So Justin Trudeau and his Liberals are finished and done like dinner-who benefits?

124 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rob8305
So Justin Trudeau and his Liberals are finished and done like dinner-who benefits?

The disastrous India trip will make the Liberals toxic in all East Indian majority or plurality ridings, which will cost them dearly.  Citizens of the great country of India, now Canadians, don’t take kindly to a government that associates itself with terrorists.  It would tend to reason, would it not, that the NDP made a brilliant selection as leader and now stands to reap the most gain from the Liberal collapse.  Or do you think Andrew Scheer may somehow benefit and steal votes from the NDP?

Also, the effects of this disastrous India trip will send the Liberals reeling into a distant 3rd place in the polls.

It’s hard to overstate the level of anger and just how much PMJT is reviled throughout the land and the near destruction of JT that resulted from the ethics commisoner report.  The Bahamas put him in his coffin and India closed it. First one term government in over 100 years.  I’m not really counting Clark for 6 months. Extraordinary.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Who benefits? The Conservatives,genius. Which is complete bad news. We will be going backward and we'll have something worse than what we already have.

But I also have to make it clear that the Liberals aren't necessarily finished. Not by a long shot. If people of Indian desent decide not to vote Liberal,it doesn't mean that's the end oof tyhe Liberals. What you're suggesting is that our Indian populationn is so huge they alone can decide an election. Wrong. They are still  a minority and as for ridings,we're talking a few in BC and a few in Ontario. I don't think that's enough to take down the Liberals.

I wouldn't open the champagne bottle any time soon.

And BTW,I support strongly the Liberals plan to legalize cannabis and implement a National Housig Act. 2 things that would never happen under Tory  rule.

I find it absolutely comical that anyone here would be ecstatic with a Conservative government. It really makes me question the mentality of NDP fans. You'd rather a far right government that would surely continue what Harper started and a lot more (Scheer is a So-Con) over a Centrist government that wants to implement some progressive legislation.

All of you need to give your heads a good shake. 

Pondering

LOL, he must be joking or trolling Alan. We all know the Liberals are no where close to finished. 

voice of the damned

The Bahamas put him in his coffin and India closed it. First one term government in over 100 years.  

"The Bahamas" was pretty much a dead issue by the time "India" came along, so I doubt that the latter is being propelled by momentum from the former. If this scandal turns out to have legs, I think it will very much be a stand-alone thing, though no less lethal for that. Justin Trudeau being successfully framed as BFFs with a guy once convicted of trying to assassinate an Indian politician is gonna make a free-room from the Aga Khan look like overdue library books.

That said, there seems to be some spin making the rounds(even in usually anti-Liberal media) portraying Atwal as just an obsessive political hanger-on, with a knack for talking his way onto guest lists and into photo-ops. If Trudeau can successfully portray himself as just another victim of a small-time operator, he might come out of this okay.

NorthReport

For some reason this thread title reminds me of Mulcair

Pogo Pogo's picture

Foreign policy never decides a Canadian election unless it involves our soldiers.

R.E.Wood

Also, the effects of this disastrous India trip will send the Liberals reeling into a distant 3rd place in the polls.

Um, no... it won't. I doubt it will even make a dent. 

josh

WTF?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

voice of the damned wrote:

delete

Pondering

Canadians of East Indian origin also make up the second largest non-European ethnic group in the country. In 2001, over 700,000 people of East Indian origin lived in Canada. That year, they made up 2.4% of the total Canadian population.Jul 16, 2007

I don't think anything happening in India will have any impact on Trudeau's chances in Canada. If anyone would be impacted by the division in India it would be the NDP with a Sikh leader but I doubt it will have a net negative effect for them either. 

Canadian Sikhs number roughly 468,670 people and account for roughly 1.4% of Canada's population. Canadian Sikhs are often credited for paving the path to Canada for all South Asian immigrants as well as for inadvertently creating the presence of Sikhism in the United States.

Indigenous peoples won't dictate the outcome of the election either although they are growing fast.

New data from the National Household Survey (NHS) show that 1,400,685 people had an Aboriginal identity in 2011, representing 4.3% of the total Canadian population. Aboriginal people accounted for 3.8% of the population enumerated in the 2006 Census, 3.3% in the 2001 Census and 2.8% in the 1996 Census.Sep 15, 2016

Economics will dictate the outcome of the next election just as it always does. 

Pondering

alan smithee wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

The Bahamas put him in his coffin and India closed it. First one term government in over 100 years.  

"

Delete your post Alan. You misunderstood. VoD was disagreeing with that statement. 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Of course, Justin could STILL guarantee there won't ever be another Con majority.  All he has to do is honor his original campaign promise and implement pr.  

Might as well admit it's time, dauphin.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Pondering wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

The Bahamas put him in his coffin and India closed it. First one term government in over 100 years.  

"

Delete your post Alan. You misunderstood. VoD was disagreeing with that statement. 

Done. But if I read anyone (who considers themselves progressive) cheerleads Scheer and his CONservatives,I will go on te attack. There'd be nothing to gain with a Conservative majority. And that would include a Liberal Opposition so it wouldn't benefit the NDP anyway.

I was at the corner dep. I saw the front page of that soiled toilet paper called le Journal de Montréal. They are bashing Trudeau as visiting 'Bollywood' and that he's a joke. I guess that goes with the narrative of their readership. Nobody here should be so inspired to do the same. You'd be in lock step with right wing lunatics. Bash him if you must but don't celebrate a Conservative majority. It's moronic if you at least CLAIM to be progressive.

brookmere

Rob8305 wrote:
First one term government in over 100 years.

Since nobody picked up on this, I'll just note that R. B. Bennett headed a one term government a good deal less than 100 years ago. And he lost re-election due to the economy, of course.

josh

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi says he and Justin Trudeau agreed to fight terrorism and those who misuse religion to divide people following a bilateral meeting between the two in New Delhi this morning.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/trudeau-modi-agree-to-jointly-fight-extremism/ar-BBJun78

Have to laugh since Modi is also known as the Butcher of Gujarat, and represents a party which grew out of Hindu extremism.

NDPP

Zoolander has no competition thus far. Certainly not the CONs and definitely not the No Difference Party. Dream on.,,

voice of the damned

josh wrote:

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi says he and Justin Trudeau agreed to fight terrorism and those who misuse religion to divide people following a bilateral meeting between the two in New Delhi this morning.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/trudeau-modi-agree-to-jointly-fight-extremism/ar-BBJun78

Have to laugh since Modi is also known as the Butcher of Gujarat, and represents a party which grew out of Hindu extremism.

Indeed, the irony is pretty thick here.

But let's face it. At THIS point, Justin doesn't really have any other choice but to smile and nod when the Indian Prime Minister comes out raging against terrorism.

Sean in Ottawa

Ken Burch wrote:

Of course, Justin could STILL guarantee there won't ever be another Con majority.  All he has to do is honor his original campaign promise and implement pr.  

Might as well admit it's time, dauphin.

While I do not think the Liberals are done, they eventually will be as all parties ebb and flow. Trudeau had an opportunity, in sounding like a New Democrat to make it less likely that a minority supported Conservative could eventually replace him. Instead, soaking in hypocrisy and the arrogance of assuming he will never lose a majority, he opted to keep his majority at the cost of handing one to the Conservatives in the future. Breaking a promise to do this -- the most important promise that effectively allowed him to come to power. It was a large number of NDP and Green supporters who bought his lie that he would do something about the electoral system.

Trusting Liberals is like Charlie Brown and Lucy with the ball. Not a good idea.

 

Sean in Ottawa

brookmere wrote:

Rob8305 wrote:
First one term government in over 100 years.

Since nobody picked up on this, I'll just note that R. B. Bennett headed a one term government a good deal less than 100 years ago. And he lost re-election due to the economy, of course.

We are getting ahead of ourselves. He could repeat like his father and go into a minority for a second mandate. That is if the NDP does not say screw you. A minority is what most expected in 2015 and they expected the NDP to either lead it or be in it making sure of electoral reform. They might get their chance next year.

Sean in Ottawa

NDPP wrote:

Zoolander has no competition thus far. Certainly not the CONs and definitely not the No Difference Party. Dream on.,,

Hmmm. And Trump won't get elected either .... oops.

The Conservatives could get elected -- they are not that far out. While unlikely the NDP could as well if the fall were dramatic due to some significant scandal. Never say never.

It is extremely unlikely that the Liberals will lose the next election (although a minority is certainly possible if the NDP were to make any gains on them). But it is not impossible and there are some scenarios already where that could happen.

I suspect that if Clinton had been elected, the Conservatives would be even closer but Trump has given a bad name to Conservative politics....

All governments should follow the maxim that what is in the rearview mirror is closer than they appear.

Trudeau is also weaker than he appears given that he mobilized a coalition of people who were first time voters who may not come again and people who expected delivery on some very high expectations. He has followed that with breaking key promises that brought him votes (Electoral Reform), delivering less than expected (Indigenous rights) and having to take specific positions where people on both sides of an issue each thought he would be on their side (Pipelines). He has gotten away with over the top language about support for middle class when the policies did not really do that. He has risks to the economy due to NAFTA (which might turn to advantage if issues can be blamed on others).

No -- the next election should not be predicted now. Trudeau could win a massive majority, a minority, or a shocking (although close) defeat. The question is about the odds. I am not betting against him but will not risk a prediction in hes favour either.

On top of all this, politics has become less predictable and more chaotic. Canada is not an exception. We also have risk of the kind of populism that exists elsewhere.

Your clue could even be in the fickleness of voters. You do not need many to change their minds in the voting booth. So many do not vote that the act of choosing to vote or stay home along with a small number of switchers can decide an election.

Lets look at the slim numbers:

If

2% of the 39% who voted for Trudeau vote NDP and

3% vote conservative and

3% do not vote this time and

1% of Conservatives who stayed home last time come and vote --

You get a potential Conservative minority:

Liberal 39% -2-3-3=31%

Conservative 31% +2 =32%

While this is really, really, unlikely -- it is not impossible especially since we do not know the ballot question or leading issues.

Let's take a stab at one possibility:

Scenario 1:

US government goes severely in debt. Interest rates rise globally. Canadian dollar is defended by being above US rates. Canadian dollar still goes down causing inflation at the same time as rising interet rates while workers get less and the economy sours. -- then s#%t happens. In this scenario, Trudeau may or may not be able to blame international economics given his spending.

Sorry but I am old enough to remember that Harper was not going to get elected and Clark was not going to get elected and other speculative nonsense to add to the Trump could not be elected.

 

Rob8305

What prompted this post was that PMJT was getting decimated on Twitter last night and it seems like he’s getting decimated more and more often on Twitter lately.  Also, don’t forget that Forum has had the Conservatives well out in front of the Libs for a year now.  It’s looking increasingly likely that the next government will either be a Singh-led one or Scheer-led one.  The India scandal could give legs to Singh.  If not, we on the left are screwed, again. 

Sean, remember that Trudeau won his minority in ‘72 by just 1 seat!! Canada, unless the NDP or PMJT can turn things around, may be closer to Trump-style fascism than we can imagine.

 

 

 

 

NDPP

I'll give you this. Your scenario 1 is a possibility. If so I predict the Liberals, even sans JT wonder-boy will still hold on to government, (perhaps Freeland could replace him?) even a minority one, as the present opposition leaders are completely unelectable imv. Of course, as Nixon honcho HR Haldeman once famously observed, given enough money to buy the right media coverage and we could elect a chimpanzee.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Rob8305 wrote:

 If not, we on the left are screwed, again. 

 Trump-style fascism than we can imagine.

Oh and 'we' on the left WOULDN'T be screwed with a Con majority? Pff.

The Liberals will give us Trump style fascism? I think you've been eating paint chips.

BTW,here are the latest Nanos Poll numbers.

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/news-source/nanos-research/

I think your dream of a Conservative majority is a little premature.

SocialJustice101

I predict no significant poll movement after the India trip.   This is another non-story blown up by con media, much like the "peoplekind" comment.     If the Liberals withstood the Aga Khan scandal, surely the India "snub" is a complete non-factor.

josh

Rob8305 wrote:

What prompted this post was that PMJT was getting decimated on Twitter last night and it seems like he’s getting decimated more and more often on Twitter lately.  Also, don’t forget that Forum has had the Conservatives well out in front of the Libs for a year now.  It’s looking increasingly likely that the next government will either be a Singh-led one or Scheer-led one.  The India scandal could give legs to Singh.  If not, we on the left are screwed, again. 

Sean, remember that Trudeau won his minority in ‘72 by just 1 seat!! Canada, unless the NDP or PMJT can turn things around, may be closer to Trump-style fascism than we can imagine.

 

 

 

 

Forum has been a total outlier.  But Trudeau is a total empty suit.  Although that’s not news.

Sean in Ottawa

I hope it is clear that I am not suggesting that this India trip is some big turning point. My suggestion that the Liberals are vulnerable is due to much more than this.

I do not think the India trip alone will do any damage and it may not for a while. However, like it did with Harper, these things that are nothing in their time eventually add up when there is enough else there.

The narrative that became the branding of Harper by 2015 was predictable years before when nothing seemed to stick. Likewise, it is posssible to see where things will eventually go with Trudeau even if we are nowhere near there.

Now Harper was branded as mean and uncaring, Trudeau as light fluffy and silly is not far from the mind. Either Trudeau will grow into the role soon, as at times he suggests he might be able to, or he will fall back into the impression many opponents had of him when he was first leader. Given that this is his greatest risk, it is a wonder that he does not get some serious aides who could ahve prevented this silliness in India. The other impression that could take over is him as an entitled rich kid with his father's arrogance and less than half of his brains.

These impressions already exist so to get traction they just need a steady diet of things like this India trip.

Now for the first years he could do little wrong with many as they want to be with him and take the selfies and see how much nicer he is than Harper etc. But for many journalists this is getting old.

Singh might want to avoid too many cmparisons to Trudeau as not all of those are flattering. Scheer, hopefully will continue to remind Canadians why they wanted to see the back of the Conservatives but there is always the risk of voter amnesia... Ontario seems to be poised to give the Conservatives an encore -- pathetic that this is about Hydro among other things that the Conservatives seriously pooched the last time they were in power. Voters often are illogical.

NDPP

'I did not say that': Trudeau Denies Equating Sikh Separatism With Quebec

http://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/trudeau-doesnt-equate-sikh-se...

"In an account of discussions between the two men on Wednesday, a spokesperson for Singh said Trudeau had cited the Quebec sovereigntist movement as an example to convince his hosts that he was fully aware of the risks and dangers of violence...The comments attributed by Singh's office to Trudeau sent shock waves through Quebec."

From 'Snub' To Scandal, Trudeau's Visit Sparks Outrage

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/asia/extremist-scandal-trudeau-india-visi...

"Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's week-long trip to India has gone from bad to worse..."

 

Trudeau's India Trip is a Total Disaster - And He Has Only Himself To Blame

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/02/22/trudea...

"How did Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the world's favorite liberal mascot  - a feminist man, with movie-star good looks, a 50% female cabinet and a political lexicon that has replaced 'mankind' with 'peoplekind' (making millions swoon) - end up looking silly, diminished and desperate on his trip to India this week?"

Getting known...

bekayne

Rob8305 wrote:

What prompted this post was that PMJT was getting decimated on Twitter last night and it seems like he’s getting decimated more and more often on Twitter lately.  

OK, so it's all very scientific then.

progressive17 progressive17's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Of course, Justin could STILL guarantee there won't ever be another Con majority.  All he has to do is honor his original campaign promise and implement pr.  

Might as well admit it's time, dauphin.

While I do not think the Liberals are done, they eventually will be as all parties ebb and flow. Trudeau had an opportunity, in sounding like a New Democrat to make it less likely that a minority supported Conservative could eventually replace him. Instead, soaking in hypocrisy and the arrogance of assuming he will never lose a majority, he opted to keep his majority at the cost of handing one to the Conservatives in the future. Breaking a promise to do this -- the most important promise that effectively allowed him to come to power. It was a large number of NDP and Green supporters who bought his lie that he would do something about the electoral system.

Trusting Liberals is like Charlie Brown and Lucy with the ball. Not a good idea.

 

Do you honestly think anyone cares about Electoral Reform? 

contrarianna

progressive17 wrote:

Do you honestly think anyone cares about Electoral Reform? 

This Ekos poll indicates most do.
http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2016/11/the-public-outlook-on-elec...

It's another thing whether it will happen under any elected Can government, once it sees its best chance to remain in power is the-Least-Unpopular-Takes-All-Phony-Majority system. 

The only chance for reform in Canada is perhaps in BC where the Greens (to their own advantage) have likely made it a condition of support, and will probably have a say in the wording of the referendum.
====
As to the the subject of the thread. 

No, the Liberals aren't finished because of this. Though you would think including a Canadian who was convicted of attempting to murder a moderate Sihk Indian Cabinate Minister on his visit to Vancouver Island (near where I lived) would be of some consequence.

The Liberals will have few pointed/persistant attacks on the Atwal inclusion from the other parties since they all draw support from the same well.

Andrew Coyne is accurate on the Trudeau/Atwal background

L’affaire Atwal: the novelty is only that they did it on Indian soil

It isn’t that Atwal suddenly popped up among the prime minister’s retinue, uninvited, with no prior history of involvement with the federal Liberals. It’s that he was invited, and that he was invited precisely because of his connections with the party.
It doesn’t take much searching to find Atwal posing for photographs with prominent Liberals, including its former and present leaders, or to discover that he was a member of the executive of the Fleetwood-Port Kells riding association in Surrey, B.C. Atwal, then, would not have been unknown to senior Liberals; neither would his violent past. (Indeed, among his alleged victims was a former Liberal cabinet minister, Ujjal Dosanjh, who accuses him to this day of beating him over the head with a metal pipe, though Atwal was acquitted of the charge in court.)

Neither is he the only Sikh separatist, extreme or otherwise, to find a haven within the party, or to whom the party has catered: witness the prime minister’s attendance at a Toronto event earlier this year featuring flags of Sikh separatism and posters of the extremist leader Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. It isn’t that the government actively supports Sikh separatism. It’s that, for political reasons, the Liberal party has been willing to look the other way at those who do; to appear, if not sympathetic to, than at least indulgent of their cause, if that were required to attract their votes, their money and their organizational muscle....

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-laffaire-atwal-the-novelty-...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
This Ekos poll indicates most do.

Respondents like to give aspirational answers to poll questions.  If you ask 10000 Canadians whether eating enough whole grains is important to them, their response won't really jibe with how many people purchase and prepare whole grains.

I believe we've had four provincial referendums on electoral reform, and evidently all those voters who are super keen for electoral reform were sick that day or something.

And please don't remind me that in B.C. the yes side would have won the first referendum if not for a supermajority requirement without giving me your best song and dance about why, when they got a "do over" it failed to even meet the preferable 50%+1 standard, by a yuuuge margin.

WWWTT

I like this thread! And probably not for the reason that automatically comes to most people’s minds. I like it because of the comments that posters are making in defence of Justin. I said it before on this forum that we’re probably not going to see any serious shift in poll numbers until after marihuana is legalized. And ironically all Justin really has in his corner is just that, poll numbers. Drop or adjust those numbers just 2-3 points away from the libs and add to conservative and NDP, then watch a whole entire new scenario unfold complete with the political junkies rushing in with the tea leaves Donald Trump NAFTA Canadian dollar interest rates evil conservatives (whom for some reason no one can explain why they can’t turn away from the dark side of the force and are just plain bad people) and pretty much anything imaginable that can influence an election. Justin’s failing so far are self inflicted and for the most part downplayed by people who want pot legal. I suspect that Justin has the corporate media circus freek side show self promotion shifted into hi gear for good reason. And that is I suspect that if the liberals can’t keep the focus of the corporate media attention, disappointing poll numbers will soon follow. 

Pondering

Polls on electoral reform are biased to favor it and proportional representation because it's presented as an improvement and without examples or indications that it would require seats be added for example. 

Even just a detailed explanation reduced support. Supporters may bring out statistics showing PR countries are as a group more progressive but that won't necessarily motivate people. Opponents will point to Germany and Spain and other countries in which PR has led to months and months of negotiations before a government can be formed. 

I think the insistence that we will have to add new seats and have two votes, one for representative and one for party, will turn people off. The argument is going to be that Canada is a pretty awesome place and has been very successful under FPTP so it may not be perfect but it works. 

If you look at some of the other questions and answers people want more direct say. 

PR supporters insist that I would be better represented under PR but it isn't so because I don't vote for a political party. I vote for a leader, and only one leader can win. 

I would like to vote for my leader separate from my local representative but I would still want FPTP. So, the leader that recieves the most votes would become PM. Individual reps would be elected by riding as they are now but they would have no impact on who becomes leader. That would be determined by direct vote of the people. 

You could elect anyone locally. I bet a lot more independents would be elected. 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Breaking a promise to do this -- the most important promise that effectively allowed him to come to power. It was a large number of NDP and Green supporters who bought his lie that he would do something about the electoral system.

If people were upset about that it would show by now. There is no evidence that people voted for Trudeau based on moving to PR. We would have seen a sharp uptick in NDP support when he shut it down. 

pookie

Rob8305 wrote:

The disastrous India trip will make the Liberals toxic in all East Indian majority or plurality ridings, which will cost them dearly.  Citizens of the great country of India, now Canadians, don’t take kindly to a government that associates itself with terrorists.  

I wonder how many actual people of Indian origin, other than me, are still on Babble?

Also, I'm not a "citizen of the great state of India, now Canadian".  Even though I was born there. I'm Canadian.  Period.

Trudeau's India gaffes have no effect on my likely vote in 2019.   That will depend on way more consequential things.

SocialJustice101

The media coverage of the trip reminds me of school yard bullying, lacking any sort of rational analysis whatsoever.   The CBC article by Evan Dyer is practially the only MSM exception: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/india-trudeau-trip-wrap-up-1.4550703

The only "gaffe" Trudeau is personally guilty of is wearing too much ethnic Indian clothing, and that's a very mild "gaffe" at that.   This will not change any votes.   As for the invitation sent to a Sikh separatist, the MP responsible may have had some kind of an agenda.

brookmere

In 2012, BC Liberal premier Christy Clark had to explain how Mr. Atwal, then a member at large for one of her party's riding associations in Surrey, had got an invitation to her government's budget speech.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/trudeau-not-the-first-politician-to-face-questions-over-atwal/article38084010/

Clark went on to win the 2013 election with a gain in seats, including picking up a seat in Surrey with a large Sikh population from the NDP. It seems that being associated with Mr. Atwal is not an electoral handicap with this demographic.

voice of the damned

As for the invitation sent to a Sikh separatist, the MP responsible may have had some kind of an agenda.

Well, maybe, but that MP is a member of Trudeau's own party. So people might legitimately wonder to what extent Trudeau shares that agenda as well. 

If Harper had invited someone to dinner who had been convicted of bombing abortion clinics, it wouldn't be much of a defense to say "Oh well, the Conservative MP who arranged that is probably just pushing his own agenda." Most people know that Harper and his party are not completely separate from that agenda. 

I don't know if these SNAFUs is India are going to do any long-term damage to Trudeau. Personally, though, I am speculating that at some point JT is going to have his "tainted tuna" moment, ie. it might not be the one thing that kills his popularity, but it will be the dividing point at which the honeymoon is definitely over, he no longer walks on water, etc. These "India" shennanigans sort of have the feel of that, but it's probably too early to tell the long-term repercussions. 

Pogo Pogo's picture

Finding militant (or formerly militant) Sikh's with strong political ties shouldn't surprise anyone. I would almost be surprised if they went the whole trip without something like this. Not to shrug it off, but there was some violent times (Golden Temple all) and political leaders from that time don't just disappear. 

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:

I don't know if these SNAFUs is India are going to do any long-term damage to Trudeau. Personally, though, I am speculating that at some point JT is going to have his "tainted tuna" moment, ie. it might not be the one thing that kills his popularity, but it will be the dividing point at which the honeymoon is definitely over, he no longer walks on water, etc. These "India" shennanigans sort of have the feel of that, but it's probably too early to tell the long-term repercussions. 

Yes over the long term things can make an impact as they add up. Trouble is that usually takes 8 to 12 years and sometimes 16.

The Indian government is playing it down because they issued Atwal a visa to enter the country.

Sean in Ottawa

progressive17 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Of course, Justin could STILL guarantee there won't ever be another Con majority.  All he has to do is honor his original campaign promise and implement pr.  

Might as well admit it's time, dauphin.

While I do not think the Liberals are done, they eventually will be as all parties ebb and flow. Trudeau had an opportunity, in sounding like a New Democrat to make it less likely that a minority supported Conservative could eventually replace him. Instead, soaking in hypocrisy and the arrogance of assuming he will never lose a majority, he opted to keep his majority at the cost of handing one to the Conservatives in the future. Breaking a promise to do this -- the most important promise that effectively allowed him to come to power. It was a large number of NDP and Green supporters who bought his lie that he would do something about the electoral system.

Trusting Liberals is like Charlie Brown and Lucy with the ball. Not a good idea.

 

Do you honestly think anyone cares about Electoral Reform? 

Yes.

And I think that it is a potential ballot question for perhaps as many as 5%. That does not sound like much until you take out all the people who never change their vote and look at the smaller pool of swing voters. Then that 5% is significant.

I also consider this to be a sleeper issue that will not be a big deal unless the Liberals try their desperation tactic of trying to get those who prefer the NDP to vote for them to stop Conservatives. This is the go to for Liberals when they are in trouble. I suspect that electoral reform will come up with a vengence the next time they try this.

So few care about it now but in a live election when Liberals try their tactc (and do becuase it used to work) they may find it backfires badly. and that group just might remain small but be a deciding factor.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Breaking a promise to do this -- the most important promise that effectively allowed him to come to power. It was a large number of NDP and Green supporters who bought his lie that he would do something about the electoral system.

If people were upset about that it would show by now. There is no evidence that people voted for Trudeau based on moving to PR. We would have seen a sharp uptick in NDP support when he shut it down. 

I disagree. I don't think the polls far from a campaign will have high participation among switchers. I think these polls measure more the willingness to be polled or enthusiasm of the camps than the people that tune in late in order to really make up their minds.

Also I don't think this issue is one that will get attention now. But it can come up suddenly the first time the Liberals ask the NDP voters to help them stop conservatives. The NDP would be stupid not to make a deal of it then and the hypocrisy would be huge from Liberals.

Now you might say that the Liberals might not use that tactic that they have used in every election in living memory. Perhaps. But not being able to use the tactic is just as significant as using it and having it fail.

The Liberals in their arrogance have forgotten how much they use (and need) that tactic and how this damages it severely.

So -- if you read my posts for the last couple years -- I have always said it won't be a deal now but it is a sleeper issue.

Just a couple more years to find out if I am wrong.

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

I don't know if these SNAFUs is India are going to do any long-term damage to Trudeau. Personally, though, I am speculating that at some point JT is going to have his "tainted tuna" moment, ie. it might not be the one thing that kills his popularity, but it will be the dividing point at which the honeymoon is definitely over, he no longer walks on water, etc. These "India" shennanigans sort of have the feel of that, but it's probably too early to tell the long-term repercussions. 

Yes over the long term things can make an impact as they add up. Trouble is that usually takes 8 to 12 years and sometimes 16.

The Indian government is playing it down because they issued Atwal a visa to enter the country.

So if that is true , why do you keep saying that the electoral reform issue will not return? To me it is more of a sleeper than India. I think Trudeau will get away with India - mostly. It is only a bit of the weight of impressions but won't stand as a recognized issue in the next election. I think electoral reform will. It will get dismissed then and only after the campaign people will start to talk about how a block as small as 5% actually makes a big difference.

ETA: The Liberals sometimes misread the population in their arrogance. The issue here is that many vote Liberal as a negative vote to prevent Conservatives. Electoral reform was an opportunity to prevent false majority conservatives and the Liberals pooched it in order to keep having a chance at their own false majorities. I think many Liberal voters care less about having a Liberal false majority than preventing a Conservative one. Minority government is not disliked as much among NDP-Liberal voters as Conservative false majorities. The Liberals forget this. Right now there is no election so it is not an issue but this becomes one when we settle into an election and start running numbers about who will win and why. That's when the party switchers tune in anyway. those are the people most apt to care about electoral reform. Some NDP supporters may even prefer the idea that the NDP could get a false majority -- as they acknowledge that it might be the only way to get a majority of any kind. It is the switchers who care less for the individual parties who care most about electoral reform in my opinion.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

It's shit like this that gets me on the war path of the laissez-faire attitudes by some here about the posiblitity of a Conservative majority,

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/conservatives-pledge-to-recognize-jerusa...

I'm warning all of you that  if the Conservatives gain power,look to the US as of what Canada will turn into.

Careful what you wish for. If you're unhappy with what we got,things will be worse immeasurably with a Conservative government. And Harper has only been out of the picture for 3 years,have you learned NOTHING?

Any leftist fine with a Tory majority,phoney oy not,really need their heads examined. For real.

Sean in Ottawa

alan smithee wrote:

It's shit like this that gets me on the war path of the laissez-faire attitudes by some here about the posiblitity of a Conservative majority,

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/conservatives-pledge-to-recognize-jerusa...

I'm warning all of you that  if the Conservatives gain power,look to the US as of what Canada will turn into.

Careful what you wish for. If you're unhappy with what we got,things will be worse immeasurably with a Conservative government. And Harper has only been out of the picture for 3 years,have you learned NOTHING?

Any leftist fine with a Tory majority,phoney oy not,really need their heads examined. For real.

Who is wishing for anything? It seems the discussion is between those who think Trudeau is a lock for the next election and those who do not. I don't think Trudeau is a lock but I am not in any way wishing for a Conservative victory.

It is also not  wishing for a Conservative government to say that if that happens it is Trudeau's own damn personal fault. He killed his promise of reform. Responsibility for a Conservative victory is also not the fault of New democrats who may refuse to buy a promise he has already broken.

So no. Stop blaming people who have nothing to do with it for the risk of a Conservative government. Blame the Liberals directly as they promised a solution -- that no government without majority support of the people could command majority support of the commons.

Your comments to people here are insulting and way off base.

The fact is the Liberals in the hopes of securing a false majority for themselves in the future are prepared to accept one for the Conservatives. to do so they are breaking a significant promise to the people and are effectively siding with the Conservatives rather than risk a power arrangement with a third party. If they rot in hell it will be of their own making. Don't even try to spread that responsibility around. Trudeau should wear this personally like a tattoo on his forehead. Next time the Conservatives get a false majority I think I will take a couple days and phone every single Liberal MP and remind them.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Clearly you have no clue what I'm suggesting. Even when the Liberals aren't in power,all that some do here is bitch about the LIberals. It's an unhealthy obsession. If you think the LIberals are fucking you,than the Conservatives are raping you.

I see hardly anyone talking about Scheer,his social conservatism and the Conservative party which is worse now than it was when Harper was leading it. They are playing the same playbook as the current Republican party. That should disturb you. That's my point. If you don't like it , it's not going to make a difference in 2019. We're fucked.

Sean in Ottawa

alan smithee wrote:

Clearly you have no clue what I'm suggesting. Even when the Liberals aren't in power,all that some do here is bitch about the LIberals. It's an unhealthy obsession. If you think the LIberals are fucking you,than the Conservatives are raping you.

I see hardly anyone talking about Scheer,his social conservatism and the Conservative party which is worse now than it was when Harper was leading it. They are playing the same playbook as the current Republican party. That should disturb you. That's my point. If you don't like it , it's not going to make a difference in 2019. We're fucked.

So sorry.

I should say that a big star slamming into the solar system and frying us would be worse. I just never thought I would have to say that becuase, like, well, it is obvious and not controversial.

The fact that some think the Liberals are worthy of support is something controversial and worth discussion here. Saying the conservatives are dangerous here is not controversial and does not need to be stated all the time. (Except by Liberals who want a little bit of contrast.)

And then there is the fact that it is the Liberals who pretend to be progressive when they are not very. The Conservatives are proud not to be not progressive and do not soak up much potential support from people who want something different than they offer.

It is not the Conservatives who prevented a generation from getting affordable daycare. Without the Liberals they would have had it. It is the Liberals who promised it and got elected on promises like that, defeating another party that also promised that and might have delivered.

I say this becuase like many here, I do believe that a progressive -- real progressive -- party would have a chance in Canada to govern were it not for a faux progressive party taking in enough voters that wanted something else.

Once in a while the amnesia lifts and people see the Liberals for what they are. Don't blame progressive people for being somewhat happy about that. It does not mean they like Conservatives or want them in power.

 

mark_alfred

Regarding electoral reform and proportional representation, many members of Fair Vote Canada are furious with the Liberals.  And members of Democracy Watch are too (see this campaign here:  http://democracywatch.ca/campaigns/pm-trudeau-electoral-reform-accountab...).  I'm not sure how activists with LeadNow feel.  But, since they're based in BC, I imagine they're not thrilled with the Liberals for both the broken electoral reform promise and the broken promise regarding KM.  This will weaken any push for strategic voting that the Liberals often count on. 

Regarding electoral reform, the NDP did adopt Guy Caron's plank regarding prioritizing PR when it comes to negotiations in minority situations, via resolution # 5-06-18.

Resolution # 5-06-18 wrote:

[prelude snipped]

Therefore be it resolved that the New Democratic Party of Canada reiterate its support for Mixed Member Proportional Representation and ensure that Mixed Member Proportional Representation be given a high profile in the NDP platform in the next federal election.

Be it resolved that : An NDP majority government will bring in proportional representation in time for the next election. In a minority parliament, the NDP would make proportional representation a condition for any potential alliance, or for support for any minority government.

Pondering

Trudeau will never allow the strategy of trying to get votes by pointing out how scary the Conservatives are. That is a loser's strategy. There is no proof that it has ever worked. The NDP tried to use it 2015 not the Liberals. It's old-fashioned. Trudeau already spoke out against it specifically because it's like saying you aren't offering anything good enough to earn votes. Nor does Trudeau need it. He will run on his track record. When called a liar he will say he's working on it, and it many cases that will be true. 

On electoral reform he did not say he would accept MMP.  The NDP wanted only MMP. The Liberals were partial to ranked ballots but not the NDP. The Liberals will say there was no consensus among parties and he will be right. There wasn't. There is no evidence that even one person voted for Trudeau rather than the NDP based on electoral reform. 

Singh has spoken about his support for PR and I believe he will make it a major election plank. That doesn't mean voters will respond to it. I think there will have to be multiple MMP provinces before it could be sold federally and I think it's easier to sell on a provincial level. The Alberta NDP hasn't even proposed PR so it can't be all that important to all NDP supporters. Quebec and Ontario are the two most populous provinces by far and neither seems particularly interested in PR.

I'd say swing voters are considerably less interested in PR.  Swing voters tune in at the last minute, check out the the leaders and pick the one they think will do the best job. Swing voters don't have any allegiance to a particular party or ideology so they don't care if seats are non-proportional. They voted for the person they wanted, win or lose, they will tune back in next election period. The grand majority of PR supporters are already NDP supporters. 

I keep coming across the narrative that a large number of voters sway between the Liberals and NDP and that those people are actually more progressive than the Liberals but they keep getting tricked into voting Liberal because the Liberals campaign left and govern right. 

As I believe Alan mentioned the Liberals are fiscally conservative but socially liberal and that mirrors the public well. It's why the Conservatives have been moving to the centre socially and the NDP has been moving to the centre fiscally. The Conservatives have no choice. People are getting far more live and let live. The Conservatives were right to fear teachers. Teachers don't get into politics in the classroom but they do teach human rights and ethics and about the environment etc. The more educated a person is the more likely they will vote NDP. 

Alan, I recall your saying just after Trudeau was elected that once people discovered the tax cuts were really going to the uppper-middle class they would turn on Trudeau. There wasn't even a ripple in his support. People are not paying that close attention. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau will never allow the strategy of trying to get votes by pointing out how scary the Conservatives are. That is a loser's strategy. There is no proof that it has ever worked. The NDP tried to use it 2015 not the Liberals. It's old-fashioned. Trudeau already spoke out against it specifically because it's like saying you aren't offering anything good enough to earn votes. Nor does Trudeau need it. He will run on his track record. When called a liar he will say he's working on it, and it many cases that will be true. 

On electoral reform he did not say he would accept MMP.  The NDP wanted only MMP. The Liberals were partial to ranked ballots but not the NDP. The Liberals will say there was no consensus among parties and he will be right. There wasn't. There is no evidence that even one person voted for Trudeau rather than the NDP based on electoral reform. 

Singh has spoken about his support for PR and I believe he will make it a major election plank. That doesn't mean voters will respond to it. I think there will have to be multiple MMP provinces before it could be sold federally and I think it's easier to sell on a provincial level. The Alberta NDP hasn't even proposed PR so it can't be all that important to all NDP supporters. Quebec and Ontario are the two most populous provinces by far and neither seems particularly interested in PR.

I'd say swing voters are considerably less interested in PR.  Swing voters tune in at the last minute, check out the the leaders and pick the one they think will do the best job. Swing voters don't have any allegiance to a particular party or ideology so they don't care if seats are non-proportional. They voted for the person they wanted, win or lose, they will tune back in next election period. The grand majority of PR supporters are already NDP supporters. 

I keep coming across the narrative that a large number of voters sway between the Liberals and NDP and that those people are actually more progressive than the Liberals but they keep getting tricked into voting Liberal because the Liberals campaign left and govern right. 

As I believe Alan mentioned the Liberals are fiscally conservative but socially liberal and that mirrors the public well. It's why the Conservatives have been moving to the centre socially and the NDP has been moving to the centre fiscally. The Conservatives have no choice. People are getting far more live and let live. The Conservatives were right to fear teachers. Teachers don't get into politics in the classroom but they do teach human rights and ethics and about the environment etc. The more educated a person is the more likely they will vote NDP. 

Alan, I recall your saying just after Trudeau was elected that once people discovered the tax cuts were really going to the uppper-middle class they would turn on Trudeau. There wasn't even a ripple in his support. People are not paying that close attention. 

I have paid close attention to this gambit by Liberals in elections going back at least 30 years. It has often hurt the NDP and it has sometimes worked for the Liberals and sometimes failed.

It worked in 1988 and while it did not win the election support following the appeal did move to the Liberals. The NDP campaign was poor but did not drop until this appeal was made heavily. NDP support the previous summer had been very high -- topping the polls.

In 1993, this was employed to great effect. Combined with a weak NDP campaign at the close of the election, the Liberals made this appeal to defeating the Conservatives and the NDP lost party status.

The Liberals tried it again in 1997 and it seemed to almost have backfired a little as NDP voters, I think voted for party status believing that the Martin cuts of 1995 might have been mitagated had the NDP official party status. I remember the appeal and the reaction. Even the media attacked it sayign that the NDP was fighting for its life and owed nothing to the Liberals after the Martin cuts.

The Liberals tried it again in 2000 although they made less of a deal about it only bringing it up close to the end of the campaign. It worked a little better although the election was closer.

In 2004 the Liberals pushed it very hard at the end of the campaign and many thought that it worked reducing the NDP from about 18% to 15% in the dying days. Layton claimed that this cost several seats and resulted in his change of tactics in 2006

The Liberals tried it heavily in 2006 but the NDP pushed to hold the Conservatives to a minority. Layton asked Liberals to lend their votes to the NDP as well. It is unclear which party got the most out of this.

The 2008 election saw the rise of "independent" strategic voting sites mostly run by Liberals. At the same time people on babble started to really attack and get a hate on for Liberals pushing the tactic. This tactic did work somewhat at the end but not enough to save the Liberals who were falling fast due to Dion -- even in their fall they tried the tactic to save the furniture and it seemed to help just a bit. Interestingly the Conservatives tried a tactic in Quebec in some ridings asking BQ members to support them to stop the Liberals. May was also asked and at the time said she did not support Strategic voting. This election some say caused a major push to electoral reform.

The 2011 election saw the implosion of Ignatief but he tried the tactic as well but by the end of the campaign the tide had run out of any argument that the Liberals had a better chance than the NDP.

In 2015 both parties tried it -- first the NDP who kept going with the argument even as their polling was sliding under the Liberals and then Liberals started to throw it back in the face of the NDP.

Now whether Trudeau would personally do the appeal or not is really not an issue. Usually it was not the leader to push it. Paul Martinand Ignatieff did try personally but usually it was the campaign but certainly the leaders endorsed it (Chretien, Dion, Turner).

I remember hearing that the tactic was old in 1988 to appeal to NDP voters to stop Conservatives but I don't have specific memory of these appeals in earlier elections although I did follow closely the 1979, 1980 and 1984 elections. I seem to remember discussion during the 1984 election and that it backfired that time causing NDP support to rise after Broadbent ridiculed it -- others older than me would have to say more about it.

Cody87

If there was ONE good thing about Trump winning that just about everyone, even here, can agree on - it meant the end of the TPP. But talks have continued without the U.S. and it may be an issue next election:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tpp-champagne-deal-1.4499616

This will be another weakness in Trudeau's armour, and happily it's one that the NDP is better-positioned to capitalize on than the conservatives.

By the way, Trudeau can be branded a liar easily because of electoral reform. It doesn't matter if the issue is specifically important to people (although it's MOST important to the people Trudeau needs the MOST - progressive swing voters), because even if it isn't, there will always be that question about anything else Trudeau promises..."Yeah, he says he'll do x, but he reneged on ER so he's just like every other politician..."

Another weakness that will help Singh more than Scheer.

The only way Trudeau gets a majority in 2019 is if Doug Ford gets a majority in Ontario and f's up within the first year. Otherwise it's a minority, not sure who gets the most seats yet. Based on what I've seen so far, I think Trudeau will handle being a minority government leader very poorly.

Pages