost and they lost badly in Ontario. I mean they had gone through four elections was a major thing with the liberals and they survived just fine. As it is what they say they lost the election badly but the party was not wiped out. They still have more seats then than the NDP has federally now
The liberal party Had corruption scandal after corruption scandal for over a decade and the liberal voters kept it in power and now they’ve been returned to a majority. And we’re already seeing corruption scandals with Carney but liberal voters just don’t care
Liberal voters will tolerate almost any level of corruption, to be honest it’s getting to the point where it’s practically a prerequisite. And EP voters and conservative voters are far less tolerant with conservatives being the least tolerant.
The reform party was a brand new party. The only reason it existed was because conservative voters were disgusted with the corruption and bad behavior of the PC party.
That’s the first I’ve heard of the corruption being a cause. The reform party was created because western Canada, particularly Alberta, was pissed that Mulroney was working so closely with Quebec during his attempts at constitution reform, and that he was raising taxes.
But conservatives determined that the party was toast, so they created a new party and through the old one in the garbage. That’s what they’re prepared to do when they see corruption
Just double checked, and the PC party still got 16% of the vote when the reform party appeared, who got 18%. Reform did better because they won more seats because they were primarily western canada, but popular vote, which is the more realistic measure of how well a party is doing, was nearly identical.
When you look at election results through the years, percentages voting for Liberal and Conservative have been pretty much constant at a baseline 30%. Reform split that vote between themselves and PC. The remaining 30% is split among NDP and Bloq, then swing voters.
This doesn’t really change much, despite what you’re arguing. There are a few exceptions but I’d argue that’s less to do with corruption and more to do with the finances and perceived gains by the party in power.
When you’re reduced to below party status you’ve been wiped out politically. You might recover but let’s not pretend otherwise. Conservative voters have wiped their parties out to the point where they are no longer official parties And so have the NDP. The liberals have never done so. So I’m afraid you’re 100% incorrect there
Dude, I literally just pointed out a case where the liberal party WAS reduced below official party status, and remained there, and that case happened in the last decade. By your own argument, this means they were wiped out politically. They have as many seats as the PC party did post-mulroney, when you’re saying the conservative voters kicked them out.
Liberal voters will tolerate almost any level of corruption, to be honest it’s getting to the point where it’s practically a prerequisite. And EP voters and conservative voters are far less tolerant with conservatives being the least tolerant.
You had me in the first half - but I’d argue that core 20-30% that libs and cons have are both so entrenched they refuse to vote anyone else are the ones who are willing to overlook corruption. If cons were as willing to kick out for corruption, they’d have kicked Doug Ford out after his greenbelt scandal. Instead he got another majority.
I’d argue that cons are more willing to kick people out for violating the conservatives political alignment than the liberals are. I’ve seen many arguing that Carney is actually super liberal and these conservative actions he’s taking are actually good and in line with the party.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. So you’re saying you think that the liberals know how to apply to their people better? I mean that doesn’t really make sense to me. I think most people understand what corruption is and can identify it when they see it, I just don’t think that the liberal supporters actually care and that gives the liberal party a lot more freedom to do things that would get the other two parties in trouble
I’m saying that the LPC can opportunistically change their tune because they occupy the middle space. The Cons and NDP have fairly fixed places on the ideological and political right and left which bind them.
But it has nothing to do with that. Policy is one thing but what we’re talking about here is corruption. Conservative and NDP voters are less tolerant of their party being corrupt then liberals are. Liberals will accept a high level of corruption in their party
Case in point. Everybody lost their mind and screamed about how unfair it was including the liberals when Bev Oda bought a $14 glass of orange juice. But the liberals are insisting that it’s perfectly fine at Carney spent a million dollars on airline food last year because he works hard and deserves to eat well. Just on airline food for himself he spent more money than a family of four would spend on groceries in 50 years while telling Canadians they’re going to have to sacrifice.
And that’s just fine with the liberals. But an expensive orange juice when it’s not a liberal? She had to resign.
Singh unfortunately didn’t help the cause much. But I think it was actually Pollievre who helped Carney with such incredible efficiency. I agree, it makes no sense, but PP’s innate reality distortion field was apparently large enough to cause some sort of gravitational lensing around Carney too that made him temporarily look like an anti-Trump.
I also think Carney did particularly well on the military topic, especially compared to previous Liberal positions, which might have genuinely appealed to some NDP voters disillusioned with the NDP’s traditionally weak stance on defense, in light of the active military threats against us and our allies.
Personally, I understand where the NDP’s defense policy is coming from, and I think it’s responsible and probably even the right way to approach it holistically. We don’t need to beg Europe to partner with us, even if they’re obviously willing to, we have everything we need to develop our own military and industry on our own, but it will take time for those investments to pay off, and I get the desire to shortcut some of that with European assistance. But maybe people thought we wouldn’t be able to have socialism and kick Trump and Putin’s teeth in at the same time. I don’t know.
Well it’s worth noting that poilievre got almost the same popular vote as carney did. And there’s no doubt the Carney had his own trudeomanium moments there in the campaign where people flock to him because they believed in him not because they didn’t believe in Poilievre. In fact based on the polling poilievre was gaining ground through most of the election.
None of the polling I saw indicated that defense was a major issue. And it wasn’t really brought up a lot during the election, that was more post-election. So while anything is possible I’m not seeing a lot of evidence for that being a major driving force
I don’t know that the new NDP is going to be pushing terribly hard for military spending.
Carney is a man who somehow, and I will never know how, convinced NDP voters the voting for an ex banker capitalist whose job it was to renovict people and hide the wealth of the 1% from taxation in Canada was the absolute best choice for progressives and left-wing voters to rally behind
Because literally the Conservative candidate was dramatically worse on progressive policies and there was only the slimmest chance of avoiding that fate. Until we reform voting the whole song and dance of strategic voting will favour the traditional tradeoffs of these two parties. Without vote reform we’re more or less doomed to be the frog that boils slow.
In what way was the candidate dramatically works on Progressive policies? Jimmy would have fired government workers? Do you mean he would have built more Pipelines and pumped more oil? Or is it that you are worried that he wouldn’t have attacked freedom of speech quite as aggressively as the liberals have with their online bills?
There was no threat to Progressive policies with Poilievre. Or at least none that are not threatened already. And the simple fact of the matter is that the more the carney runs our economy and debt into the dirt, the more that Progressive people and poor people will suffer when eventually that has to be corrected and we can’t borrow any more money. You may be too young to remember how badly people suffered for the first Trudeau’s overspending when that had to be corrected, this time it’s going to be in order of magnitude worse and that date will come
Poilievere ran with a cabinet that had constant issues of candidates calling out support for MAGA-like policies and conduct across the board. He threatened jail time for political rivals, had issues with various perspective MPs talking about their personal stances on repealing abortion protections or saying things regarding indigenous affairs that were racist or in denial of a well documented genocide. He made clear his position as anti-trans which many queer people rightly see as being simply the first domino to fall in the repeal of queer and a whole host of women’s rights.
His economic policies were very much out loud every thing that Carney is up to now and perhaps you forgot that. Carney was in effect a traditional conservative politician with a liberal coat of paint. He wasn’t talking about vote reform or taxation policies on billionaires. The kind of person you run when you want to shore up Conservative style financial values while basically not actively threatening civil rights issues like your opponents do. He was a traditional Conservative wet dream of basically everything a Whig government wants without the culture war bullshit If you think progressives actually liked Carney at the point of voting him is that’s bloody insane. The man’s a banker who has been strengthening old colonial ties and wheeling and dealing during a sovereignty crisis where the US, our historical trading partner is softly threatening annexation. The only reasons Conservatives are critical is because they think “Conservative” means “fiscally Conservative” and not the branch of political philosophy of the likes of Edmund Burke that thinks channeling money into the hands of the rich and conserving a social hierarchy that keeps certain people at the bottom and punishing deviance from a social norm, removing safety nets because “families” are easier to control than individuals. Meanwhile “Conservative” government spending has never actually been fiscally conservative historically. They just pump money into whatever makes their friends rich because that’s kind of the point. It doesn’t matter who is in the seat for government if they don’t gave the pretty label that seems to say to them “This guy won’t waste money” you can what if any scenario where your guy wouldn’t be doing the same or worse. At least Carney had the shame to not say that shit out loud and feels like he needs to court the public instead of getting tacit endorsement for that kind of behavior right out the gate on election day the way Poilevre would of had.
He didn’t, Pete and Trump did.
Crazy we have to explain this to non-magats.
My support for Carney was to keep PP out. Singh did not give me the confidence that he could do that. I still vote NDP at the provincial level (although my riding has been Conservative forever alas) - the federal NDP hasn’t really inspired much confidence but Marit is killing it at the provincial level in Ontario.
I, too, really like Marit, but let’s be honest: she’s never winning in this province – where Bob Rae is still seen as the bogeyman.
A rotten head of cabbage could probably beat Doug these days, provided it’s red.
This is a perfect example of why things are very unlikely to change. Too many people have too little faith in things actually changing, so it remains conservatives vs liberals
It’s a perfect example on why FPTP sucks hairy ballsacks. I’d vote NDP, happily, if I knew I could transfer that vote to a non-blue candidate.
Bob Rae not as bad as Harris or Ford but I’ll never forgive him for letting public servants keep their job admist a recession .
We came very close to a PP government. Too close. I don’t like Carney much but Poulivre would have been disastrous. I would rank Singh above both, but my riding was heavily Tory.
If you genuinely thought a Bloomberg/Brookfield international banker with a history of renovictions and exploitation of slave-like labor whose primary job was to hide the wealth of the 1% was better than Poilievre then I think you need to seriously reconsider your judgments.
The damage being done to the economy currently is going to be generational and the people that will face and feel it the most are going to be the poor and disadvantaged that nDP voters normally care about. With Poilievre you would have gotten some of the same things, such as an oil pipeline, but you would have also gotten a healthy economy that wouldn’t been able to pay the needs of the week in the future
Instead an entire generation and probably too are going to grow up with a substandard life quality as a direct result of the liberal rule including Carney’s over the last 11 years.
I strongly encourage you to sit back and think about your choices. Watch what happens over the next few years and watch what happens as we attempt to recover for that in the years to follow and watch who suffers.
What do you base this ‘strong economy’ bit on? As far as I can tell, Carneys taken most of PPs playbook out from under him.
What policies did PP propose that would’ve given us a “healthy economy”?
He’s announced PP’s policies but he never delivered on them. He’s pretty good at announcing things people want to hear but he doesn’t actually do any of it
PP entire career is just being contrarian to whatever liberal candidate he’s running against. Dudes never delivered anything in his life besides liberal party wins, lol. Stay delusional.
That’s complete nonsense. And let’s face it, because ideas are so bad why is mark carney running on them? 😆
Meanwhile under carney virtually every single metric is down and Canada’s economy is on the same negative ballistic course as it was under Justin Trudeau
Are you aware of how bad Trudeau was for Alberta? He did a lot of damage and Carney is nowhere close to that bad
I’ll give you that, although he’s not much better. He’s talking about the possibility of building a pipeline, Justin built a pipeline. And his price for doing that is a massive increase in carbon taxes for the oil fields which will make them far less competitive globally. So I don’t know about the whole nowhere close business. He may not be as bad but I don’t know that he’s that far off
Yeah no fuck Tiny PP
Jagmeet went to our strike line and said he’d take Trudeau down if they forced a deal on us. When they forced a deal on us, Jagmeet was silent. That’s why I didn’t vote for the NDP. Hopefully their new leadership actually stands by their word.
And honestly I respect that. Conservatives have destroyed their parties provincially in federally when they perceived that the party had become corrupt or morally bankrupt. And the NDP has done the same and your statement is an expression of that. The willingness to destroy the political party because of bad behavior is an absolute requirement for good democracy
But the liberal supporters do not have that track record. Even when they punish their party it’s mild and temporary and most often they don’t. And that creates a problem. How long will others watch that before they decide they should behave the same way then the political parties know they can get away with anything
You know what killed me is I shook the guys hand and looked in his eyes and I knew he didn’t believe what he had just said. I could tell from the look in his eyes that he said what he said because it was what we wanted to hear. And that hurt because I like Jag and I respect the position the guy was in, unfortunately with the benefit of hindsight we can tell that in the end his decisions tanked the party. I couldn’t vote for the party after that. They needed a change. They got it. I hope it works out.
The liberal party has had the support of the “Always Liberal, forever Liberal, no matter what I’m voting liberal” people who are just as confounding as their conservative counterparts, for entirely different reasons.
I see that type of voter more on the conservative side.
I personally know far more people who switch between liberal and NDP depending on the election than I do people who switch from conservative to anything else.
I gave up on the NDP after years of mismanagement. I voted for the party of Jack and was alright with Mulcair. But under Jagmeet the party has been run into the ground.
That year where Jagmeet and the NDP propped up the obviously dead Trudeau government was the final straw. Willfully choosing to support a wildly unpopular prime minister to avoid the election was gross and made a mockery of their name. If you want to be taken seriously as a party and a leader, you have to be in it to win. There could have been an opportunity to become the opposition again and maybe replace the Liberals in time. Instead they chose to sacrifice their own party. If they don’t even want to be a serious party, why the hell should I vote for them?
Why vote NDP? Because even if we concede that all your criticisms of the party are exactly right and unchanged under its new leadership, that still makes them the best of the main parties available to vote for.
Well obviously a fair number of NDP voters kind of felt the same. And this is kind of a point that I was bringing up, historically both provincially and federally we have seen conservative supporters utterly destroy their party when their signs of corruption or egregious Behavior. And likewise you can say the same thing about the NDP including the recent destruction of the party.
For some reason you can’t say that about liberals. No matter how bad the liberals get they still tend to survive and their voters are reluctant to punish them the same way
I’d be curious what historical data you’re referencing?
Well there are numerous examples of right wing parties or the NDP completely devastating or wiping out their parties in the face of corruption.
Consider the PC government federally after Brian Mulroney left and Kim Campbell disappointed by saying everything was fine and there’s no need to change. They went from being in power to being able to hold caucus meetings at a medium-sized booth at Denny’s. And then the party was eventually wiped out completely and replaced.
Consider the NDP in British Columbia when they had their scandal of the tail end of the 20th century and we’re reduced to two seats as I recall. Likewise the conservative party which was known as the social credit for absolutely bizarre reasons was wiped out after the Vanderzalm Scandals.
There is a willingness for Canadian voters on the right and the farther left to absolutely devastate if not completely destroy their political party if it is perceived that they have done something unethical. The conservatives most of all but the NDP as well
But there is no willingness on the part of the liberal sister they may knock their party out of power but they will never punish them even for severe corruption the way the conservatives and even the NDP will
The party loss after Mulroney was, IMO, primarily due to the during reform party - a division of the conservative party. If you look at voting percentages, the conservatives still claimed 30% of the vote, just divided differently.
The bigger difference I see is that Mulroney had managed to win nonconservative votes, which then left during the 93 election.
That means those liberal voters you claim never bote anything else voted VERY strongly against the liberal party and for the conservatives to give Mulroney his wins.
From my knowledge, the NDP has never been wiped out. They’ve been reduced down to a few seats, much like any other party, but they’re still the NDP. Liberals in Ontario were gutted entirely, not dissimilar to any of your conservative examples above, and lost official party status after nearly 15 years in power. Despite how awful Ford has been, they STILL haven’t clawed back to even a shadow of a party. If that isn’t an example of them being destroyed in public opinion I don’t know what is.
The reform party was a brand new party. The only reason it existed was because conservative voters were disgusted with the corruption and bad behavior of the PC party.
I mean if we’re being 100% honest Mulroney was actually doing a fairly decent job. And no conservative wanted to see chretien get in.
But conservatives determined that the party was toast, so they created a new party and through the old one in the garbage. That’s what they’re prepared to do when they see corruption
And no it is absolutely ridiculous to think that the liberal voters punish the liberal party by voting from over only. That absolutely did not happen. The liberal party continued on just fine it was not destroyed or wiped out in any way shape or form. People just like Mulroney better than they like John Turner
When you’re reduced to below party status you’ve been wiped out politically. You might recover but let’s not pretend otherwise. Conservative voters have wiped their parties out to the point where they are no longer official parties And so have the NDP. The liberals have never done so. So I’m afraid you’re 100% incorrect there
The liberals lost and they lost badly in Ontario. I mean they had gone through four elections was a major thing with the liberals and they survived just fine. As it is what they say they lost the election badly but the party was not wiped out. They still have more seats then than the NDP has federally now
The liberal party Had corruption scandal after corruption scandal for over a decade and the liberal voters kept it in power and now they’ve been returned to a majority. And we’re already seeing corruption scandals with Carney but liberal voters just don’t care
Liberal voters will tolerate almost any level of corruption, to be honest it’s getting to the point where it’s practically a prerequisite. And EP voters and conservative voters are far less tolerant with conservatives being the least tolerant.
That’s the first I’ve heard of the corruption being a cause. The reform party was created because western Canada, particularly Alberta, was pissed that Mulroney was working so closely with Quebec during his attempts at constitution reform, and that he was raising taxes.
Just double checked, and the PC party still got 16% of the vote when the reform party appeared, who got 18%. Reform did better because they won more seats because they were primarily western canada, but popular vote, which is the more realistic measure of how well a party is doing, was nearly identical.
When you look at election results through the years, percentages voting for Liberal and Conservative have been pretty much constant at a baseline 30%. Reform split that vote between themselves and PC. The remaining 30% is split among NDP and Bloq, then swing voters.
This doesn’t really change much, despite what you’re arguing. There are a few exceptions but I’d argue that’s less to do with corruption and more to do with the finances and perceived gains by the party in power.
Dude, I literally just pointed out a case where the liberal party WAS reduced below official party status, and remained there, and that case happened in the last decade. By your own argument, this means they were wiped out politically. They have as many seats as the PC party did post-mulroney, when you’re saying the conservative voters kicked them out.
You had me in the first half - but I’d argue that core 20-30% that libs and cons have are both so entrenched they refuse to vote anyone else are the ones who are willing to overlook corruption. If cons were as willing to kick out for corruption, they’d have kicked Doug Ford out after his greenbelt scandal. Instead he got another majority.
I’d argue that cons are more willing to kick people out for violating the conservatives political alignment than the liberals are. I’ve seen many arguing that Carney is actually super liberal and these conservative actions he’s taking are actually good and in line with the party.
I’d chalk this up to the LPC being flexible enough to position itself wherever it needs to be, while the Cons and NDP sit on the poles.
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. So you’re saying you think that the liberals know how to apply to their people better? I mean that doesn’t really make sense to me. I think most people understand what corruption is and can identify it when they see it, I just don’t think that the liberal supporters actually care and that gives the liberal party a lot more freedom to do things that would get the other two parties in trouble
I’m saying that the LPC can opportunistically change their tune because they occupy the middle space. The Cons and NDP have fairly fixed places on the ideological and political right and left which bind them.
But it has nothing to do with that. Policy is one thing but what we’re talking about here is corruption. Conservative and NDP voters are less tolerant of their party being corrupt then liberals are. Liberals will accept a high level of corruption in their party
Case in point. Everybody lost their mind and screamed about how unfair it was including the liberals when Bev Oda bought a $14 glass of orange juice. But the liberals are insisting that it’s perfectly fine at Carney spent a million dollars on airline food last year because he works hard and deserves to eat well. Just on airline food for himself he spent more money than a family of four would spend on groceries in 50 years while telling Canadians they’re going to have to sacrifice.
And that’s just fine with the liberals. But an expensive orange juice when it’s not a liberal? She had to resign.
Singh unfortunately didn’t help the cause much. But I think it was actually Pollievre who helped Carney with such incredible efficiency. I agree, it makes no sense, but PP’s innate reality distortion field was apparently large enough to cause some sort of gravitational lensing around Carney too that made him temporarily look like an anti-Trump.
I also think Carney did particularly well on the military topic, especially compared to previous Liberal positions, which might have genuinely appealed to some NDP voters disillusioned with the NDP’s traditionally weak stance on defense, in light of the active military threats against us and our allies.
Personally, I understand where the NDP’s defense policy is coming from, and I think it’s responsible and probably even the right way to approach it holistically. We don’t need to beg Europe to partner with us, even if they’re obviously willing to, we have everything we need to develop our own military and industry on our own, but it will take time for those investments to pay off, and I get the desire to shortcut some of that with European assistance. But maybe people thought we wouldn’t be able to have socialism and kick Trump and Putin’s teeth in at the same time. I don’t know.
Well it’s worth noting that poilievre got almost the same popular vote as carney did. And there’s no doubt the Carney had his own trudeomanium moments there in the campaign where people flock to him because they believed in him not because they didn’t believe in Poilievre. In fact based on the polling poilievre was gaining ground through most of the election.
None of the polling I saw indicated that defense was a major issue. And it wasn’t really brought up a lot during the election, that was more post-election. So while anything is possible I’m not seeing a lot of evidence for that being a major driving force
I don’t know that the new NDP is going to be pushing terribly hard for military spending.
💯