Singh poised to vote against government to try to force another election

82 posts / 0 new
Last post
Rob8305
Singh poised to vote against government to try to force another election

He has tweeted his opposition "not good enough" to today's throne speech and reiterated it on TV.  That means that we're headed beck to the polls next week if the BQ doesn't follow through on its tentative support for the SOT.  Scheer wants an election yesterday, of course.  

Election January 2020!

This parliament appears to be over before it began!

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..now come the backroom deals

Rob8305

I'm getting the impression that Singh will do all he can to make this a very short-lived minority the last 2 days.  He must feel that if he had only had more time in the fall campaign that he would have unseated Trudeau.  My concern for the New Democrats is how they intend to finance a campaign so immediately after the last one and how they will answer the charge that Singh didn't even give this government a chance to govern.   Also, he indicated his willingness to prevent a Conservative ascension to power and to work with the Liberals during election #43.  Is there a new Trudeau scandal we don't know about coming that has made Singh extremely hungry apparently for a new election? How does he know that scandal will benefit him and not Scheer?

brookmere

Singh knows as well as anyone else that the Liberals don't need to depend only on the NDP to avoid losing a non-confidence vote. I think he also knows that the BQ is on record as not wanting an election and all they have to do is abstain for the Liberals to carry votes. So why not act tough?

If the Liberals did fall on the throne speech convention would have the GG inviting Scheer to form government. Strategically that would be good news for the Liberals who would accuse the NDP of secretly wanting Scheer to be PM. But as I said I don't think that will happen.

Rob8305

Forgot about that Brookmere! So, we indeed would not be looking at a new election but rather PM Scheer right now if the BQ hadn't come out in suppper of the SOT.

Never thought I'd say it but thank god for the BQ! If Singh didn't know the BQ was a yes in advance, the game he played today was rather dangerous and frankly disgusting and two-faced if I may say so.

If he knew the BQ would prevent a Scheer acension for sure, well then that was well played, Mr. Singh!

Mighty Middle

Jagmeet Singh made this declaration AFTER the Bloc leader came out and said he and his caucus plan to support the Throne Speech. So NO election will be triggered if Singh and the rest of the NDP caucus votes down the Throne Speech.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

COOL THREAD TITLE, THOUGH!  NEEDS! MORE!! EXCLAMATION!!! POINTS!!!!!!!

Sean in Ottawa

Rob8305 wrote:

I'm getting the impression that Singh will do all he can to make this a very short-lived minority the last 2 days.  He must feel that if he had only had more time in the fall campaign that he would have unseated Trudeau.  My concern for the New Democrats is how they intend to finance a campaign so immediately after the last one and how they will answer the charge that Singh didn't even give this government a chance to govern.   Also, he indicated his willingness to prevent a Conservative ascension to power and to work with the Liberals during election #43.  Is there a new Trudeau scandal we don't know about coming that has made Singh extremely hungry apparently for a new election? How does he know that scandal will benefit him and not Scheer?

I think that Singh is probably worried but in a box.

Singh wants to do a deal and have no election. He wants the NDP to recover financially and to heal some of the recent wounds in his party. He wants to figure out what to do about Quebec. We know this becuase he has been loudly and publicly exposed as to what he must do. The financial position of the party is public knowledge.

Balance that against the fact that the Liberal universe is attacking the NDP, saying the NDP should just sign on to whatever the Liberals want and you see the problem.

Singh has no good choices here. The NDP and Singh are in trouble if he cannot get something from the Liberals in this parliament. They are also in trouble if they go into an election they cannot afford with no time to fix what ails the party including the resurgent BQ in Quebec. They are screwed going into a campaign where the Liberals will charge the NDP with forcing the election and have much more money to make their side stick.

So, if the Liberals cannot give a win to the NDP on anything -- the NDP is in trouble no matter which decision Singh makes.

Hope for a deal between the Liberals and the BQ is faint indeed. If Freeland is giving Trudeau advice, she will probably say what literally every other person who knows anything about Western Canada would say: a deal with the BQ is political suicide in Western Canada.

The only hope the NDP has to get out of this is that either the BQ give votes to Trudeau for just about nothing to avoid an election (I doubt that they would do this for the same reason -Singh won't) or the Liberals get concerned that Scheer will beat them next time.

Fat chance. The worst thing that could happen to the Liberals already has happened - the minority. Without a majority, Scheer cannot govern and the Liberals don't think he can get one.

The Liberals understand what the last election was about and what the next election is about:

It is a contest between the NDP, Greens, BQ and Liberals. 

The Conservatives have backed themselves into a zero growth position. Their vote will not change by much. Conservative support is quite solid and unless Bernier can make an inroad cannot drop below 28% and with the positions they hold cannot increase beyond 35%. In this range the Liberals have a guaranteed win if they can hold the other parties back.

The Liberal vote can do anything between 18% and 45% depending on what happens to the other parties.

The Liberals understand that if the NDP can compete, the Conservatives have a chance and if the NDP is badly damaged the Conservatives cannot win. The fact is the votes are not moving much between Conservative and Liberal now but much more between Liberal and the other parties. The Liberals might figure that a new election will be more likely to take the NDP out of the picture now than a couple years from now. If the Liberals can damage the NDP with a second election now, the party will not recover to put up a fight in 2-4 years.

Unless the leadership of the Conservatives changes they will continue to see not very much growth. It is possible that Bernier may even take more votes from a weakened Scheer allowing the Liberals to get a majority. As well, with so many Conservative premiers the Liberals know growth for Federal Conservatives is hobbled by provincial politics for some time. 

So the machinations at the moment are between the Liberals and NDP (The Greens too weak and the BQ contained in Quebec). A deal may be possible but not real cooperation. The Liberals may deny Singh enough face saving content to allow a deal without humiliation. The only reason a deal could be possible is if both think they are getting something from the other or that they would hurt by not doing so.

The Liberals think that they have the NDP over a barrel financially. Liberal social media influencers are in full attack.

They may be right. 

But they might miscalculate because it is not clear that NDP support moves greatly by paid ads. An NDP barebones guerilla campaign heavy on social media could surpirse. People like the underdog. The Liberals may also have not understood how little the NDP have to lose given that cooperation without anything to show for it is political suicide.

Singh's biography suggests that if he is going to go down he will do so fighting.

The NDP should be preapred for another campaign that is even more shoe-string than the last. 

The NDP may be able to run on things the Liberals promised but did not deliver - and now refused to make a deal to deliver.

The question is going to come down to how well the leaders identify and promote their red lines. The Liberals will blame the NDP for causing the election. The NDP will blame the Liberals for arrogantly not compromising. The poeple will decide.

Or Trudeau might blink.

Sean in Ottawa

I cross-posted with a few people. Not a bad position for Singh when you think about it. Not two faced at all.

The BQ position is interesting: if the BQ support the Liberals at no cost the NDP has a chance of upsetting the BQ in the next election saying they are not getting anything for anyone - not the poeple and not Quebec. If they demand a price, then the Liberals will pay for that outside Quebec. Either way the NDP gains - and one of those does not mean a costly election now.

The idea that the NDP could be accused of supporting Scheer is something the Liberal partisans who would never vote anything other than Liberal will eat up until reality takes over. Who cares? The rest of us will see the NDP vote down Scheer along with the BQ and it will be the Liberals who support a Scheer throne speach or nobody at all. At the end of the day the Liberals would not be able to support a Scheer throne speech while attacking the NDP on this point.

It is clear due to the pipeline that the BQ and the NDP will not support a Scheer throne speech so worry about this is a bit exaggerated and/or partisan. Only the Liberals can make Scheer a PM to last more than a day.

brookmere

The Liberals are not going to budge to the BQ on any Quebec nationalist issues. They have been successful in locking up the federalist vote in Quebec which is not huge but big enough to get them the most seats in that province. They also know that the Conservatives went out of their way to pander to the nationalist vote and it got them nowhere. If it's something like an environmental issue that's different.

Also I don't think the BQ are at all afraid of losing support to the NDP. It's not just Singh's appearance, although that does matter. For example, Singh's claim that the Liberals need the NDP's support because the BQ isn't a "national" party. That's insulting to Quebecois and something that someone who's been leader for two years should understand.

Sean in Ottawa

Another way to look at it is that the Liberals were cornering the NDP and had a plan to damage the NDP. Then the BQ intervened by making a colossal mistake allowing the NDP a win here. 

Now the NDP will be able to oppose the Liberals without causing an election, while saying the Liberals put nothing on the table, which is a better position than supporting them.

Either way the Liberals stood to gain as well as the Liberals will also take some of the BQ seats. But the Liberals would have prefered to damage the NDP than the BQ.

Scheer may or may win as well. By taking out the prospect of a new election Scheer is vulnerable on the leadership but a more healthy NDP at least gives the Conservatives hope against the Liberals.

Time to talk election reform. We need it.

Sean in Ottawa

brookmere wrote:

The Liberals are not going to budge to the BQ on any Quebec nationalist issues. They have been successful in locking up the federalist vote in Quebec which is not huge but big enough to get them the most seats in that province. They also know that the Conservatives went out of their way to pander to the nationalist vote and it got them nowhere. If it's something like an environmental issue that's different.

Also I don't think the BQ are at all afraid of losing support to the NDP. It's not just Singh's appearance, although that does matter. For example, Singh's claim that the Liberals need the NDP's support because the BQ isn't a "national" party. That's insulting to Quebecois and something that someone who's been leader for two years should understand.

I think you are seeing this from a Liberal supporter perspective but not strategically.

First the idea that there is a defined federalist vote in Quebec is a 1990s concept. This is much more fluid as Layton, QS, the CAQ and others have demonstrated. The Liberals have room fro growth in Quebec. They lost a lot of seats to the BQ by a hair. The NDP also came in second in a few places as well. Nothing is under lock and key if you look at the results.

The BQ do not have a very sophisticated environmental policy in Quebec beyond no pipelines. The Liberals cannot offer them anything and I cannot see the Liberals wanting to offer anyone anything. I said this after the election. The Liberals are not going to do much in terms of deals. They know that the BQ, NDP are under more pressure than they are to get something. The Liberals are fine with humiliating either one of them.

Singh's comment is not that damaging either and there is a dose of truth in the politics of it. Put politely, Singh is correct: the Liberals cannot make a deal giving a regional party anything as it will enrage the part of Canada that shut him out and increase the support for the Conservatives. A deal with the NDP which is a national party is not as toxic as one with one region that the Liberals are already represented in that would cost the part of the country they have no representation in at all. The NDP has that single seat in Alberta as well - no much but more than what the Liberals have.

Assuming that Quebec cannot support the NDP under Singh is more insulting to Quebec than anything Singh said. Lots of work to do but not impossible. There is an audience for Singh in Quebec better than you think. They like an underdog. They like a fighter. Singh is not that unpopular in Quebec right now and the poeple who hate him may not exactly be potential NDP supporters anyway. Quebec really hate being taken for granted. It is not impossible for the NDP to make inroads there given the problems the other parties now have. With a more split vote they may not even need huge increases either.

These problems include the BQ making a deal with the Liberals that they cannot gain much from; the Conservatives still largely toxic with no chance of change; the Greens without the breakthrough that was hoped for; the Liberals having to deal with the Conservative threat and deliver pipelines and address the opposition in Quebec to that. The Liberals also are dealing with an attack on Quebec from Conservative premiers and if they fail to defend Quebec they will pay dearly but if the do they risk losing support elsewhere. This is a debate Singh might be able to be less exposed on as he is not PM.

The CAQ is very popular but before the next federal election, this is unlikely to be at the same level. Hard decisions will be made and responsibility for those (particularly education, social services and health care).

If Singh reaches out to Quebec and shows some courage on key issues -- many of which are in common with the rest of the country -- he may gain. Quebec is also a minefield. MPs trying to straddle the nationalist-progressive-federalist set of issues will have obvious embarassing failure. It sucks that the NDP Quebec caucus is gutted but the message in the province will be more in control now if the party wants to try again to grow there. 

ETA: If the BQ are smart they are worried about losing support to the NDP given what happened in 2011 in the course of about a month.

Quebec does not just vote on nationalist-federalist lines now. The people of Quebec want things and they are not all nationalist things. Duceppe understood this. I am not sure that the current leadership is in the same place. If they fail on the nationalist side theya re not even trying on the social side. Singh might be able to put to the people that he will fight for things Canadians want in many parts of Canada. 

as for the way he looks. It is true that 65% of Quebec now apporves of the bill with 35% opposed.

35% is a lot of room for growth especially for a visible symbol of opposition to this bill. As well the Liberals have a problem. They will likely get forced off the fence here and that helps the NDP. If the Liberals oppose the bill then Singh is not the only one. If they do nothing opposition to the bill has only one party to go to.

Singh also has the advantage here. Singh is opposing the bill by putting on a turban while shaking his head and saying he will let Quebec decide the matter.  He can attract support from the opposition to the bill without actually opposing the bill. Some of those who support the bill could still appreciate his deference to Quebec process and support him on other issues. 

Singh and the NDP have a hell of a lot of work to do in Quebec but they are not dead and buried as some seem to think. Many NDP positions are popular. And the leader could still impress. 

Rob8305

Yeah I just want to issue a corrrction.  I wasn't completely aware that the BQ made its move before the NDP.  So, nothing to criticize them on here at all.  Sorry.  That said, the fact that it appears the Liberals are playing games with the NDP so soon make me worry that Trudeau's arrogance may cost us this parliament and us on the left everything.  The LPC is insane to think a snap election wouldn't result in anything other than a Scheer majority.  A truly preventable tragedy much like Harper.

pietro_bcc

Smart positioning by the NDP, the fact that the Liberals will need the Bloc to even pass a Throne Speech is terrible optics.

Sean in Ottawa

pietro_bcc wrote:

Smart positioning by the NDP, the fact that the Liberals will need the Bloc to even pass a Throne Speech is terrible optics.

Especially when the NDP demands are mostly what the Liberals previously have promised.

Pondering

pietro_bcc wrote:

Smart positioning by the NDP, the fact that the Liberals will need the Bloc to even pass a Throne Speech is terrible optics.

Exactly. Critics will accuse the Liberals of governing with only the support of separatists. Trudeau is trying to play hardball like Harper did for his three minorities but this is a different situation because of the Bloc but also because of the times. 

The NDP is broke but the other parties can't afford to duplicate the same splash either. Another election this quickly would attract attention without advertising. Social media is free. Members of the NDP have skills if the party bothers to tap into them. QS has never had a lot of money but they get their message out. Authenticity goes a long way. 

R.E.Wood

I don't think there's any significant chance of a snap election. It's all part of the ball game the parties are playing. The Cons are going to be against everything the Liberals do at this point, no surprise there. The NDP knows it can play the role of feisty party fighting for the underdogs, because they're safe in the knowledge that the BQ is going to vote with the Liberals and keep this minority going through its first confidence vote. It's all orchestrated. No one (outside Scheer & the Conservatives) wants another election right now. It's not going to happen for at least a couple years (in all likelihood) and by then no-one is going to remember or care that the separatists kept Trudeau in power through his first confidence vote.

swallow swallow's picture

I'd love if the NDP made its decision based on issues and not on political calculations. 

I know, I live in a dream world. 

Aristotleded24

swallow wrote:
I'd love if the NDP made its decision based on issues and not on political calculations. 

I know, I live in a dream world.

You mean taking a stand on the issues, forcing an election in which the NDP would be nearly obliterated for not having the resources to fight one right now, and having nobody to raise these issues in the Parliament that would follow?

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Singh is an idiot. Say good bye. The NDP will return to non-party status. Seriously, who the fuck wants to go back to the polls in a month? The Throne Speech I found, touched on many,many issues that would appeal to the NDP same for the BQ.. The Conservatives are the ones who should and are crying pissing and moaning about the Speech. Good. The environment,housing and stiffening our gun laws priorities should have been enough for the NDP's support. What does Singh want? Is he just like Scheer and won't support the government unless the Liberals run with their platform?

This isn't the time. Give it a year and then force an election if you must.

pietro_bcc

There will be no election forced because the Bloc has already announced that they're supporting the Throne Speech. Singh knows this and taking advantage of it to point out the issues he has with the speech and showing just how weak of a mandate Trudeau has.

jatt_1947 jatt_1947's picture

The only stiffer gun law we need is one that bans any gun laws.
Pretty sure if the Natives had more guns then the rest of Canada wouldn't be shedding crocodile tears for them the last 
2 centuries.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Long guns. Hunting rifles? I don't think anyone has a problem with them considering you can buy a rifle at Canadian |Tire...at least you used to....nonetheless most of us are not in favour of assault rifles like AR-15's floating around our cities. The majority of us enjoy living in a very safe country in contrast to the US.

I personally kind of like the fact that there is not a mass murder nearly every day of the year. After Sandy Hook you'd think the government could pass a law that at minimum makes one register their gun. It's not a big deal. You have to register everything else why wouldn't a gun registry be any different?

Unless you have something to hide.

kropotkin1951

Thanks Alan for the Liberal perspective. The NDP cannot support this government unless it puts significant parts of their platform on the table that the Liberals have repeatedly stolen election after election. Pipelines not pharmacare or housing deserves not support at all. Let the BQ abstain or vote with Trudeau and show the voters they have little to offer in Ottawa.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Thanks Alan for the Liberal perspective. The NDP cannot support this government unless it puts significant parts of their platform on the table that the Liberals have repeatedly stolen election after election. Pipelines not pharmacare or housing deserves not support at all. Let the BQ abstain or vote with Trudeau and show the voters they have little to offer in Ottawa.

Indeed, the scandal here should be that the things that the NDP is demanding are the same things the Liberals pretended to offer in the last two elections. 

I am fed up with Liberal trolls out in force on social media trying to smear Singh with the crime of not being a Liberal and taking orders from Trudeau or for advocating on something of the positions he ran on as a condition for his support.

Idiotic and the Liberals are only convincing themselves while making fools of themselves in front of anyone who has an independent brain.

brookmere

R.E.Wood wrote:
No one (outside Scheer & the Conservatives) wants another election right now.

I don't think a lot of Conservatives want another election right now. They want to get rid of Scheer first.

jatt_1947 jatt_1947's picture

alan smithee wrote:

Long guns. Hunting rifles? I don't think anyone has a problem with them considering you can buy a rifle at Canadian |Tire...at least you used to....nonetheless most of us are not in favour of assault rifles like AR-15's floating around our cities. The majority of us enjoy living in a very safe country in contrast to the US.

I personally kind of like the fact that there is not a mass murder nearly every day of the year. After Sandy Hook you'd think the government could pass a law that at minimum makes one register their gun. It's not a big deal. You have to register everything else why wouldn't a gun registry be any different?

Unless you have something to hide.

AR = ArmaLite 
Assault Rifle = Intermediate Calibre, Automatic Capable. Banned in the USA more or less.

The USA is very safe outside black inner cities where crimes are committed using illegal firearms.
White America has as low of a murder rate as Europe.

Anyway, your types probably also opposed the Kirpan so this will just be another issue that you'll learn to wince at but ignore anyway. :shrug:

 

JKR

It seems to me that once again the NDP are totally misreading public opinion as nobody left of centre wants another election anytime soon. I think people on the centre-left are happy that the BQ are being the adults in the room here. I think the NDP just handed the BQ a victory. So it looks like the NDP are going to continue being shut out in Quebec and remain Canada's 4th place party, if the Greens don't take that away from them. The NDP have got to start to figure out what  left of centre Canadians want and start catering to them. The Liberals seem far better aware of left of centre opinion. Maybe it's time to give up on the NDP and support an NDP-Green merger?

kropotkin1951

JKR you think voters are stupid. Sorry your wrong.

JKR

I don't think voters are stupid but I do think their opinions are very different from the opinions generally held here on Babble and generally held by the politicians and insiders running the NDP. Here is the most recent opinion poll on preferred PM by Nanos:

Preferred PM:

Trudeau 38.2 

Scheer 21.5

Singh 15.1

Unsure 14.0

May 7.4 

Blanchet 2.7

Bernier 1.1

(November 29, 2019)

Almost 44% of decided voters currently prefer Trudeau as PM. These people probably think having another election now would be idiotic.

https://www.nanos.co/

Aristotleded24

So they're still moving forward with the pipeline and claiming they can meet their climate change targets? Good on Singh for saying no. I know the BQ has taken on the issue of pipelines. Let Blanchet explain to his voters why he supports this government.

So Trudeau buys an oil pipeline to appease angry Conservatives in Western Canada who will never vote Liberal, then turns around and expects environmentalists to back him when he says he wants to take on climate change? How stupid is this guy? Even Paul Martin handled his minority Parliament with much more finesse than what we are seeing now.

Trudeau leading a minority Parliament? Scary thought. This guy is as incompetent as they come.

JKR

The opinions polls seem to show that the voters think Trudeau is relatively competent especially when compared with Scheer, Singh, and, May. Trudeau also has to govern for all Canadians not just Western Canadian Conservatives, environmentalists, or even just Liberals.

Aristotleded24

JKR wrote:
The opinions polls seem to show that the voters think Trudeau is relatively competent especially when compared with Scheer, Singh, and, May. Trudeau also has to govern for all Canadians not just Western Canadian Conservatives, environmentalists, or even just Liberals.

Part of that is name recognition and that despite Trudeau's blackface scandal, people are still at their core scared of what the Conservatives represent. As for governing for everybody? It's a pipeline. There's no compromise position on that one. You either build the pipeline or you don't. Somebody is going to be angry either way. Putting politics aside, climate scientists have made it clear that building pipelines is incompatible with meeting the climate change challenge. Science does not bow to politics or to popular opinion.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

jatt_1947 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Long guns. Hunting rifles? I don't think anyone has a problem with them considering you can buy a rifle at Canadian |Tire...at least you used to....nonetheless most of us are not in favour of assault rifles like AR-15's floating around our cities. The majority of us enjoy living in a very safe country in contrast to the US.

I personally kind of like the fact that there is not a mass murder nearly every day of the year. After Sandy Hook you'd think the government could pass a law that at minimum makes one register their gun. It's not a big deal. You have to register everything else why wouldn't a gun registry be any different?

Unless you have something to hide.

AR = ArmaLite 
Assault Rifle = Intermediate Calibre, Automatic Capable. Banned in the USA more or less.

The USA is very safe outside black inner cities where crimes are committed using illegal firearms.
White America has as low of a murder rate as Europe.

Anyway, your types probably also opposed the Kirpan so this will just be another issue that you'll learn to wince at but ignore anyway. :shrug:

 

you're a racist fool.

Misfit Misfit's picture

The mass murders in the United States are not being perpetrated by black people. It's overwhelmingly white males.

Statistical breakdown

According to this data, of the 114 mass shootings in the United States, 19 were black. That is 16.7%.

brookmere

Aristotleded24 wrote:
As for governing for everybody? It's a pipeline. There's no compromise position on that one. You either build the pipeline or you don't. Somebody is going to be angry either way.

Indeed somebody is going to be angry, but take a look at how many. The NDP failed to take Burnaby North - Seymour from the Liberals despite having one of the highest profile candidates possible. The NDP lost Port Moody - Coquitlam right next door on Burrard Inlet to the Conservatives. The NDP also lost another BC seat and did not pick up seats anywhere in BC.

If TM isn't a winning issue for the NDP in BC, it's not a winning issue anywhere. Now don't take that as an endorsement of TM from me. I'm just telling you what the voters said.

voice of the damned

brookmere wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:
As for governing for everybody? It's a pipeline. There's no compromise position on that one. You either build the pipeline or you don't. Somebody is going to be angry either way.

Indeed somebody is going to be angry, but take a look at how many. The NDP failed to take Burnaby North - Seymour from the Liberals despite having one of the highest profile candidates possible. The NDP lost Port Moody - Coquitlam right next door on Burrard Inlet to the Conservatives. The NDP also lost another BC seat and did not pick up seats anywhere in BC.

If TM isn't a winning issue for the NDP in BC, it's not a winning issue anywhere. Now don't take that as an endorsement of TM from me. I'm just telling you what the voters said.

Yes, in BC as a whole, over 60% of the vote went to pro-TM parties.

I'd be willing to bet, though, that for a lot of the Liberal voters in that bloc, it hasn't quite sunk in that the Liberals are pro-pipeline, such has been Justin Trudeau's success at projecting an eco-friendly image for his party.

But yeah, if peoples' opposition to pipelines isn't deep enough to warrant basic research into where the parties stand, there probably isn't much hope for anyone trying to ride a wave of anti-pipeline sentiment into power.

Mighty Middle

Does anyone know what the position of the Manitoba NDP & Saskachewan NDP towards Pipelines?

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:

The opinions polls seem to show that the voters think Trudeau is relatively competent especially when compared with Scheer, Singh, and, May. Trudeau also has to govern for all Canadians not just Western Canadian Conservatives, environmentalists, or even just Liberals.

There is a logical problem with your argument.

You point out correctly that the NDP and Singh are low in the polls. I think we can all grant that. We can also grant that whatever Singh does either way, he is not about to get more than 50% support. 

This is the part where we look at the subset of potential supporters. The *really* accessible votes that Singh could actually get. I say really becuase it is not the Nanos power index of those who put him as a distant second choice that they say they would consider in the likelihood that Trudeau got caught drowning kittens in boiling oil.

What do the present supporters want and what do the potential supporters want? What did the potential supporters who did not vote NDP in the last election say? (The opinion polls have shown that most of the support given to the NDP and Liberals considered strategic voting and the majority of those went for the Liberals.) What must Singh say to them?

The first thing that NDP supporters seek is justification for voting for what is now the 4th party: what can that do different than voting Liberal? the argument about split vote is compelling if you do not consider there to be a different result from voting a New Democrat over a Liberal. Potential supportrs need the same point: why should they consider the NDP next time?

What did the NDP make the government do that the Liberals otherwise owuld not have? How did they use their unicorn: minority government with a party other than the Conservatives at the head? How does Singh compare to Layton who got some things out of Martin when the NDP held the balance of power before they lost that role in Autumn of 2005?

The answer puts Singh in a difficult spot.

Singh cannot be seen to squander the minority and send us back to an election. Risk of that appears low. This does not happen on a throne speech, which is when a minority party has the most leverage -- otherwise it is only an election. The Liberals cannot be seen to hand over power to the Conservatives unless they turned down an unreasonable demand from the NDP. Now let's be realistic: the Conservatives don't care and Liberal partisans will always take the Liberal's side in the debate. It will always poll badly for the NDP if you look at totals. But drill down a bit. If the NDP supporters stick with the NDP and 90% of the Liberals stick with the Liberals then you have a majority agaisnt the NDP. True. But the NDP just went up by over 3%.

Singh's job is to keep the NDP supporters on his side and attract a few swing voters - to do this he cannot give the Liberals anything for free becuase then he no longer has a reason to exist in Parliament. If he irritates the vast majority of Liberals that is okay so long as he keeps the NDP supporters and can attract ANY of the potential supporters.

Singh has not used this card yet. But if he says that he cannot support the Liberals becuase the Liberals will not committ to do what the Liberals ran on in 2015 and 2019, he has a good narrative.

Agreeing with the Liberals without a price is telling NDP supporters that they should have voted Liberal.

Liberals will be Liberal and will spin propaganda and they are noisy and numerous. They are not swing voters and their opinions will not matter. a party sitting fourth's first job is to justify its existence and get something if its support is asked for.

The potential NDP voters will judge the reasonableness of NDP demands. Liberals will judge the NDP as terrible just for having any.

Sean in Ottawa

Misfit wrote:

The mass murders in the United States are not being perpetrated by black people. It's overwhelmingly white males.

Statistical breakdown

According to this data, of the 114 mass shootings in the United States, 19 were black. That is 16.7%.

Indeed. There is violence from African Americans although not mass shootings. Both sides agree that a lot of it is cultural, setting aside incidents of rare violent illness and uncontrolled individual rage. The white suprmacists say this culture is one of race.

Everyone else, including virtually all the experts, argue that violence comes from inequality, mysogyny and racism. they also say that the statistics are distorted by additional inequality within the enforcement and legal systems.

White violence is mostly based on a male white power culture - no wonder they think this is race based.

Black violence includes dynamics of desperation, no hope, falling in with the crime crowd - along with violence against women, sadly common across all male cultures. That said, there is a noticeable statistical difference where violence against women is lower in societies that have lower inequality both between genders and and economic inequality.

Unequal societies with greater desperation and greater exploitation are more violent on both sides. we hear about the violence from the oppressed. Truth is experts know that violence increases from the oppressors but is less likely to be observed, caught and punished. Violence is about power.

Here is another statistic about Black violence: African Americans are profiled and much more likely to be caught and when caught, due to generally lower legal resources and biases in the system, much more likely to be convicted than white perpetrators. When they are convicted, their sentences are longer and they are more likely to lack options when they come out.

Maybe white killers have to kill more people to get attention?

Reduce inequality (Financial, legal and cultural biases) and you will reduce violence. This is true when it comes to gender-based violence, and it is true when it comes to racial and economics based violence.

Sean in Ottawa

Mighty Middle wrote:

Does anyone know what the position of the Manitoba NDP & Saskachewan NDP towards Pipelines?

https://leaderpost.com/news/saskatchewan/meilis-nuanced-stance-on-pipelines-draws-flak-from-environmentalists

It is not clearly for or against and the article which implies support for the Greens does get into some of it.

The NDP is faced with the problem of a firm position agaisnt in SK makes them unelectable whereas a compromise position could permit the NDP to make some progress by demanding more onerous regulation, requirements and a better process while advancing other areas of environmental policy.

There are many positions possible and some are more complex. Some of this I agree with.

My problem with pipelines are the following:

1) They are being done without Indigenous consent (BTW I do not consider desperation induced consent to be real consent)

2) The economics of this investment is not sound

3) There are alternatives both to support the need for energy and to support these regions of Canada

4) the regulatory process is not working to ensure safety

5) The profits from any oil and gas ought to be invested in non fossil fuels so long as these are exploiuted

6) These projects export a raw and undevelopped resource rather thanmaximizing the benefits to Canada

You will see from this list that I am not saying no to all oil and gas investments. I am not theoretically against all pipelines either by definition if the issues I raised above were addressed. My reasoning is based on a preference for a consumption based approach to the problerm. By this I do not mean just a carbon tax on obvious carbon but ioone that acknolwedges the carbon produced in other countries to produce what we consume.  I favour - over an outright ban on pipelines - many policies including right to repair, long warranties, regulation to restrict carbon- wasteful products, production of alternate energy and subsidies where needed so it can compete, the removal of subsidies for fossil fuels, a higher more comprehensive carbon tax and many more proposals to address consumption. I also favour very high standards in regulation such that a pipeline while not banned would be much harder to build and stringent standards for economics arguments that do not involve subsidy. I also favour substantial assistance to provinces being asked to leave resources in the ground. I recognize a difference between having a resource and being asked by the federation not to use it and not having one. A decision to not exploit something is a national decision with a national cost as opposed to not having one. that said I also support better assistance to provinces without resources. This point would on one side be more popular in Alberta for example and a lot less popular on the other.

No, the NDP in Saskatchewan is far from my position as well. But I think you were looking to expose divison and I believe in honesty so there you have it.

Mighty Middle

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 But I think you were looking to expose divison and I believe in honesty so there you have it.

I wasn't looking for division, I was just curious what the stance was for the NDP parties in the West. As Rachel Notley (AB NDP) is pro-pipeline, as both she and Jason Kenney oppose Bill C69. But was unfamiliar with the Sask & Manitoba NDP stance.

jatt_1947 jatt_1947's picture

114 mass shootings in almost 40 years.

Which is nothing. Go buy guns, 

Sean in Ottawa

jatt_1947 wrote:

114 mass shootings in almost 40 years.

Which is nothing. Go buy guns, 

This is by definition trolling. Please stop.

jatt_1947 jatt_1947's picture

alan smithee wrote:

jatt_1947 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

AR = ArmaLite 
Assault Rifle = Intermediate Calibre, Automatic Capable. Banned in the USA more or less.

Anyway, your types probably also opposed the Kirpan so this will just be another issue that you'll learn to wince at but ignore anyway. :shrug:

 

you're a racist fool.

What's racist is black dudes having far more illegal guns because white liberal gun control policies have a disparate impact on coloured people. 
The debate has been controlled & directed in such a way that every round of gun legislation increasingly disarms vulnerable groups far more than white males.

People speak of this rural-urban or blue-red divide in legal gun ownership. What nobody speaks on is how the leadership of both the left & right, both white, has driven minority firearm ownership underground where it can be prosecuted.

What the establishment, the white establishment, more or less wants is for coloured people to disarm themselves thinking it's progressive.

Gun control began in earnest right after immigration numbers were increased.
Whites want to keep the ability to genocide and commit mass violence against other groups, firmly in their hands.

Nobody is being fooled.

jatt_1947 jatt_1947's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

jatt_1947 wrote:

114 mass shootings in almost 40 years.

Which is nothing. Go buy guns, 

This is by definition trolling. Please stop.

My Dharma is not trolling.
Violence is a part of nature.
One mass shooting every 4 months in a nation as fkd up as the USA with hundreds of millions of firearms proves the pt.

Don't go driving if you're scared or even slip & fall in the bath tub.

In an era of increased white radicalization only Hitler would call for more gun control policies, which impact POC far more. 

"An Afghan [guard] tried to get hold of one [imprisoned] Singhni. She grappled the Afghan to the floor and pounded in his ribs. The fiend screamed in agony. Three or four more guards then came. Taking one Afghan's sword, the Singhni swiftly cut down these other three. Other 'Singhnia' took hold of their swords, and, like cheetahs, they drew them and attacked. In showing them the pleasure of touching Sikh women, they had wounded thirty and killed ten. The other guards stood back, afraid and refused to come near and fight Without orders, they fired arrows and muskets upon the women."

ਸਤਿਸ਼੍ਰੀਅਕਾਲ।।

jatt_1947 jatt_1947's picture

Back on topic, I do agree with Sean on the pipeline stuff.
Why we haven't built refineries after all this time or even let this American style pro-business and anti-people attitude creep in is shocking..

Sean in Ottawa

jatt_1947 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

jatt_1947 wrote:

114 mass shootings in almost 40 years.

Which is nothing. Go buy guns, 

This is by definition trolling. Please stop.

My Dharma is not trolling

Maybe but you are in posting that.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

alan smithee wrote:

jatt_1947 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Long guns. Hunting rifles? I don't think anyone has a problem with them considering you can buy a rifle at Canadian |Tire...at least you used to....nonetheless most of us are not in favour of assault rifles like AR-15's floating around our cities. The majority of us enjoy living in a very safe country in contrast to the US.

I personally kind of like the fact that there is not a mass murder nearly every day of the year. After Sandy Hook you'd think the government could pass a law that at minimum makes one register their gun. It's not a big deal. You have to register everything else why wouldn't a gun registry be any different?

Unless you have something to hide.

AR = ArmaLite 
Assault Rifle = Intermediate Calibre, Automatic Capable. Banned in the USA more or less.

The USA is very safe outside black inner cities where crimes are committed using illegal firearms.
White America has as low of a murder rate as Europe.

Anyway, your types probably also opposed the Kirpan so this will just be another issue that you'll learn to wince at but ignore anyway. :shrug:

 

you're a racist fool.

Not to mention Jatt is also working under the delusion that it's possible to be both a Sikh AND a supporter of Modi's bloodsoaked Hindu supremacism.

 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Mighty Middle wrote:

Does anyone know what the position of the Manitoba NDP & Saskachewan NDP towards Pipelines?

It is Saskatchewan that builds the steel pipes for the pipelines. That means jobs for Saskatchewan steel workers.

jatt_1947 jatt_1947's picture

jatt_1947 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

My Dharma is not trolling

Maybe but you are in posting that.

No, I'm really not. Weapons are sacred||

Also Burch you don't know a hair about Sikhi||

Pages