Bob Long Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 10 hours ago, aGENT said: https://www.ipolitics.ca/news/liberal-conservative-voting-coalition-kills-electoral-reform-motion And this is why we shouldn't be electing either of the two main parties... Looks like they can in fact work together... As long as it's fucking over Canadians. I don't know if this motion qualifies for that, but it is too bad. I do think the NDP is too dug in on a specific type of proportional tho. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 14 minutes ago, Bob Long said: I don't know if this motion qualifies for that, but it is too bad. I do think the NDP is too dug in on a specific type of proportional tho. The motion was too create a non partisan, citizen's assembly to decide on a recommendation for electoral reform that works best, for actual Canadians. It wasn't pushing any particular system and couldn't have been less "dug in". 9 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said: What outcome did you expect? Yes, both parties are the same. Most normal people know this which is why they won’t be voting for Trudeau again. I saw my uncle yesterday. Had dinner with him. He has always voted Liberal his entire life. He told me that Trudeau has to go. Everyone I know tells me the same thing. I don’t know anybody in Vancouver who is going to vote for Trudeau other than maybe a few posters in this thread… They are not the same. They may function similarly in a lot of ways (this being a prime "fuck you Canadians" example), but while the Liberals are the "status quo" party, the Cons are regressive. Damaging cuts to needed social funding that cost more in the long run, to pay for tax cuts to the rich, while racking up just as much (often more) debt and deficit. All with regressive social and environmental policies that are also damaging and selling off Canadian assets to foreigners. Not the same. Going from an ok-bad party that doesn't give a shit about Canadians to a worse party who gives even less of a shit about you is not a solution to any of our problems. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 (edited) Not the same @Elias Pettersson. Over 1/3 of Liberals voted in favour. Almost no Cons. https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/44/1/634 LIBERAL Yea: 39 Nay: 108 Paired: 0 CONSERVATIVE Yea: 3 Nay: 112 Paired: 0 BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS Yea: 30 Nay: 0 Paired: 0 NDP Yea: 24 Nay: 0 Paired: 0 INDEPENDENT Yea: 3 Nay: 0 Paired: 0 GREEN PARTY Yea: 2 Nay: 0 Paired: 0 Edited February 9 by aGENT 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/canada-s-economy-added-37-000-jobs-in-january-as-unemployment-declines-to-5-7/ar-BB1i25Fw?bncnt=BroadcastNews_BreakingNews&ocid=UCPNC2&FORM=BNC001&pc=U531&cvid=45be79d3ebd54bff81c9dcba38d3db7d&ei=68 " The Canadian economy added 37,000 jobs in January as unemployment fell slightly to 5.7 per cent, the first decline since December 2022, according to a Friday report from Statistics Canada. After three consecutive months of little change in the jobs rate, the January figures were better than economists expected but were mostly driven by an increase in part-time work. Twelve thousand full-time jobs were lost. Average hourly wages, which have been consistently growing at a four to five per cent annual pace as Canadians seek compensation to account for inflation, rose 5.3 per cent from a year ago. "A decent job gain, a slide in the jobless rate and persistent five [per cent] wage growth are hardly the stuff of an urgent call for rate cuts," BMO chief economist Douglas Porter wrote in a note. CIBC senior economist Andrew Grantham concurred, writing, "Today's data suggest that the Bank won't be in a rush to cut interest rates, and we maintain our expectation for a first [interest rate cut] in June." Employment rose across several sectors in January, led by wholesale and retail trade, as well as finance, insurance, real estate, rental and leasing. Meanwhile, accommodation and food services saw the largest employment decline. Canada's labour market cooled significantly last year as high interest rates weighed on consumer spending and business investment, pushing up the unemployment rate from 5.1 per cent in April to 5.8 per cent in December. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 40 minutes ago, aGENT said: The motion was too create a non partisan, citizen's assembly to decide on a recommendation for electoral reform that works best, for actual Canadians. It wasn't pushing any particular system and couldn't have been less "dug in". They are not the same. They may function similarly in a lot of ways (this being a prime "fuck you Canadians" example), but while the Liberals are the "status quo" party, the Cons are regressive. Damaging cuts to needed social funding that cost more in the long run, to pay for tax cuts to the rich, while racking up just as much (often more) debt and deficit. All with regressive social and environmental policies that are also damaging and selling off Canadian assets to foreigners. Not the same. Going from an ok-bad party that doesn't give a shit about Canadians to a worse party who gives even less of a shit about you is not a solution to any of our problems. But we could have ranked ballot now if jag had been willing to compromise. How would this latest thing be any different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 10 hours ago, Elias Pettersson said: Yes, both parties are the same. Most normal people know this which is why they won’t be voting for Trudeau again. This sentence stood out for me...... "Both parties are the same".....which is the reason "most normal people won't vote for" one of them.....but they will vote for the other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 15 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: This sentence stood out for me...... "Both parties are the same".....which is the reason "most normal people won't vote for" one of them.....but they will vote for the other? Weird that the so-called centrists are only criticizing one party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurn Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/letters-feb-9-ucp-transgender-policies-take-away-parental-rights/ar-BB1i2c7F?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=1e53106c1ee4489183c0133c1a1e9a4c&ei=23 "I have been following the news regarding the premier’s new policies surrounding trans-youth. Where I take issue with the new policies is in the government feeling that parents do not have the right to determine what medical care is best for their children. I don’t believe surgery should be available to minors, but puberty blockers will allow those who truly are transgender to keep from developing in a way that contradicts their inner self. Let parents make those choices with their children! CHARMAGNE YOUNG (It’s odd Smith framed the policies as protecting parental rights.) ------------------------------------------------------------ GET SOME PERSPECTIVE Let me see. Ukraine is being bombed into ruin by Russia. Hamas and Israel are playing pitch and catch with rockets. Houthi terrorists are bombing shipping in the Gulf of Yemen that will affect the world’s economy. Chile is being ravaged by wildfires. Southern California is being devastated by landslides and floods while poor old Canada is in a gender identity and pronoun fight. Oh, the inhumanity, Canada. Continue reading DAVE CURRIE (Our problems diminish in comparison.) 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 1 minute ago, Gurn said: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/other/letters-feb-9-ucp-transgender-policies-take-away-parental-rights/ar-BB1i2c7F?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=1e53106c1ee4489183c0133c1a1e9a4c&ei=23 "I have been following the news regarding the premier’s new policies surrounding trans-youth. Where I take issue with the new policies is in the government feeling that parents do not have the right to determine what medical care is best for their children. I don’t believe surgery should be available to minors, but puberty blockers will allow those who truly are transgender to keep from developing in a way that contradicts their inner self. Let parents make those choices with their children! CHARMAGNE YOUNG (It’s odd Smith framed the policies as protecting parental rights.) ------------------------------------------------------------ GET SOME PERSPECTIVE Let me see. Ukraine is being bombed into ruin by Russia. Hamas and Israel are playing pitch and catch with rockets. Houthi terrorists are bombing shipping in the Gulf of Yemen that will affect the world’s economy. Chile is being ravaged by wildfires. Southern California is being devastated by landslides and floods while poor old Canada is in a gender identity and pronoun fight. Oh, the inhumanity, Canada. Continue reading DAVE CURRIE (Our problems diminish in comparison.) "parental rights" is a dog whistle among the evangelicals. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 2 minutes ago, Bob Long said: "parental rights" is a dog whistle among the evangelicals. One that they love dragging out as an excuse to assault children. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 14 hours ago, Gnarcore said: Just read the brief bit of info they have about goals. I dig it. They had a total of 49 votes on their poll that pops up when you first go there. Assuming this wasn't made an hour ago: this federal concept is not going anywhere. EDIT: First link i clicked on for reading about their policy on responsible spending, quoted in the spoiler, sounds highly aspirational and completely impractical when it comes to implementation: you can make line changes to the tax code repeatedly but any one party that tries to rewrite it completely will face massive backlash from every province, most voters and every other member of Parliament and the Senate, tldr: ain't gonna happen. Spoiler RESPONSIBLE SPENDING Civil service and government reform. Government should focus efforts where evidence shows it can make a positive difference. Where appropriate, let civil society and the private sector take the lead, with applicable government oversight. Our tax system has become too complex. A new party would deliver, in eighteen months, a simplified tax code that would close loopholes. Provinces and territories would be invited to participate. A new party would deliver a report on federal corporate subsidies - including the supply management system - and their impact measured against promised outcomes. If returns on investment cannot be measured, government money should not be spent. Government procurement to be overhauled based on private sector best practises. That means military procurement based on national security, not economic development. A strategy to ensure our national debt is controlled and then reduced. If this is serious, they need to ditch any foreign involvement, and I suspect there is significant levels of that. The wording of teh above quote alone sounds like it was a translated to English bit of writing. A new party? They mean to say a new government, made up of their party. Anywho, moving on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 1 hour ago, Bob Long said: But we could have ranked ballot now if jag had been willing to compromise. How would this latest thing be any different? Because it was for forming a non partisan citizens assembly to recommend a "best" system by, and for, actual Canadians, instead of a party pushing one electoral system over another for their own benefit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 8 minutes ago, aGENT said: Because it was for forming a non partisan citizens assembly to recommend a "best" system by, and for, actual Canadians, instead of a party pushing one electoral system over another for their own benefit... This non partisan assembly would be chosen at random from say, all Canadians submitting a tax return? OR would it be appointed by a committee made up to select it? The devil is in the details; there already was a committee and they deadlocked on Prop Rep vs Ranked Ballot, and that is why it died, the NDP wanted seats for the party to staff as it saw fit, which is more chinese style post communism than it is democratic. I want people to hold accountable, not an NDP seat that can't cross the floor to hold the party to account. Parties in Canada have way too much power vs people in Canada as it is, why shore up Party Power while pretending it will strengthen Democracy? The NDP routinely don't get enough seats for their traditional vote level, that is the only reason, and very shortsighted one, that they won't support Ranked Ballots. The Liberals would engulf their votes in a lot of their currently held ridings, and it would weaken their position in Parliament. THis is a snapshot in time thinking approach that doesn't dynamically look forward to shifting voter intentions under an established new system. They think they will get 17% of the seats under Prop Rep which is better than current and far better than Ranked Ballot. Too bad though, Ranked Ballot is the most democratic of the systems: elect a person from the local riding to go to ottawa whom has the support in varying degree of 51% of that ridings population. What is hard to take about that, IF one can move past the wishes of the NDP to come out better in the change than they currently are ? Prop Rep isn't change for Canada, it is change for the NDP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Long Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 13 minutes ago, aGENT said: Because it was for forming a non partisan citizens assembly to recommend a "best" system by, and for, actual Canadians, instead of a party pushing one electoral system over another for their own benefit... Maybe. I don't believe the NDP would change its position, I think that this was probably theatre. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 1 minute ago, Bob Long said: Maybe. I don't believe the NDP would change its position, I think that this was probably theatre. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 (edited) On 2/5/2024 at 6:29 PM, aGENT said: Anyway... If folks are interested in election reform, my local MP Lisa Marie Barron has put forth a motion to form a Canadian Citizens Assembly on electoral reform. https://www.ourcommons.ca/members/en/lisa-marie-barron(111023)/motions/12517157 You can (and I encourage you to) also sign a petitions supporting it: https://www.danielblaikie.ca/a_citizens_assembly?utm_campaign=an_exciting_day_for_electoral&utm_medium=email&utm_source=danielblaikie A representative democracy is a fundamental part of Canadian society, yet Canada's current electoral system means the majority of voters cast their ballot for a candidate who does not get elected. Canadians across party lines are concerned with the health of Canada's democracy. Now more than ever, we need members of parliament from all political parties to come together and work towards a more fair, more equitable, and more democratic electoral system in Canada. We are in a climate crisis, an affordability crisis, a toxic substance crisis, we need parliament to be reflective of the views of Canadians and is representative of the diversity of Canadian population. This is why we need electoral reform. To get there, we need a non-partisan, independent, and reflective Citizens' Assembly working together to build consensus towards the path forward. We know there are many examples of Citizens' Assemblies being used successfully both here at home and abroad, it is time for the Canadian Government to do the same. If you agree it is time for all Members of Parliament to come together on this crucial issue and you support Lisa Marie Barron's motion (read the full text here) add your name below! 13 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said: This non partisan assembly would be chosen at random from say, all Canadians submitting a tax return? OR would it be appointed by a committee made up to select it? The devil is in the details; there already was a committee and they deadlocked on Prop Rep vs Ranked Ballot, and that is why it died, the NDP wanted seats for the party to staff as it saw fit, which is more chinese style post communism than it is democratic. I want people to hold accountable, not an NDP seat that can't cross the floor to hold the party to account. Parties in Canada have way too much power vs people in Canada as it is, why shore up Party Power while pretending it will strengthen Democracy? The NDP routinely don't get enough seats for their traditional vote level, that is the only reason, and very shortsighted one, that they won't support Ranked Ballots. The Liberals would engulf their votes in a lot of their currently held ridings, and it would weaken their position in Parliament. THis is a snapshot in time thinking approach that doesn't dynamically look forward to shifting voter intentions under an established new system. They think they will get 17% of the seats under Prop Rep which is better than current and far better than Ranked Ballot. Too bad though, Ranked Ballot is the most democratic of the systems: elect a person from the local riding to go to ottawa whom has the support in varying degree of 51% of that ridings population. What is hard to take about that, IF one can move past the wishes of the NDP to come out better in the change than they currently are ? Prop Rep isn't change for Canada, it is change for the NDP. 13 minutes ago, Bob Long said: Maybe. I don't believe the NDP would change its position, I think that this was probably theatre. Did either of you actually bother to read it? (i) consist of citizens selected by sortition, an impartial selection process to ensure the assembly’s independence and non-partisanship, (ii) reflect the diversity of the Canadian population, including a representation and meaningful participation of age groups, genders, ethnicities, languages, socioeconomic backgrounds, and geographic regions including from First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, The party's official position may be pro-proportional (which I agree is shit), but this motion was not that. Edited February 9 by aGENT 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 4 minutes ago, aGENT said: Did either of you actually bother to read it? (i) consist of citizens selected by sortition, an impartial selection process to ensure the assembly’s independence and non-partisanship, (ii) reflect the diversity of the Canadian population, including a representation and meaningful participation of age groups, genders, ethnicities, languages, socioeconomic backgrounds, and geographic regions including from First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, The party's official position may be pro-proportional (which I agree is shit), but this motion was not that. I did not read it, sorry, in any given day in the three threads i follow in offtopic there is about 4 hours of reading linked in the thread, that is why I asked, but thank you for the answer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 This just jumped out at me a little when i looked this morning: If we consider the NDP / Liberal arrangement a coalition of sorts, 45% of voters still support it, compared to 40% supporting the rage farmer. I think we won't see an election this year, and likely it will either be nominally early in Spring 2025 to help Singh move out of the shadow of the Liberals a bit, OR it may go the full distance to Fall 2025, but I don't see it in 2024 due to the finances of the NDP and their position not likely to improve in the next election, it seems they will lose seats and drop to 17, possibly fewer if more polarization occurs. Canada (federal) Updated February 4, 2024 CPC 40% ± 4% LPC 26% ± 3% NDP 19% ± 3% BQ 8% ± 1% GPC 5% ± 1% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 3 hours ago, aGENT said: The motion was too create a non partisan, citizen's assembly to decide on a recommendation for electoral reform that works best, for actual Canadians. It wasn't pushing any particular system and couldn't have been less "dug in". They are not the same. They may function similarly in a lot of ways (this being a prime "fuck you Canadians" example), but while the Liberals are the "status quo" party, the Cons are regressive. Damaging cuts to needed social funding that cost more in the long run, to pay for tax cuts to the rich, while racking up just as much (often more) debt and deficit. All with regressive social and environmental policies that are also damaging and selling off Canadian assets to foreigners. Not the same. Going from an ok-bad party that doesn't give a shit about Canadians to a worse party who gives even less of a shit about you is not a solution to any of our problems. So what exactly is your solution to the problem? Vote for the Green Party and then what? What exactly is your Green Party vote going to do for the country when the Conservatives get into power? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 40 minutes ago, Optimist Prime said: This just jumped out at me a little when i looked this morning: If we consider the NDP / Liberal arrangement a coalition of sorts, 45% of voters still support it, compared to 40% supporting the rage farmer. I think we won't see an election this year, and likely it will either be nominally early in Spring 2025 to help Singh move out of the shadow of the Liberals a bit, OR it may go the full distance to Fall 2025, but I don't see it in 2024 due to the finances of the NDP and their position not likely to improve in the next election, it seems they will lose seats and drop to 17, possibly fewer if more polarization occurs. Canada (federal) Updated February 4, 2024 CPC 40% ± 4% LPC 26% ± 3% NDP 19% ± 3% BQ 8% ± 1% GPC 5% ± 1% Chretien got 41% of the vote in 1993. So there isn’t much of a difference. I don’t think any party could ever get more than 41% of the votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 30 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Chretien got 41% of the vote in 1993. So there isn’t much of a difference. I don’t think any party could ever get more than 41% of the votes. You don't? On 1/23/2024 at 2:07 PM, Elias Pettersson said: If an election were held today, PP would win in the largest landslide in Candian political history. What exactly is Trudeau going to do to reverse that over the next year? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elias Pettersson Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 5 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: You don't? 199 seats would be the most ever received by any party. You do understand we don't elect our leaders through the popular vote right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 42 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: Chretien got 41% of the vote in 1993. So there isn’t much of a difference. I don’t think any party could ever get more than 41% of the votes. Somewhat of an apples to oranges comparison but okay, i will play along: the NDP that year got 6.88%, making the 'fantasy coalition' that year total 48.12%, and right now that Liberal NDP coalition has 45% support between them. So Trudeau's government as held up by the NDP has only 3.12% less support than Cretien's 1993 government plus the NDP. Shrug. I don't think the comparison is apt, but if you want to try to match apples to oranges, it doesn't really look like Skippy is doing all that well in terms of eroding progressive support. a 3.12 bleed after not only 8 or 9 years of Trudeau but after 30 years from the 93 results. edit: nominally the green party that year, 1993, got only .24% of the vote. I voted green that year, truth be told, and a handful of other times too. The Greens today have roughly 5% and if we agree they are a progressive party, the progressive vote increased from 1993 by almost 2%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertKBD Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 2 minutes ago, Elias Pettersson said: 199 seats would be the most ever received by any party. You do understand we don't elect our leaders through the popular vote right? 42% of the vote equals 199 seats? How so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimist Prime Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 6 minutes ago, RupertKBD said: 42% of the vote equals 199 seats? How so? the next election will feature 343 seats vice 338, making a true majority government 172 or more seats. If Peter Poutine doesn't win 172 minimum he will not lead the nation for more than a few votes, assuming he even gets the title of Prime Minister in the first place with 171 or less. He is pretty much guaranteed 55 seats out of the Praires. IMO his support in the Maritimes and BC are volatile at best, while currently up, that support shrinks in election cycles and rises between elections for the right wing party. Quebec still doesn't look fertile for the fourth place polling Poilievre there, and lastly that pins all his hopes of a majority on Ontario. I don't see it yet, if at all, but obviously he has strong polling numbers now. Sadly 90% support for those prairie seats waters down the rest of his Canadian support by a wide margin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.