scrubbedexpat091

Liberals expected to retain at least 5 seats in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Atlantic Xpat

scrubbedexpat091

Liberals are doing better than I expected.

BristolUK

I woke up in the middle of the night and put the radio on. Apparently there were four winners.

Former Lancastrian

Cons got more votes than Liberals = Winner Scheer
Liberal won more seats but no majority = Loser Liberals Winner Voters
Liberals lost 29 seats from last election result = Losers Liberals
Cons won 23 more seats = Winner Cons
Bloc won 22 more seats = Winner Bloc
NDP lost 18 seats = Loser NDP
Greens won 1 more seat = Winner Greens
Independent won 1 more seat = Winner Independent

So that's how you can have 4 winners.

dbd33

Phew.

BristolUK

Mine was based on hearing four leaders address their supporters.

carcajou

The best thing is to judge it by the expectations after the previous election.

If someone had told Liberal party strategists in 2015 that, with that huge majority, after the next election they would be in minority government - what would they say?

They would have thought something had gone seriously wrong.

There are 20 people in the Liberal caucus who all turn their heads whenever someone says "Excuse me, Prime Minister." They are all going to start doing their medium- and long-range plotting and having their lackeys count numbers, and unless the polling situation for the Liberals gets better in the next 12 months, Trudeau risks getting rolled.

BristolUK

"Par for the course" perhaps?

Trudeau lost 27 seats between elections, Harper lost 67.
Blair lost 58 seats between elections (albeit more seats in the UK) followed by the party (as government) losing another 97.

Bad reactions against governments are normal.

In this case there was a fair bit of personal damage inflicted. Probably would have snatched this result if offered.

Oakvillian

Overall I think this is probably a good result for the country.

Trudeau will not be able to behave as arrogantly in the next parliamentary session as he did in the last. Accountability and transparency in government tends to increase when there's a minority, as the Liberals will no longer control membership (or voting) in committee. This is, IMO, a good result for the country as a whole as it'll hopefully mean a greater emphasis on consesus-building and less on aggressively negative politics. But I'm not holding my breath on that one

Scheer ran a dreadful campaign. With luck and a following wind, his strategists will acknowledge that running scared of the nonexistent threat from Bernier, playing to the base and ignoring the centre ground, backfired horribly. The conservative base in AB and SK isn't enough to carry an election, and ends up just isolating those two provinces from the rest of the country. So the voters of AB and SK will now have no representation in Cabinet, which cannot possibly be the best way to serve their interests. I reckon, if Scheer doesn't resign, he'll be ousted within the next couple of months. It's a shame Lisa Raitt lost her seat (although well played to Adam Van Koeverden, he worked bloody hard for his win) as she'd be the obvious, and likely successful, choice to replace him. But it's always a challenge for a leader to come from outside the parliamentary caucus - just ask Jagmeet Singh

Speaking of Singh, he ran a better campaign than his numbers suggest. But still, despite having fewer seats, the NDP has the potential to wield much more influence in this session, as they effectively command the balance of power in the Commons. It is this factor - and the opportunity to drive some of his agenda into the government's programme in exchange for a supply/confidence agreement - that will protect his leadership from internal politicking in the NDP.

The Greens had a good election, considering the first-past-the-post system they're up against. I suspect, though, that their continuing (and justifiable, IMO) calls for electoral reform will fall on deaf ears. That horse has bolted.

Quebec politics has taken another interesting turn. The successes of the CAQ in provincial politics have strengthened the appeal of the Bloc. But Yves-François Blanchet was very careful in his choice of language (as far as my less-than-perfect French could tell, and relying on filling my linguistic gaps with the official interpreter) - he talked much more of Quebec Nationalism rather than sovereignty, which is a rather different animal. I don't foresee any of the Quebec agenda making a big dent in national politics, but the increased caucus will give the Bloc greater representation on committees and the likelihood of being called more often in debate, so the voice of Quebec will be louder. Blanchet seems to have been able to tread the fine line between the old-fashioned Nationalists and the new "Quebec Values" brigade pretty effectively. Certainly better than Duceppe or, especially, Martine Ouellet, who pretty much destroyed the parliamentary party in early 2018 when 7 of 10 MPs quit over her abrasive Separatist stance.

BristolUK

National Pharmacare and electoral reform going by what I heard him say overnight.

Oakvillian

He may have some luck with the former. I'll be amazed if electoral reform gets much airtime this session.

Almost Canadian

I can't disagree with any of that.

My fear is what will happen if the economy stalls. Mr. T ran huge deficits when the economy was doing well and he, and those he will need to remain in power, doesn't/don't appear to want to turn the taps off anytime soon. So the extra he gives to everyone to stay in power will need to be repaid by their children.

CanadaJimmy

Running a deficit is normal, you have to spend money to make money, it's just the way the economy works. If you reduce spending (austerity) it usually causes the economy to contract and hurts more.

Also Harper had much higher deficit spending because he handed out tax cuts and then had to borrow and sell off assets to pay for the services people expected. The Liberals inherited bare cupboards from all the tax cuts.

Almost Canadian

I'd respectfully suggest that Harper's deficits were far more to do with the financial crises than a bountiful economy (and he was massively criticized by people for running those when he did). Likewise, Mr. T's deficits are because he chose to give away money to people that really don't need it. I am horrified when I see CCB payments being made to families whose incomes exceed $160,000. They do not need the money.

Deficits are not normal. Keynes justified them to help deal with downturns in the economy but governments all over the world are now more than happy to run them, even if they can't afford to, to ensure that they are re-elected. The electorate don't seem to mind but they should as, if interest payments were not required to be paid, that money could be used to fund some of that which the politicians wish to fund. If governments want to spend money, they should tax their electorate so that their wish list can be appropriately funded.

Austerity is a term used by those that have been profligate, to explain to the electorate how their profligacy must be paid for. Sensible governments would not run deficits unless in an emergency and would nail their colours to their mast by stating, "if you want this, this is how it has to be paid for".

I dread to think how Mr. T will react if he had to face the economic conditions that Harper did post 2008.