When will populism come to Canada?

[Smallc]

1 hour ago, Bryan said:

Trump had a documented policy platform that was on his website right from the time he began the race. The media just chose to ignore it. You can say you don't LIKE his policies, but it's categorically false to say he didn't have any.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/

The Liberals also had a very comprehensive policy book in the last election - much more so than the other parties.

[-1=e^ipi]

7 minutes ago, Smallc said:

The Liberals also had a very comprehensive policy book in the last election - much more so than the other parties.

Still with respect to the election.

Still see no one finding policies Trudeau had during the leadership race. Why? Cause he didn't have any.

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Still with respect to the election.

Still see no one finding policies Trudeau had during the leadership race. Why? Cause he didn't have any.

Why should he? He's just a poster-boy mouthpiece doing what he's told by the party leadership. Same as it's always been for the liberals.

[Moonlight Graham]

Kevin O'Leary?  Some people on the right like him, but he's one of the least popular Canadians by Canadians in the country.  People hate this guy.  He's the Simon Cowell of Dragon's Den.  He'd have a tough time getting elected I think.  He's a very selfish guy who doesn't care about other people except how they can make him more money. How can that be considered populist? 

Trudeau definitely has populist elements to him, for certain demographics, but from him and his party we're increasingly starting to see the return of the arrogant and even corrupt elitism of he and Liberal party have had trademarked for decades.  A lot of people are already sick of it, but also a lot of people aren't paying attention and still see the egalitarian nice guy with the dreamy blue eyes.

[Moonlight Graham]

As for Trump and Brexit-style populism,, it could easily come to Canada.  We see it a bit with Kellie Leitch, but the media destroyed her for it.  Canadians are much more reserved, docile, and patient people than in the US.  They'll put up with more BS before they get riled up, and when they get riled up it's less intense.  Immigration from non-Western countries here is also in lower numbers than Europe so a Brexit-style backlash would take longer to fester here.

As for anti-establishment sentiment, it could come here too, since our system is also corrupt, but the stakes aren't as high as in the US, so the problem doesn't seem as severe.

[H10]

The discussion is misguided.

Populism started in Canada, specifically Toronto, with Rob Ford.

The difference is that  Canada has mainly benefitted off of liberalism, whereas it hurt alot of other countries.

Harper tried to copy the race baiting tactics of his Euro and American counterparts and he got wiped out badly in the election.

I believe this is due to the fact that for all the advantages white Canadians have been given through white privilege and white benefits, white supremacy and white racism.  They are still comparatively disadvantaged on a whole and as a group compared to most other white groups where populism is well more popular.  Look at who Rob Ford was popular with, Indians, Carribeans, Africans and poor whites in West side Toronto.  The wealthy downtown white elites hated Ford.  Whereas Trump won most voters earning over 100k a year especially white.

Canadian whites missed the slavery handouts, they got free land, but not much else and that land for the most part is not worth a whole lot today outside of the few major cities.

 

If you cut off all the benefits and welfare in Canada, it is white people shooting themselves in the foot.  It is the non-white immigrants who have to have jobs when they come to this country, who live in the cities like toronto, vancouver, montreal, calgary that are driving the economy.  Whereas compared to a place like France or UK where Syrian refugees or Poles or Turks are not coming with money and are primarily taking from  economy.  Canada has alot of its major multi-billion dollar businesses run and controlled by Chinese, Indian, Korean and Carribean investors and business people. Where Mexicans might take jobs, or Indian h1-b visa workers steal American jobs, that just doesn't exist in Canada.

 

Who is going to be the first to cry when they cannot sell their home they bought for $50,000 for $2 million in Toronto suburbs?  Who is going to be the first to cry when they cannot sell the farm they inherited for $4 million in the rural areas outside of Toronto?  For right wing populism to work in Canada is going to require someone to convince white people to hate money in Canada.  A very tall order.

 

Trudeau will be hard to defeat because if he pushes through a true progressive agenda, which I think Canada is a progressive country, and manages not to be grossly corrupt, he'd be very hard to defeat like Jean Chritien.  If Justin plays his cards correctly, he might be pm for a decade and a half, and he is young enough to be pm for as long as he wants.

[H10]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Still with respect to the election.

Still see no one finding policies Trudeau had during the leadership race. Why? Cause he didn't have any.

I did look at his policies, I don't remember what they were precisely but it was on his site, and he had probably over 40 pages of it.  All the candidates did, conservatives, ndp, and liberals including trudeau.

[H10]

3 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Trudeau is the Left's cult of personality. There was absolutely no reason to elect him other than this. He had no policy or even significant experience in politics. Just a pretty boy, a face. They even made sure he didn't get to say much, cause when he did... oh boy.

I'll tell you something else about you're entitled little fella. Beware those who smile all the time, and never for a moment get real. They are the worst there is.

Here are hundreds of policy points

http://www.liberal.ca/realchange/

 

Hope that clarifies things for you.

Harper was bad enough that he was pm for over a decade, yet he lost to a pretty boy, a face with no policy.  Think of what that means of Harper.  He was so bad, hurting Canadians so badly for over a decade, that the majority of voters decided that literally an empty head would be better than him.  That shows you how bad Harper really was to Canada.

[OftenWrong]

2 minutes ago, hernanday said:

Here are hundreds of policy points

http://www.liberal.ca/realchange/

Written for him by somebody else.

[H10]

Just now, OftenWrong said:

Written for him by somebody else.

You claimed he had no policy, that is proven false.  Even if someone else wrote it, why would it matter, politicians never write all their own policy.  They have aides, assistants and lobbyist who write these things.

[OftenWrong]

3 hours ago, hernanday said:

You claimed he had no policy, that is proven false.  Even if someone else wrote it, why would it matter, politicians never write all their own policy.  They have aides, assistants and lobbyist who write these things.

A real leader brings their own ideas, not just parroting what they are told to say by someone else. That is just a figurehead. A leader is somebody who has their own vision for the future, with a personality to inspire confidence. All we have now is more of the same old Liberal party agenda as we've had for decades, nothing new but packaged with a different face.

Canadians, right or wrong, hoped that Justin Trudeau would bring real progressive leadership. But it's becoming clear that he does not. He is in fact, quite useless. He has no experience. This is bad news for Canada, because the likely response to another round of mediocre liberalism will be that Canadians will vote in their own "strong man" the next time around. Someone like Stephen Harper on steroids.

What choice do we have anyway, in response to what is happening around us in the western world? France has already chosen their next leader which will be Francois Fillon. In England they voted Brexit, primarily in response to their xenophobia. Germany will be next, without question. Canadians are out of sync with the times by about one generation.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

As for anti-establishment sentiment, it could come here too, since our system is also corrupt, but the stakes aren't as high as in the US, so the problem doesn't seem as severe.

I think it's probably more noticeable in some parts of rural Canada, like it is in the States.

Edited December 5, 2016 by eyeball

[-1=e^ipi]

5 hours ago, hernanday said:

Think of what that means of Harper.  He was so bad, hurting Canadians so badly for over a decade, that the majority of voters decided that literally an empty head would be better than him.

I wish Trudeau understood this point. That he won the election because Harper was unpopular, not because he was super awesome and liked by everyone. Instead, Trudeau thinks that he had to work 2-3 times as hard as anyone else because of his last name and that we was elected due to how wonderful his policies were.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/justin-trudeau-uses-bbc-interview-to-issue-sharpest-retort-yet-to-harper-conservative-attack-ads

 

Like the fact is, despite the high unpopularity of Harper, and despite leading Canada's natural governing party. Trudeau was behind in the polls until the last few weeks of the election. If the liberals chose a better Candidate like Martha Hall Findlay, I think that the liberals would have been ahead in the polls even before the election, and easily broken the 40% popular vote.

[-1=e^ipi]

5 hours ago, hernanday said:

Here are hundreds of policy points

http://www.liberal.ca/realchange/

Hope that clarifies things for you.

 

What part of 'leadership race' is hard to understand? The above is with respect to the election, not the leadership race.

Edit: sorry, you weren't replying to me.

 

Trudeau won the leadership race overwhelmingly on essentially a platform of no policies due to his last name, despite being up against opponents that were actually running on policies. And it wasn't like he squeaked by with like 55% support on a final round of voting, he won overwhelmingly on the first round.

 

This is highly unprecedented. You look at various leadership conventions for major political parties, be it in Canada or abroad, and in order to win, Candidates have to run on policy like 100% of the time.

Edited December 5, 2016 by -1=e^ipi

[Derek 2.0]

12 hours ago, poochy said:

a leftist populist might be the most likely in this country, i suppose i was thinking about the subject through more of an American lens.  If that happens though what would it be in response to, a really mean conservative government that the 'nice' Canadian leftist thought was evil?

It could very well.......remember, to many on the left, Trudeau is a "right winger", and most of Trudeau's current let downs are promised leftish policies, as such, he's pissing off more of the NDPers, Bloc and Green voters .......as to a mean conservative, using Harper as an example, Harper's intentions and policies were (as historic) as predictable as a bus schedule.....for the most part, he did what he said he was going to do, had few (if any) major policy reversals and the public could decide if they loved or hated him and his (not so hidden) agenda........many people didn't like him, nor felt "inspired" by him, but there were no major surprises.....

Trudeau on the other hand promised the Earth and the Moon, inspired throngs of people too young to remember how the Liberals actually are, and he is now in the process of letting reality out of the bag, and has adopted many of the same policies that people grew tired off from Harper.....Harper grew stale like white bread.......Trudeau just put the stale bread in the toaster, uttered pretty mouth noises, and is trying to convince those he conned that it is something else.......

 

Harper was hated for his policies and perceived nastiness......the populace will come to hate Trudeau for his policies, nastiness and most important of all, his failed promises......the big question will be when?

 

I think if both the Tories and NDP put forth a populace agenda, delivered by a populist leader, they could very well ride the wave and make Trudeau a one term and out PM......if they continue along their present paths, we'd be lucky to see Trudeau cut down into a Minority in 2019. 

 

 

11 hours ago, dialamah said:

Two people in this house are already thinking about voting NDP next time around.

 

Between his approval of Site C and now Kinder Morgan, there are plenty of 2015 Liberal voters in BC that are suffering from buyers remorse....... 

[H10]

12 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

A real leader brings their own ideas, not just parroting what they are told to say by someone else. That is just a figurehead. A leader is somebody who has their own vision for the future, with a personality to inspire confidence. All we have now is more of the same old Liberal party agenda as we've had for decades, nothing new but packaged with a different face.

Maybe he believes in liberal policies, that is why he is in the party, most of which were crafted by his father.

 

 

12 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

Canadians, right or wrong, hoped that Justin Trudeau would bring real progressive leadership. But it's becoming clear that he does not. He is in fact, quite useless. He has no experience. This is bad news for Canada, because the likely response to another round of mediocre liberalism will be that Canadians will vote in their own "strong man" the next time around. Someone like Stephen Harper on steroids.

What choice do we have anyway, in response to what is happening around us in the western world? France has already chosen their next leader which will be Francois Fillon. In England they voted Brexit, primarily in response to their xenophobia. Germany will be next, without question. Canadians are out of sync with the times by about one generation.

 

And what is "Real progressive leadership" that he could do but is not doing?  Harper was elected because people got tied of so many elections and liberals ran poor candidates.  Canada has a different history.  In France and Britain and the USA, and Germany, the majority of population was able to benefit from government handouts from literally 100s of years ago that gives them direct benefits today to the point where conservativism can make some sense.  In America, you can have a tea party because you have a large contingent of whites who were given free land, free slaves, who produced wealth and labour that had caused them to become so rich they do not have to work.  In Germany, you had alot of Germans who got rich off of the Holocaust and all that stolen wealth the Nazis raided from other places.  People can benefit off of far right conservatisim, they already got their hand out, so they can draw up the bridge and still be set for life.

 

In Canada, most farmers are still heavily in debt, the farms aren't worth that much, there are no opportunities outside the major cities, and the majority population is frequently poorer than the immigrants coming in who are sustaining the economy from imploding in the four largest provinces.  Most Canadians in the major cities and suburbs are immigrants who have seen the damage of far right governments in their own land and are not going to vote that way, so it kills the concept.  Look how hard it was for Harper who ran as a moderate right of center candidate to even penetrate the suburbs in toronto which he needed to win just to form a majority.

 

You can elect a far right candidate, go ahead, but it will be primarily the rural and small town whites who will suffer(the far rights presumably base voters).  These people are inherently dependent on large government because it is not viable to send electricity out to a place like that in  the free market without significant markup.

 

[H10]

11 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

I wish Trudeau understood this point. That he won the election because Harper was unpopular, not because he was super awesome and liked by everyone. Instead, Trudeau thinks that he had to work 2-3 times as hard as anyone else because of his last name and that we was elected due to how wonderful his policies were.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/justin-trudeau-uses-bbc-interview-to-issue-sharpest-retort-yet-to-harper-conservative-attack-ads

 

Like the fact is, despite the high unpopularity of Harper, and despite leading Canada's natural governing party. Trudeau was behind in the polls until the last few weeks of the election. If the liberals chose a better Candidate like Martha Hall Findlay, I think that the liberals would have been ahead in the polls even before the election, and easily broken the 40% popular vote.

Trudeau was charismatic.  I don't see Hall being a better candidate.  Mulcair in theory should have won, but his lack of charisma cost him.

[H10]

11 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

What part of 'leadership race' is hard to understand? The above is with respect to the election, not the leadership race.

Edit: sorry, you weren't replying to me.

 

Trudeau won the leadership race overwhelmingly on essentially a platform of no policies due to his last name, despite being up against opponents that were actually running on policies. And it wasn't like he squeaked by with like 55% support on a final round of voting, he won overwhelmingly on the first round.

 

This is highly unprecedented. You look at various leadership conventions for major political parties, be it in Canada or abroad, and in order to win, Candidates have to run on policy like 100% of the time.

No I was not.

However, as for the leadership race.  Liberals had already figured out with Ignatieff and Dion that it was not enough to simply run candidates with good policies.  Liberals for the most part share a large view on policies.  They came to learn that canadian electorate does not vote policy enough to be able to run good policy and win after having a series of 3 or 4 candidates losing on policy.  Just look south of the border, Clinton was policy, Trump was charisma.  Charisma won.  Clinton was boring and out of touch, Trump was charismatic tv star.  Usually the more charismatic candidate wins or makes substantial gains.  Liberals learned their lesson that boring candidates would not defeat Harper.

You see the problem with liberals historically is that they run candidates like John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, Jimmy Carter, Hilary Clinton, Walter Mondale and Al Gore and think just because the policy is right the candidate should win.  Sorry, most voters do not sit around reading policy details like that.  The swing voters who decide elections vote personality, they see the candidates for maybe a total of 5 minutes.  And vote for one.

[Argus]

17 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Kevin O'Leary?  Some people on the right like him, but he's one of the least popular Canadians by Canadians in the country. 

You have a poll to cite?

[Argus]

17 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

As for Trump and Brexit-style populism,, it could easily come to Canada.  We see it a bit with Kellie Leitch, but the media destroyed her for it. 

They did? I pointed this out in an earlier posting but the fact the media went ballistic with outrage when she asked people whether we ought to screen potential immigrants for values which are hostile to ours most definitely did not 'destroy' her. In fact, a Toronto Star poll found that close to 60% of NDP and Liberal supporters liked the idea, as did 80% of Tory supporters. The media getting outraged at it just showed how wildly far to the left they are than real Canadians, farther to the left than even the NDP members.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Argus

[Argus]

16 hours ago, hernanday said:

 Think of what that means of Harper.  He was so bad, hurting Canadians so badly for over a decade, that the majority of voters decided that literally an empty head would be better than him. 

How did Harper hurt Canadians?

[dre]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

They did? I pointed this out in an earlier posting but the fact the media went ballistic with outrage when she asked people whether we ought to screen potential immigrants for values which are hostile to ours most definitely did not 'destroy' her. In fact, a Toronto Star poll found that close to 60% of NDP and Liberal supporters liked the idea, as did 80% of Tory supporters. The media getting outraged at it just showed how wildly far to the left they are than real Canadians, farther to the left than even the NDP members.

People like the idea in principle, the problem was there's no practical or effective way to implement it. For one thing you are telegraphing to the whole world what you are going to do. Only a moron would answer questions in a way that got them denied. So its nice in theory but yes... it really is a stupid idea. 

[dre]

8 minutes ago, Argus said:

How did Harper hurt Canadians?

Well his crime bill will hurt us for a long time unless its fixed. The counter terrorism bill was silly and eroded our rights a little bit. His monetary policy will probably result in a huge recession and a bursting of the housing bubble.  But the courts luckily stopped him from doing too much real damage. 

But I don't consider him to be some big horrible boogey man. He was an average prime minister that did more or less what was expected of him. Like any other prime minister you can find some good things and some bad things.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

You have a poll to cite?

No.  All i have is circumstantial evidence of every non-conservative I've spoken to about him thinking he's heartless and greedy because that's his MO on the show.  His ideology is O'Learyism not populism.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

They did? I pointed this out in an earlier posting but the fact the media went ballistic with outrage when she asked people whether we ought to screen potential immigrants for values which are hostile to ours most definitely did not 'destroy' her. In fact, a Toronto Star poll found that close to 60% of NDP and Liberal supporters liked the idea, as did 80% of Tory supporters. The media getting outraged at it just showed how wildly far to the left they are than real Canadians, farther to the left than even the NDP members.

Well I didn't say the media ruined Leitch's popularity, I meant the media raked her over the coals for it.  The media took a poll question asking if we should screen for "Canadian values" and somehow translated that into it being a key part of her official platform or something, which is disingenuous.  Leitch was putting out a feeler, just like John McCallum put out a feeler on dramatically increasing immigration.  But I'm sure both want to pursue these policies.