Jump to content

Winter Federal Election 2024


Recommended Posts

Why would the NDP want an election? They will likely not gain any seats. The longer they support the grits, the more they can try to squeeze out of them. When the writs drop, the party is over. They would like to postpone a CPC majority government as long as possible. So would the Bloc.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The longer they can postpone an election, the more time the CPC has to lose momentum and a Hail Mary that Mr. Poilievre will make a serious mistake.

Food for thought for the CPC supporters. We had a Conservative Prime Minister (the only one so far, to actually defeat a Trudeau) who came into office determined to keep his promises, in spite of his minority position. He promised to privatize the government owned oil company, add a small tax on gasoline to pay down the deficit the inherited from the Liberals, and move the Canadian embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. He also over saw the operation to smuggle six Americans out of the Canadian embassy in Iran. The government depended on the promised support of the Socreds (now called the CPC) but the Socreds voted against the budget, triggering and election that returned Pierre Trudeau to power to bring in the NEP.

Two lessons here. If you are a splinter party like the NDP or Social Credit, remember the Socreds were wiped out in that election and only came back years later under Preston Manning.

The main lesson for supporters of Mr. Poilievre and the man himself, if you try to keep your promises, you will get hammered for it. Think of all the promises made...cancelling the GST, twinning the railroad from the Atlantic to the Pacific, giving Saskatchewan concessions regarding resource revenue in calculating equalization payments, taxation of income trusts, supporting veterans, no free trade with the Americans etc. There is a reason election promises are not kept. Voters will never thank you and will end up punishing you in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

....

The main lesson for supporters of Mr. Poilievre and the man himself, if you try to keep your promises, you will get hammered for it. Think of all the promises made...cancelling the GST, twinning the railroad from the Atlantic to the Pacific, giving Saskatchewan concessions regarding resource revenue in calculating equalization payments, taxation of income trusts, supporting veterans, no free trade with the Americans etc. There is a reason election promises are not kept

----

We Canadians change our politicians every so often.

I like our federal system. To me, I like the idea that a federal politician can speak to everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Why would the NDP want an election? They will likely not gain any seats. The longer they support the grits, the more they can try to squeeze out of them. When the writs drop, the party is over. They would like to postpone a CPC majority government as long as possible. So would the Bloc.

That's true.... BUT....

If the coalition lasts till the next election the ndp will basically be tied at the hip to the libs and will most likley suffer horribly at the polls. The junior partner in ways and means agreements like this usually do.

Some people will say 'might as well vote liberal directly seeing as it's pretty much the same thing' ,and some won't vote at all or will vote cpc to get rid of justin for the same reasons - no point voting ndp they'll just do what the libs say.

A coalition gov't does NOT end well for the ndp at the next election.  So - at SOME point before the next election they'll likely look for some reason to sever ties.  Something they can point at and say "we are different form the libs - we can no longer support them in good concience while they blah blah blah".

That doesnt' mean there will automatically be an election.  You STILL need to have  a vote in the house and those don't come along every day. And just becasue they end the agreement doesnt' mean they have to instantly vote against the libs to bring down the liberal gov't.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is all true, but the NDP has already made their bed. Their fortunes are already baked in, so they will hang in there as long as possible. There is always the chance that the grits will totally implode and bleed support to the NDP. Highly unlikely, but both the NDP and the Liberals are reduced to living in hope that the CPC blows up. 

3 hours ago, August1991 said:

NDP?

You don't understand federal Canada.

You will have to explain that for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

That is all true, but the NDP has already made their bed. Their fortunes are already baked in, so they will hang in there as long as possible. There is always the chance that the grits will totally implode and bleed support to the NDP. Highly unlikely, but both the NDP and the Liberals are reduced to living in hope that the CPC blows up. 

 

I've noted before that i honestly believe their hail mary hope is that trump will win in the states and they can leverage that to scare canadians into voting to the left in order to offset it. And in honesty there are people who think like that  So trump wins in 2024, gets sworn in early 2025 - spring election.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of Mr. Poilievres promises is to stop funding for the CBC's English language TV network. Every western nation has a public broadcaster. The CBC provides quality programming not offered by the private broadcasters. It costs taxpayers $1.2 billion per year. Science, drama, comedy etc. The role of a public broadcaster is to ensure there is programming that will serve as many people as possible rather than just the common denominator. There are some who never watch the CBC and ask why should they pay for it.

Canada is buying 88 F-35 combat aircraft at a total cost of $74 Billion. 

The CBC costs each Canadian taxpayer $48. That is 3 bottles of wine, or 2 packs of cigarettes, or a case of beer.

The F-35 costs each Canadian Taxpayer $98 per year. It is a computerized flying brick that will never be used. 88 fighters do not constitute a deterrence.

My friend CDNFox does not watch the CBC. Fair enough.

My son is a pacifist, a member of the Society of Friends (Quaker). 

If my son has to pay for weapons of war, why should Cdn Fox not have to pay for the CBC? 

The CBC is of more benefit to Canadians than the F-35. I believe Mr. Poilievre is wrong to cut the CBC. Our taxes go to pay for many things we, as individuals, may never use. But the taxes go to provide services to those who do need them. 

 

 

Edited by Queenmandy85
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

 Every western nation has a public broadcaster.

Really.  Who's the us's public broadcaster that's the equivilant of the CBC?

They don't have one.  You get things like pbs - but that is directly funded through donations by the public not gov't funded, they get a very small amount of their budget and they could survive with out it.

So right off the bat, you're kind of fibbing

Quote

The CBC provides quality programming not offered by the private broadcasters.

The CBC provides mediocre programming and massive amounts of bias news and directly seeks to influence politics in canada for one party.  It is fundimentally unfair to ask supporters of  other parties to have their tax dollars fund that.

 

Quote

It costs taxpayers $1.2 billion per year.

And is bias and dishonest.  There are so many examples it isn't even funny and they're all blatant.

 

Quote

Science, drama, comedy etc.

ALl of which we get from commercial sources in  better quality and higher volume.

Quote

Canada is buying 88 F-35 combat aircraft at a total cost of $74 Billion. 

Because the liberals scrapped the original CPC purchase - which the CBC DEFENDED.  Thanks for proving my point.

 

Quote

The CBC costs each Canadian taxpayer $48.

Which is 48 dollars more than it should.  I'll take my money thank you.  If you feel it's worth so much then YOU pay for it.

Quote

The F-35 costs each Canadian Taxpayer $98 per year.

The f-35 will defend our democracy - the CBC threatens our democracy.

 

Quote

If my son has to pay for weapons of war, why should Cdn Fox not have to pay for the CBC? 

Because it is in the fundamental nature of any gov't to be able to defend it's sovereignty and we have international commitments to that effect. And having the planes doesn't mean we have to use them.  Your son can still vote in politicians who won't send our planes to fight in foreign wars.

It is NOT in the fundamental nature of a sovereign nation to provide bias programming to keep one political party in power at the expense of taxpayers.

 

Quote

The CBC is of more benefit to Canadians than the F-35.

That is easily one of the stupidest things you've said. And it was up against some stiff competition.

Go look at what's happening to gaza right now. THat's what happens to nations who cannot defend themselves against hostility. 

THe worst thing that happens if we don't have planes is we have a 9/11 incident and can't stop the teerrorists or we lose ships and land to russia in our fight over the arctic after we get kicked out of nato for not upholding our commitments.

The worst thing that happens if we kill the cbc is that you can't watch re-runs of the littlest hobo.

 

Quote

I believe Mr. Poilievre is wrong to cut the CBC. Our taxes go to pay for many things we, as individuals, may never use. But the taxes go to provide services to those who do need them. 

Nobody needs the cbc - except the liberals - and it is fundimentally unfair to demand that people pay for an org that is so bias that it demonstrably interferes with their democracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

They don't have one.  You get things like pbs - but that is directly funded through donations by the public not gov't funded, they get a very small amount of their budget and they could survive with out it.

 

It's in the name..."PUBLIC Broadcasting Service." Then there is NRK. If Eric Trump trips on the stairs, NRK will be reporting it before he hits the ground. 

Do CTV or Global have progams like the Nature of Things or Coronation Street? Even their news on foreign events use American reporters. Can you see any difference in bias in their news casts from the CBC. When the Socreds call the CBC left wing and the NDP call it right wing, it tells me they are hitting that centre spot. With sky high polling numbers, Mr. Poilievre can hardly say he is being held back by "biased" CBC reporting. The Canadian population generally straddles the political centre. The CBC News organization strives for objectivity. Just because they don't have an irrational hatred of our politicians doesn't make them biased. We are not like the Americans. I remember being gob-smacked at the biased reporting in the 2016 election night reporting. There was no objectivity there. 

Edited by Queenmandy85
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

It's in the name..."PUBLIC Broadcasting Service."

Fine - i'll start one the moment the cbc is shut down. The Fox Public Broadcasting. Network.  Donation only.  There you go, seeing as you feel that's the same thing.

And we'll still have aptn.

56 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Do CTV or Global have progams like the Nature of Things or Coronation Street?

Sure, and if they don't others do. Btw - you know coronation street isn't canadian or produced by the CBC right? So the cbc doesn't make that either - ANY station can license the right to coronation street.

Thanks for proving the cbc isn't needed.

58 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Can you see any difference in bias in their news casts from the CBC.

Yes actually i can.  But - if THEY want to be bias then I don't have to pay for it. IF their subscribers like bias reporting then so be it - they're footing the bill, so they get what they want.

But with the CBC -  i have to pay out of my pocket to have someone lie and influence politics against my interests.  how is that fair?

If the liberal supporters want to keep the CBC going then you can pay out of your own pocket for it, same as any station.

1 hour ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Mr. Poilievre can hardly say he is being held back by "biased" CBC reporting.

He absolutely is.  And he's not the only one - the cbc lies frequently. And when they don't out and out lie they slant things in the direction they support.  OR - they just don't report or under report on stories that are embarrassing to the party they like.

How about that whole Smith trick they pulled during albera's election?  RIGHT BEFORE and during an election they make a very serious allegation - the gov't takes action to prove their story was wrong and they STILL double down and say the gov't is lying without providing any source or evidence. They keep this up all election claiming that shes' committed a crime.

THEN - when the election is over as soon as she's won they say "oh - we have no proof and in fact our reporters never even saw the proof and i guess we shouldn't have made that accuasation, that wasn't very good journalism, our bad".

Then there was the american funding of the convoy lie, the 'convoy tried to burn building down' lie and the 'convoy person danced on soldiers grave' lies - and the 'corrections' were all page 63 behind the obituaries. That's a favorite trick - run with "Conservatives eat live babies, encourage young people to do so as well"  and then 2 days later print a correction to say " conservatives eat vegetables, encourage young people to do so".

 

Sorry - there isn't a single thing left that's redeemable about the cbc, and if you cared about it you should have been screaming at them to end the painfully obvious bias years ago. too late now - it's gone unless you want to pay out of your own pocket.

You lefties let abuses go on forever - then when people have had enough and take steps to eliminate it you're always "wait wait wait - can we talk?"

Nope- death to the cbc. Period.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Jack9000 said:

even if the cons win i doubt they defund the cbc they been saying this since the harper days.. cut funding some maybe but wont totally shut it down.. cbc is important insmall rural communities also. personally i use it for power and politics everynight but thats just me lol

CBC is of no importance at all to anyone but the left.

However he's only said he would defnd it, not shut it down. Some portions of it may be commercially viable on it's own - such as some of the radio programming. And who knows - maybe it IS really popular and people in those rural communities and elsewhere will be willing to pay to have it.  Nothing wrong with that - if the left wants to pay for it, that should be their right.

But i doubt it.  I suspect it'll basically be down to a few french shows and some radio and that's about it.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

One of Mr. Poilievres promises is to stop funding for the CBC's English language TV network. Every western nation has a public broadcaster.

====

Canada is buying 88 F-35 combat aircraft at a total cost of $74 Billion. 

The CBC costs each Canadian taxpayer $48. That is 3 bottles of wine, or 2 packs of cigarettes, or a case of beer.

The F-35 costs each Canadian Taxpayer $98 per year. It is a computerized flying brick that will never be used. 88 fighters do not constitute a deterrence.

My friend CDNFox does not watch the CBC. Fair enough.

My son is a pacifist, a member of the Society of Friends (Quaker). 

If my son has to pay for weapons of war, why should Cdn Fox not have to pay for the CBC? 

The CBC is of more benefit to Canadians than the F-35. I believe Mr. Poilievre is wrong to cut the CBC. Our taxes go to pay for many things we, as individuals, may never use. But the taxes go to provide services to those who do need them.

CBC?

Why I am paying for death and destruction in Europe? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

CBC is of no importance at all to anyone but the left.

However he's only said he would defnd it, not shut it down. Some portions of it may be commercially viable on it's own - such as some of the radio programming. And who knows - maybe it IS really popular and people in those rural communities and elsewhere will be willing to pay to have it.  Nothing wrong with that - if the left wants to pay for it, that should be their right.

But i doubt it.  I suspect it'll basically be down to a few french shows and some radio and that's about it.

not true cbc radio is very important to people in rural areas especially older people and there not all "left"..

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jack9000 said:

not true cbc radio is very important to people in rural areas especially older people and there not all "left"..

Did you even read what i said? From my statement WHICH YOU QUOTED:

"Some portions of it may be commercially viable on it's own - such as some of the radio programming. And who knows - maybe it IS really popular and people in those rural communities and elsewhere will be willing to pay to have it."

If it is that popular then it will be commercially viable and they'll keep it going.  I mean it's not like you have to listen to it ON the radio, you can listen to it over the internet and they don't have to maintain all of their infrastructure.

IF it's popular, IF people really like it THEN they can pay for it and it will still be there. If you're wrong and it's NOT that popular then it won't survive.

But either way - that's up to the consumer. I shouldn't have to pay for what someone else likes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Did you even read what i said? From my statement WHICH YOU QUOTED:

"Some portions of it may be commercially viable on it's own - such as some of the radio programming. And who knows - maybe it IS really popular and people in those rural communities and elsewhere will be willing to pay to have it."

If it is that popular then it will be commercially viable and they'll keep it going.  I mean it's not like you have to listen to it ON the radio, you can listen to it over the internet and they don't have to maintain all of their infrastructure.

IF it's popular, IF people really like it THEN they can pay for it and it will still be there. If you're wrong and it's NOT that popular then it won't survive.

But either way - that's up to the consumer. I shouldn't have to pay for what someone else likes.

 

 

lol yes because so much of your actual money is going to cbc . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,717
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Watson Winnefred
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...