![]() |
Early Elections?
Calling early elections seem to be quite the trend in Canada.
During the pandemic Trudeau did it, at a high cost to the taxpayer and no real results, same number of seats as before. Now Ford wants an early election at a cost of 75 Million to the taxpayer. Ford states that a strong mandate and the US election and Trump would make that necessary, but he already has a strong majority. Most likely Ford is trying to distract from some unknown scandal? And then there is the federal election this year, most likely it'll also be an early election. One just has to think what money could be saved and spent on other matters ( health care, etc... ) instead of constantly calling early elections. Is this really all necessary? |
Re: Early Elections?
Originally Posted by OrangeMango
(Post 13296116)
Calling early elections seem to be quite the trend in Canada.
During the pandemic Trudeau did it, at a high cost to the taxpayer and no real results, same number of seats as before. Now Ford wants an early election at a cost of 75 Million to the taxpayer. Ford states that a strong mandate and the US election and Trump would make that necessary, but he already has a strong majority. Most likely Ford is trying to distract from some unknown scandal? And then there is the federal election this year, most likely it'll also be an early election. One just has to think what money could be saved and spent on other matters ( health care, etc... ) instead of constantly calling early elections. Is this really all necessary? I would be amazed if anyone doesn't want a Federal Election as soon as possible. As a result of the constitutional challenge that is wending its way through Federal Court, the prorogation may be deemed inappropriate and, if so, Parliament will resume, the Government is likely to fall as a result of a non-confidence vote (if Singh does what he has stated he will but we have been there before) and the election may happen sooner than the government wants. I always question the "additional cost" put forward by the public service. They are paid regardless and, while I accept that there may be some overtime, or additional temporary workers, involved, it appears to me that the vast majority of the "cost" would have been incurred anyway. |
Re: Early Elections?
Originally Posted by OrangeMango
(Post 13296116)
During the pandemic Trudeau did it, at a high cost to the taxpayer and no real results, same number of seats as before.
|
Re: Early Elections?
I think that Jagmeet Singh will support the Liberals continue in power under the guise of helping the Feds fight against the Trump tariffs. I'm just waiting for PP to get his underwear in a twist when he doesn't get his way with an early election.
|
Re: Early Elections?
Originally Posted by Kingsboy48
(Post 13297240)
I think that Jagmeet Singh will support the Liberals continue in power under the guise of helping the Feds fight against the Trump tariffs. I'm just waiting for PP to get his underwear in a twist when he doesn't get his way with an early election.
|
Re: Early Elections?
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 13297322)
Why would PP want an election? He's in an untenable position; he's presented himself as a Trump lackey and Trump has turned against Canada.
|
Re: Early Elections?
Originally Posted by CanadaJimmy
(Post 13297357)
He's hoping people haven't realized yet, and him winning will be even less likely once Carney becomes liberal leader (provided the liberals don't stupidly select Freeland).
|
Re: Early Elections?
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 13297359)
Why do you think that would change people's opinions? Didn't he support all of the policies that Trudeau implemented? What do you believe he is going to do any differently than Trudeau?
Actual policies are a small part of elections, people tend to gravitate to people they know, respect and show good leadership. Most people are very uninformed when it comes to choosing who to vote for, for example in the recent BC elections, many people voted provincial conservative because they thought it was a federal election. Unlike Trudeau, Carney is insanely well qualified and experienced. People want reassurance during these uncertain times, and Carney delivers that. The liberal party has a long history in Canada and Carney is tapping into that liberal nostalgia too. Personally I think policy wise Carney will do a better job listening to the right people, Trudeau often ended up listening to corporate lobbyists and other self interested people, I think Carney will do a better job recognizing that. But I'll admit it's mostly vibes based, but that's often how these things play out. |
Re: Early Elections?
Originally Posted by CanadaJimmy
(Post 13297361)
All the effort has been focused on attacking Trudeau - "he's not ready", "he's a drama teacher",etc. now he's gone, that all falls flat.
Actual policies are a small part of elections, people tend to gravitate to people they know, respect and show good leadership. Most people are very uninformed when it comes to choosing who to vote for, for example in the recent BC elections, many people voted provincial conservative because they thought it was a federal election. Unlike Trudeau, Carney is insanely well qualified and experienced. People want reassurance during these uncertain times, and Carney delivers that. The liberal party has a long history in Canada and Carney is tapping into that liberal nostalgia too. Personally I think policy wise Carney will do a better job listening to the right people, Trudeau often ended up listening to corporate lobbyists and other self interested people, I think Carney will do a better job recognizing that. But I'll admit it's mostly vibes based, but that's often how these things play out. I would argue against Carney being insanely well qualified and experienced, as a politician. I agree that lots of the electorate have no idea about policies, or why one may be better than the other. The impression I get is that they simply want the government to give money to them, apparently, oblivious to the the fact that the government can only do so if it takes it from another entity. |
Re: Early Elections?
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 13297359)
Why do you think that would change people's opinions? Didn't he support all of the policies that Trudeau implemented? What do you believe he is going to do any differently than Trudeau?
|
Re: Early Elections?
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 13297374)
I always wonder how people know this. Did any of your friends tell you that they voted thinking they were voting in a federal election?
I would argue against Carney being insanely well qualified and experienced, as a politician. I agree that lots of the electorate have no idea about policies, or why one may be better than the other. The impression I get is that they simply want the government to give money to them, apparently, oblivious to the the fact that the government can only do so if it takes it from another entity. |
Re: Early Elections?
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 13297322)
Why would PP want an election? He's in an untenable position; he's presented himself as a Trump lackey and Trump has turned against Canada.
|
Re: Early Elections?
Originally Posted by dbd33
(Post 13297322)
Why would PP want an election? He's in an untenable position; he's presented himself as a Trump lackey and Trump has turned against Canada.
|
Re: Early Elections?
Originally Posted by Kingsboy48
(Post 13297380)
PP has been going on for months or even longer that Canada needs an 'Axe the Tax' election without delay. I'm still trying to figure out why PP wants to axe the carbon tax - 80% of households get more rebate than the tax costs them so why does he want to make us worse off just because he doesn't like Trudeau (does anyone?!).
The aim was to reduce carbon emissions wasn't it and, on that metric, it has been an abject failure. If it was intended to be a redistribution of income policy, there is an argument that has been a success. |
Re: Early Elections?
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 13297398)
You have just aptly demonstrated what I stated above.
The aim was to reduce carbon emissions wasn't it and, on that metric, it has been an abject failure. If it was intended to be a redistribution of income policy, there is an argument that has been a success. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 1:06 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.