• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Canadian General Election (OT) - #elxn42: October 19, 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
Conservatives are playing the terror card this weekend: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-revokes-citizenship-of-toronto-18-ringleader

Trudeau yesterday came out again and said he is against the new law that allows the government to revoke citizenship for Canadians convicted of terrorist activity. Well, later that day the government revoked the citizenship of the leader of the Toronto 18, the group that planned to detonate truck bombs in Toronto.

This will force Trudeau and Mulcair to come out and say they are against this move, which allows Harper to say they want terrorists in Canada. It's a brilliant move, probably devised by their new Australian ultra-conservative campaign manager. It's incredibly dirty, but it will work with much of the population. Because of reasons like this, don't rule out another Harper majority, especially if the NDP start to lose ground in Quebec over the niqab ban.

This election is no longer about the economy, democracy, healthcare, etc, it's about Muslims and terrorists.
 
Trudeau and Mulcair should ignore it an continue to talk about other issues.

if Trudeau and Mulcair get lured into defending terrorists, then it is game over for them.

I have no sympathy for convicted terrorists and I am okay with kicking those who have been convicted of terrorism out of the country
 

Tiktaalik

Member
Kathleen Wynne’s support for Justin Trudeau may now be a liability: Walkom
Beset by scandal, the Ontario premier is a reminder of how tricky the Liberals can be.

Since the beginning of this federal election campaign, Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne has been an unabashed booster of Justin Trudeau.

Provincial premiers usually hold their partisan fire during federal contests. They know they will ultimately have to work with whoever forms government in Ottawa.

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley, for instance, has been careful to keep her distance from fellow New Democrat and would-be prime minister Tom Mulcair.

Wynne has shown no such restraint. In an effort to get Trudeau’s Liberals elected, she has publicly taken on both Mulcair and Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Appearing beside Trudeau at a Toronto rally last month, the Ontario Liberal premier was particularly hard on the NDP leader, calling his election platform incomplete, unworkable and impossible.

Only Trudeau, she said, deserved to become prime minister.


Trudeau’s campaign team, it seems, was happy to have her help.

But now it is not clear whether Wynne’s very public support is an asset or liability for the federal Liberal leader.

The police decision to charge Liberal bagman Gerry Lougheed in the Sudbury byelection affair is only the latest problem besetting the Ontario premier.

Lougheed faces bribery charges for his alleged attempt to persuade a would-be provincial Liberal nominee in the February byelection to gracefully step aside in favour of a star candidate that Wynne preferred.

On its own, the Sudbury scandal might not matter that much. Certainly it didn’t matter to the voters of Sudbury last February when, in spite of the widely aired allegations, they handily elected Wynne’s choice.

But this week’s news that formal charges have been laid comes at a time when the premier’s stock is already falling in Ontario.

A Forum Research poll last month put Wynne’s Liberals in third place in the province, below both the Progressive Conservatives and the NDP.

Her approval ratings have dropped to about 30 per cent.

In particular, the premier is unpopular for her surprise decision to privatize Hydro One, Ontario’s publicly owned electricity transmission monopoly.


At one level, Wynne has acted as an exemplar to Trudeau. His decision to focus on transit and public-works spending, as well as his strategy of trying to outflank the NDP from the left, are borrowed from Wynne’s successful 2014 Ontario election campaign.

But her decision to privatize Hydro One is a reminder of how flexible — some might say duplicitous — Liberals can be once they gain power.

Nowhere in her 2014 campaign did Wynne talk of privatizing this major Crown corporation. That decision was announced only after she had safely won a majority government. If, in the 2014 campaign, she had said she planned to sell off one of the province’s crown jewels — and award its new CEO a handsome pay packet that could reach $4 million annually — she may not have done quite so well.

No political party is pure. Former Conservative leader Brian Mulroney famously declared universal programs a “sacred trust,” only to reverse himself upon winning power.

Former Ontario NDP premier Bob Rae promised public auto insurance but backed away from the pledge once in office.

But the Liberals are famous for their spectacular U-turns.

In the 1974 election campaign, Liberal prime minister Pierre Trudeau relentlessly mocked the idea of wage and price controls — only to impose them a year after he won.

In 1995, Jean Chrétien’s government gutted the very welfare and unemployment insurance schemes that previous Liberal regimes had instituted.

Like Wynne with Hydro One, this followed an election two years earlier in which the Chrétien Liberals gave voters no hint that they had any of this in mind.

According to the latest polls, Trudeau’s Liberals and Harper’s Conservatives are neck and neck in Ontario, with Mulcair’s NDP stuck in third place.

Will Wynne’s vocal support help Trudeau take an unambiguous lead in this province? If voters think of her as the feisty woman willing to invest in public transit, perhaps it will.

If, however, she reminds them of how tricky the Liberals can be, Trudeau might prefer that she keep her mouth shut.

If the uptick in Conservative support we've seen in some Ontario polls is indicative of a real trend that that Ontario voters are returning to the Conservatives, then Wynne's unpopularity could be an explanation.

It is pretty unusual for a Province to vote for the same party at both the Provincial and Federal levels. Especially if the Provincial party is unpopular (see: NDP's mediocre polling in NDP run Manitoba).

I've thought it bizarre for quite some time that the Liberals have been doing as well as they have been in Ontario given Wynne's unpopularity. Of course I don't live in Ontario and the impression I get from the Province comes through the filter of my friends over there. Maybe my friends just really, really hate Wynne lol.
 
I also do believe that Provincial politics and parties tend to have a negative affect on their Federal equivalents (even not affiliated)

Provincial politics hit closer to home, education, health care and the bladeeblah. And when a unpopular premier starts going up against the Prime Minister, it may give ammunition to vote for the Prime Minister to counter-ballance the unpopular Premier.
 

Azih

Member
Horwath is pretty popular in Ontario so I think Mulcair might start using her appeal to bolster himself in Ontario. Wynne is sadly a prime example of the general Liberal tendency for double speak.
 

Fuzzy

I would bang a hot farmer!
Conservatives are playing the terror card this weekend: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-revokes-citizenship-of-toronto-18-ringleader

Trudeau yesterday came out again and said he is against the new law that allows the government to revoke citizenship for Canadians convicted of terrorist activity. Well, later that day the government revoked the citizenship of the leader of the Toronto 18, the group that planned to detonate truck bombs in Toronto.

This will force Trudeau and Mulcair to come out and say they are against this move, which allows Harper to say they want terrorists in Canada. It's a brilliant move, probably devised by their new Australian ultra-conservative campaign manager. It's incredibly dirty, but it will work with much of the population. Because of reasons like this, don't rule out another Harper majority, especially if the NDP start to lose ground in Quebec over the niqab ban.

This election is no longer about the economy, democracy, healthcare, etc, it's about Muslims and terrorists.
At least now that it has happened for the first time it can now be challenged in court and get struck down.
 

Walpurgis

Banned
Conservatives are playing the terror card this weekend: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-revokes-citizenship-of-toronto-18-ringleader

Trudeau yesterday came out again and said he is against the new law that allows the government to revoke citizenship for Canadians convicted of terrorist activity. Well, later that day the government revoked the citizenship of the leader of the Toronto 18, the group that planned to detonate truck bombs in Toronto.

This will force Trudeau and Mulcair to come out and say they are against this move, which allows Harper to say they want terrorists in Canada. It's a brilliant move, probably devised by their new Australian ultra-conservative campaign manager. It's incredibly dirty, but it will work with much of the population. Because of reasons like this, don't rule out another Harper majority, especially if the NDP start to lose ground in Quebec over the niqab ban.

This election is no longer about the economy, democracy, healthcare, etc, it's about Muslims and terrorists.
I hope they don't take the bait. No one will care if they don't acknowledge it but the risks are way too high if they do. If asked, they should say that "the courts will rule" or whatever.
Trudeau and Mulcair should ignore it an continue to talk about other issues.

if Trudeau and Mulcair get lured into defending terrorists, then it is game over for them.

I have no sympathy for convicted terrorists and I am okay with kicking those who have been convicted of terrorism out of the country
It's an awful law that creates level of Canadianness. No government should be allowed to send Canadians to foreign countries that they've never been to. It's a symbolic move that only serves to create more divisions among us. How does sending a convicted "terrorist" to another country make us (or anyone) safer than locking them up?
 

Kifimbo

Member
From Paul Wells Twitter:

September 11:

COpp1p8UwAAlpaP.png


Today:

CP2L6reUcAAhT2B.png



Pay attention to the % chance of winning the most seats.
 

Walpurgis

Banned
I spotted my first Liberal signs this morning and they are way too small. The font is also really thin and hard to read.
Conservatives have the best ones and are easiest to read. NDP is also easy to read and good.

The Liberal one is just bad though.
11226175_852889108152016_2512272263197698771_n.jpg

This is the only image that I could find but the size of the sign is actually noticeably smaller than the Cons and NDP. It's very hard to read while driving and the long ass name doesn't help. :p
From Paul Wells Twitter:

September 11:

COpp1p8UwAAlpaP.png


Today:

CP2L6reUcAAhT2B.png



Pay attention to the % chance of winning the most seats.
Going to Sweden.
 

Morrigan Stark

Arrogant Smirk
Suzuki has become a lunatic.
This. I have met him on a few occasions through a friend that works for him and local fundraisers he attends.

The dude is losing it. He is incredibly unpleasant in person.
I had no idea. That is a shame, I remember having a positive impression of him a few years ago. Dammit.

From Paul Wells Twitter:

September 11:

COpp1p8UwAAlpaP.png


Today:

CP2L6reUcAAhT2B.png



Pay attention to the % chance of winning the most seats.

866276.gif
 

Apathy

Member
Well Mulcair said he would be willing to lose the election over one issue, guess is coming to fruition. We're going to go see see another conservative majority unless they royally screw up. This is going to be another disastrous 4 years with the undermining of social services, sciences and the environment.
 

Kifimbo

Member
Well Mulcair said he would be willing to lose the election over one issue, guess is coming to fruition. We're going to go see see another conservative majority unless they royally screw up. This is going to be another disastrous 4 years with the undermining of social services, sciences and the environment.

It's not even close to a majority and, because there desire for change is still strong, I don't think we'll see one.
 

Parch

Member
Oh, wow. From 12% to 97%. This all started because of the niqab?
Debates?

Unfortunately GAF does not represent Canada. There are a huge number of Canadians who are satisfied with the Conservatives and wary of the others. The GAF opinion that everybody wants Harper out is just not true.
 
Unfortunately GAF does not represent Canada. There are a huge number of Canadians who are satisfied with the Conservatives and wary of the others. The GAF opinion that everybody wants Harper out is just not true.

Well, looking at the first number, there are 66.7% of people who don't want Harper. It's all down in the optics
 
this is turning into a disaster
what is going on? None the less we must not lose are morale.... Harper lovers will grantee go out and vote.... we need to go and do the same
 
A large majority of Canadians do want the Conservatives out. They are by far the most outlier party in Canada in terms of policy. I think a coalition is more than justifiable.
 

Morrigan Stark

Arrogant Smirk
we oughta get a hashtag like #FuckHarper trending on a national level or something
Silly as that sounds... I think it could be a good idea. Maybe it won't do shit, but maybe it'll gain momentum and enter the collective consciousness and motivate younger folks to vote.

Linking to articles that highlight the failures of the CPC and following it with #FuckHarper sounds good to me!

Or maybe I should make a @FuckHarper... xD edit: shit it's taken
 
we oughta get a hashtag like #FuckHarper trending on a national level or something

something I mean Harper turned to these "Canadian" values thing and now people are running wild saying we got to keep are pure Canadian dream or something safe from invaders on twitter

He is digging down to the bottom of the barrel and it is working for him...... His co-hort Benjimen Netenyahuu did the same thing looking for racist and xenophobes and sadly that worked for him.... Peas of the same pod
 

jstripes

Banned
something I mean Harper turned to these "Canadian" values thing and now people are running wild saying we got to keep are pure Canadian dream or something safe from invaders on twitter

He is digging down to the bottom of the barrel and it is working for him...... His co-hort Benjimen Netenyahuu did the same thing looking for racist and xenophobes and sadly that worked for him.... Peas of the same pod

This shift is probably also the result of them bringing in that ultra-conservative Aussie strategist to run their campaign.

Thanks, Australia. I thought we were friends.
 
Using a tag like that is likely to only appeal to younger votes who already don't vote CPC, and would serve to turn off middle-aged voters who would consider changing. No need to be immature about it. Even #noharper or something like that would be better.
 

Parch

Member
Well, looking at the first number, there are 66.7% of people who don't want Harper. It's all down in the optics
And a higher percentage who don't want Mulcair. And even a higher number who don't want Trudeau.

You can cherry pick the numbers all you want, but that doesn't decide the governing party. Once again, it's the splitting of the vote that is going to give the Conservatives the win.
NDP were the party on the rise, but too many Canadians go crawling back to the Liberals instead of providing the opposition party enough seats to take control. If change was going to happen then Canada had to go with one opposition. But nooo, here we go with a split vote again changing nothing.
 

GSG Flash

Nobody ruins my family vacation but me...and maybe the boy!
And a higher percentage who don't want Mulcair. And even a higher number who don't want Trudeau.

You can cherry pick the numbers all you want, but that doesn't decide the governing party. Once again, it's the splitting of the vote that is going to give the Conservatives the win.
NDP were the party on the rise, but too many Canadians go crawling back to the Liberals instead of providing the opposition party enough seats to take control. If change was going to happen then Canada had to go with one opposition. But nooo, here we go with a split vote again changing nothing.

I'm not sure that's necessarily true.

Using myself as an example, I voted for the Liberals, because I can only vote for one party, but I want anyone but the Conservatives to win. I would be willing to bet there's a lot of people who feel the same all over Canada.
 

Walpurgis

Banned
I'm not sure that's necessarily true.

Using myself as an example, I voted for the Liberals, because I can only vote for one party, but I want anyone but the Conservatives to win. I would be willing to bet there's a lot of people who feel the same all over Canada.

Yeah, I think most NDP, Greens and Liberals would take anything but Conservative. Maybe some right leaning Liberals might prefer Conservatives but I don't think they outnumber the anti-Con group of voters.
 

Ecotic

Member
American here who is following your election. So is it generally assumed that in the final week or so whichever of the two liberal parties is seen as having more support or the best chance to win will peel off enough voters from the other liberal party to win the most seats? I'm under the impression a significant chunk of the election is fine with either the Liberals or the NDP and will vote strategically to oust Harper.

Or can Harper still win this if voters can't tell which of the two parties to side with because they're near even in the polls?
 
There's about the same number of people who are voting against the Liberals and NDP.

True, true. but that's why we have those "Which person do you like the most" polls which puts Harper in last place pretty much every time. Realistically though, this goes right into the ranked polling debate to determine what the true percentage is from these numbers alone, and that's really the crux of what I was getting at.

Still, going off of what we know in the past; Green voters wont vote Conservative, BQ voters probably would, Half of the Liberal base would and practically no NDPer will. Conversely for the Conservatives, they would vastly prefer Liberal to NDP.
 

S-Wind

Member
Trudeau and Mulcair should ignore it an continue to talk about other issues.

if Trudeau and Mulcair get lured into defending terrorists, then it is game over for them.

I have no sympathy for convicted terrorists and I am okay with kicking those who have been convicted of terrorism out of the country

What about child molesters?

Rapist?

Serial killers?

Where do you draw the line?
 

mo60

Member
Well Mulcair said he would be willing to lose the election over one issue, guess is coming to fruition. We're going to go see see another conservative majority unless they royally screw up. This is going to be another disastrous 4 years with the undermining of social services, sciences and the environment.

I don't think the conservatives are getting a majority this time because they are down in terms of poll numbers in almost every single province compared to 2011 and the majority requirements have changed and require them to actually gain more seats than the lose to get a majority. I bet you the amount of seats the conservatives will get this election will be between 120-135 seats (maybe under 120 if enough people can decide to vote for one of the opposition parties on election day).
 
American here who is following your election. So is it generally assumed that in the final week or so whichever of the two liberal parties is seen as having more support or the best chance to win will peel off enough voters from the other liberal party to win the most seats? I'm under the impression a significant chunk of the election is fine with either the Liberals or the NDP and will vote strategically to oust Harper.

Or can Harper still win this if voters can't tell which of the two parties to side with because they're near even in the polls?
In some riding's, the strategic vote works really well. Though for the vast majority its pretty much either a locked in win for a party, or a super competitive battleground. As you know, its pretty much impossible to coordinate people on a large scale, so in reality what ends up happening is everyone just ends up casting strategic ballots for the opposite party and thus you are back at square 1 again with the Conservatives winning your riding by a thousand votes with only 30% of the total count.

So pretty much right now the polls have us at a 3 way tie (each party getting ~30% of the vote) with the Conservatives right now arguably in the lead. That said, the parliamentary system of government we use is different from the one the USA uses in that even if the Conservatives win a plurality of seats, the Prime Minister and conversely power within the house could still go to another party though a coalition or a Supply and Confidence deal, so its really up in the air who is going to "win" and what the fallout will be considering it is pretty much almost unprecedented to have a 3 way race for this far into the election... especially considering that if this was a regular sized campaign, we would be having our election in less than a week as opposed to it being 3 weeks from now.

So to answer your question, it is likely, but at the same time its also likely that if the Conservatives "Win" they wont win at the same time.
 

firehawk12

Subete no aware
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives...015/index.html

308 has Cons leading at 123 seats, Liberals at 108 and NDP at 106

Liberals gains in Onatrio = minus 1 seat for the Cons.

if the Liberals can go full out on the offensive in Ontario, they could trade enough seats away from the Cons.

It's all in the hands of Ontario now
lol

We're fucked unless the Liberals and the NDP choose to make the government fall after the first confidence vote. And I just don't see that happening unless the two jerks running the parties stop pretending that having a divided left is worthwhile and actually consider a power-sharing agreement.
 

diaspora

Member
True, true. but that's why we have those "Which person do you like the most" polls which puts Harper in last place pretty much every time. Realistically though, this goes right into the ranked polling debate to determine what the true percentage is from these numbers alone, and that's really the crux of what I was getting at.

Still, going off of what we know in the past; Green voters wont vote Conservative, BQ voters probably would, Half of the Liberal base would and practically no NDPer will. Conversely for the Conservatives, they would vastly prefer Liberal to NDP.

That depends regionally. The Greens depending on province can straddle the tory line on everything but the environment.
 

Tiktaalik

Member
American here who is following your election. So is it generally assumed that in the final week or so whichever of the two liberal parties is seen as having more support or the best chance to win will peel off enough voters from the other liberal party to win the most seats? I'm under the impression a significant chunk of the election is fine with either the Liberals or the NDP and will vote strategically to oust Harper.

Or can Harper still win this if voters can't tell which of the two parties to side with because they're near even in the polls?

For a subset of voter in a handful of ridings across the country yes, but in general it doesn't really work this way.

The amount of ridings where a Conservative is elected due to the NDP and Liberals splitting the vote is actually pretty small. As well the amount of ridings where the NDP and Liberals are directly battling each other with the Conservatives as an irrelevant third player is also pretty small. The 30/30/30 type national polls make it seem like a three way race, but in reality the broadest amount of seats are either clear Conservative vs NDP or Conservative vs Liberal competitions, with the third party having no real hope of winning.

For various historical reasons some parties are stronger and more electable than others in various regions of the country. For example the Liberals are the clear anti-Conservative choice in most of Ontario, but with many ridings in the West and Quebec the NDP is the clear anti-Conservative choice. Canada is vast, and so one party's momentum in one region could result in negligible movement in another part of the country.

Additionally demographics can also have an influence on which left wing party is most relevant. In cities the Liberals are often the clear choice of wealthy suburban ridings, whereas the NDP is the clear choice of more working class ridings. Rural ridings often favour different parties than the cities.

With all of this in mind it's clear why we don't often see huge last minute shifts in support. It would be unlikely that a voter in rural Alberta would read an article about the Liberals polling strong in the Atlantic provinces and then decide to switch his support to the party polling distant third locally.

Finally they are different parties for a reason. In this particular election both have rushed to occupy the same centrist space, but they believe in different things and have different policies. There are plenty of exasperated Canadians that just want a different government and will vote for "Anyone But Conservative" but the Liberals and NDP both have a base that would either never or at least be very reluctant to vote for the other party. For many die hard Liberal supporters the NDP are irrational socialists that can never be trusted with power. For die hard NDP the Liberals are not really left wing, are indistinguishable from the Conservatives, and can never be trusted with power. These ideological splits further reduce the amount of voters that could decide to shift to a different party on election day.
 
What about child molesters?

Rapist?

Serial killers?

Where do you draw the line?

Considering gutter's tendencies and what he's generally posted about minority rights, I think it's safe to guess where he draws the line.

For a subset of voter in a handful of ridings across the country yes, but in general it doesn't really work this way.

The amount of ridings where a Conservative is elected due to the NDP and Liberals splitting the vote is actually pretty small. As well the amount of ridings where the NDP and Liberals are directly battling each other with the Conservatives as an irrelevant third player is also pretty small. The 30/30/30 type national polls make it seem like a three way race, but in reality the broadest amount of seats are either clear Conservative vs NDP or Conservative vs Liberal competitions, with the third party having no real hope of winning.

For various historical reasons some parties are stronger and more electable than others in various regions of the country. For example the Liberals are the clear anti-Conservative choice in most of Ontario, but with many ridings in the West and Quebec the NDP is the clear anti-Conservative choice. Canada is vast, and so one party's momentum in one region could result in negligible movement in another part of the country.

Additionally demographics can also have an influence on which left wing party is most relevant. In cities the Liberals are often the clear choice of wealthy suburban ridings, whereas the NDP is the clear choice of more working class ridings. Rural ridings often favour different parties than the cities.

With all of this in mind it's clear why we don't often see huge last minute shifts in support. It would be unlikely that a voter in rural Alberta would read an article about the Liberals polling strong in the Atlantic provinces and then decide to switch his support to the party polling distant third locally.

Finally they are different parties for a reason. In this particular election both have rushed to occupy the same centrist space, but they believe in different things and have different policies. There are plenty of exasperated Canadians that just want a different government and will vote for "Anyone But Conservative" but the Liberals and NDP both have a base that would either never or at least be very reluctant to vote for the other party. For many die hard Liberal supporters the NDP are irrational socialists that can never be trusted with power. For die hard NDP the Liberals are not really left wing, are indistinguishable from the Conservatives, and can never be trusted with power. These ideological splits further reduce the amount of voters that could decide to shift to a different party on election day.

This is a thoroughly fantastic explanation. Even if you check those Leadnow polls, you could probably count the number of genuine three-way races on two hands. Or, to see it in action, just look at 2011: when the NDP was surging in the polls, in Ontario it triggered a Liberal collapse because of voters abandoning them in favour of the Conservatives, out of fear of an NDP government.
 

Stumpokapow

listen to the mad man
For a subset of voter in a handful of ridings across the country yes, but in general it doesn't really work this way.

The amount of ridings where a Conservative is elected due to the NDP and Liberals splitting the vote is actually pretty small. As well the amount of ridings where the NDP and Liberals are directly battling each other with the Conservatives as an irrelevant third player is also pretty small. The 30/30/30 type national polls make it seem like a three way race, but in reality the broadest amount of seats are either clear Conservative vs NDP or Conservative vs Liberal competitions, with the third party having no real hope of winning.

I actually calculated the amount of each a little while back:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=177851453&postcount=2762
Number of ridings that went Conservative in the 2011 election where only the Liberals were competitive as a challenge: 36
Number of ridings that went Conservative in the 2011 election where only the NDP were competitive as a challenge: 35
Number of ridings that went Conservative in the 2011 election where both NDP and Liberals were competitive as a challenge: 8
Number of ridings that went Conservative in the 2011 election where there was no competition: 87

I define "competitive" as ~>50% of the winner's vote total, ballparked.

Now, admittedly this analysis ignores scenarios where there was multiparty competition and someone other than the conservatives won, but given that the frame here is "should we be worried about vote splitting causing a conservative victory", it certainly seems that was not the case in the last election.
 

Parch

Member
It's not necessarily vote splitting within each riding, it's seats being split between the left. If the NDP had the Liberal wins, then the Conservatives would be voted out. Competition between the left just means the Conservatives benefit.

Hoping for a coalition government is highly unlikely. There had to be just one opposition party against the Conservatives. Not that I'd want to see Canada go to a 2 party system, but if change is wanted to oust a government, there has to be a national understanding that support for one opposition party is needed.
 

firehawk12

Subete no aware
Finally they are different parties for a reason. In this particular election both have rushed to occupy the same centrist space, but they believe in different things and have different policies. There are plenty of exasperated Canadians that just want a different government and will vote for "Anyone But Conservative" but the Liberals and NDP both have a base that would either never or at least be very reluctant to vote for the other party. For many die hard Liberal supporters the NDP are irrational socialists that can never be trusted with power. For die hard NDP the Liberals are not really left wing, are indistinguishable from the Conservatives, and can never be trusted with power. These ideological splits further reduce the amount of voters that could decide to shift to a different party on election day.

You know what happened to the old Progressive Conservatives who refused to join the new CPC? They all disappeared into irrelevance, barring the few old fogies in the Senate who still consider themselves PC (in the same way that Liberal Senators still considering themselves Liberals even if Trudeau doesn't think they are).

I still point to the Saskatchewan Party, where the Liberals and Conservatives merged to defeat the NDP, as the perfect counter example to the whole "two parties are so completely different and will never reconcile their differences" thing.

Maybe it will take another 20 years of Harper/CPC rule for the NDP/Liberals to get the idea. Meanwhile we suffer more as these two parties continue their penis measuring contest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom