So Justin Trudeau and his Liberals are finished and done like dinner-who benefits?

The Bahamas put him in his coffin and India closed it. First one term government in over 100 years.  

"The Bahamas" was pretty much a dead issue by the time "India" came along, so I doubt that the latter is being propelled by momentum from the former. If this scandal turns out to have legs, I think it will very much be a stand-alone thing, though no less lethal for that. Justin Trudeau being successfully framed as BFFs with a guy once convicted of trying to assassinate an Indian politician is gonna make a free-room from the Aga Khan look like overdue library books.

That said, there seems to be some spin making the rounds(even in usually anti-Liberal media) portraying Atwal as just an obsessive political hanger-on, with a knack for talking his way onto guest lists and into photo-ops. If Trudeau can successfully portray himself as just another victim of a small-time operator, he might come out of this okay.

Foreign policy never decides a Canadian election unless it involves our soldiers.

WTF?

Canadians of East Indian origin also make up the second largest non-European ethnic group in the country. In 2001, over 700,000 people of East Indian origin lived in Canada. That year, they made up 2.4% of the total Canadian population.Jul 16, 2007

I don't think anything happening in India will have any impact on Trudeau's chances in Canada. If anyone would be impacted by the division in India it would be the NDP with a Sikh leader but I doubt it will have a net negative effect for them either. 

Canadian Sikhs number roughly 468,670 people and account for roughly 1.4% of Canada's population. Canadian Sikhs are often credited for paving the path to Canada for all South Asian immigrants as well as for inadvertently creating the presence of Sikhism in the United States.

Indigenous peoples won't dictate the outcome of the election either although they are growing fast.

New data from the National Household Survey (NHS) show that 1,400,685 people had an Aboriginal identity in 2011, representing 4.3% of the total Canadian population. Aboriginal people accounted for 3.8% of the population enumerated in the 2006 Census, 3.3% in the 2001 Census and 2.8% in the 1996 Census.Sep 15, 2016

Economics will dictate the outcome of the next election just as it always does. 

Of course, Justin could STILL guarantee there won't ever be another Con majority.  All he has to do is honor his original campaign promise and implement pr.  

Might as well admit it's time, dauphin.

Rob8305 wrote:

First one term government in over 100 years.

Since nobody picked up on this, I'll just note that R. B. Bennett headed a one term government a good deal less than 100 years ago. And he lost re-election due to the economy, of course.

Zoolander has no competition thus far. Certainly not the CONs and definitely not the No Difference Party. Dream on.,,

Ken Burch wrote:

Of course, Justin could STILL guarantee there won't ever be another Con majority.  All he has to do is honor his original campaign promise and implement pr.  

Might as well admit it's time, dauphin.

While I do not think the Liberals are done, they eventually will be as all parties ebb and flow. Trudeau had an opportunity, in sounding like a New Democrat to make it less likely that a minority supported Conservative could eventually replace him. Instead, soaking in hypocrisy and the arrogance of assuming he will never lose a majority, he opted to keep his majority at the cost of handing one to the Conservatives in the future. Breaking a promise to do this -- the most important promise that effectively allowed him to come to power. It was a large number of NDP and Green supporters who bought his lie that he would do something about the electoral system.

Trusting Liberals is like Charlie Brown and Lucy with the ball. Not a good idea.

NDPP wrote:

Zoolander has no competition thus far. Certainly not the CONs and definitely not the No Difference Party. Dream on.,,

Hmmm. And Trump won't get elected either .... oops.

The Conservatives could get elected -- they are not that far out. While unlikely the NDP could as well if the fall were dramatic due to some significant scandal. Never say never.

It is extremely unlikely that the Liberals will lose the next election (although a minority is certainly possible if the NDP were to make any gains on them). But it is not impossible and there are some scenarios already where that could happen.

I suspect that if Clinton had been elected, the Conservatives would be even closer but Trump has given a bad name to Conservative politics....

All governments should follow the maxim that what is in the rearview mirror is closer than they appear.

Trudeau is also weaker than he appears given that he mobilized a coalition of people who were first time voters who may not come again and people who expected delivery on some very high expectations. He has followed that with breaking key promises that brought him votes (Electoral Reform), delivering less than expected (Indigenous rights) and having to take specific positions where people on both sides of an issue each thought he would be on their side (Pipelines). He has gotten away with over the top language about support for middle class when the policies did not really do that. He has risks to the economy due to NAFTA (which might turn to advantage if issues can be blamed on others).

No -- the next election should not be predicted now. Trudeau could win a massive majority, a minority, or a shocking (although close) defeat. The question is about the odds. I am not betting against him but will not risk a prediction in hes favour either.

On top of all this, politics has become less predictable and more chaotic. Canada is not an exception. We also have risk of the kind of populism that exists elsewhere.

Your clue could even be in the fickleness of voters. You do not need many to change their minds in the voting booth. So many do not vote that the act of choosing to vote or stay home along with a small number of switchers can decide an election.

Lets look at the slim numbers:

If

2% of the 39% who voted for Trudeau vote NDP and

3% vote conservative and

3% do not vote this time and

1% of Conservatives who stayed home last time come and vote --

You get a potential Conservative minority:

Liberal 39% -2-3-3=31%

Conservative 31% +2 =32%

While this is really, really, unlikely -- it is not impossible especially since we do not know the ballot question or leading issues.

Let's take a stab at one possibility:

Scenario 1:

US government goes severely in debt. Interest rates rise globally. Canadian dollar is defended by being above US rates. Canadian dollar still goes down causing inflation at the same time as rising interet rates while workers get less and the economy sours. -- then s#%t happens. In this scenario, Trudeau may or may not be able to blame international economics given his spending.

Sorry but I am old enough to remember that Harper was not going to get elected and Clark was not going to get elected and other speculative nonsense to add to the Trump could not be elected.

I'll give you this. Your scenario 1 is a possibility. If so I predict the Liberals, even sans JT wonder-boy will still hold on to government, (perhaps Freeland could replace him?) even a minority one, as the present opposition leaders are completely unelectable imv. Of course, as Nixon honcho HR Haldeman once famously observed, given enough money to buy the right media coverage and we could elect a chimpanzee.

I predict no significant poll movement after the India trip.   This is another non-story blown up by con media, much like the "peoplekind" comment.     If the Liberals withstood the Aga Khan scandal, surely the India "snub" is a complete non-factor.

I hope it is clear that I am not suggesting that this India trip is some big turning point. My suggestion that the Liberals are vulnerable is due to much more than this.

I do not think the India trip alone will do any damage and it may not for a while. However, like it did with Harper, these things that are nothing in their time eventually add up when there is enough else there.

The narrative that became the branding of Harper by 2015 was predictable years before when nothing seemed to stick. Likewise, it is posssible to see where things will eventually go with Trudeau even if we are nowhere near there.

Now Harper was branded as mean and uncaring, Trudeau as light fluffy and silly is not far from the mind. Either Trudeau will grow into the role soon, as at times he suggests he might be able to, or he will fall back into the impression many opponents had of him when he was first leader. Given that this is his greatest risk, it is a wonder that he does not get some serious aides who could ahve prevented this silliness in India. The other impression that could take over is him as an entitled rich kid with his father's arrogance and less than half of his brains.

These impressions already exist so to get traction they just need a steady diet of things like this India trip.

Now for the first years he could do little wrong with many as they want to be with him and take the selfies and see how much nicer he is than Harper etc. But for many journalists this is getting old.

Singh might want to avoid too many cmparisons to Trudeau as not all of those are flattering. Scheer, hopefully will continue to remind Canadians why they wanted to see the back of the Conservatives but there is always the risk of voter amnesia... Ontario seems to be poised to give the Conservatives an encore -- pathetic that this is about Hydro among other things that the Conservatives seriously pooched the last time they were in power. Voters often are illogical.

Rob8305 wrote:

What prompted this post was that PMJT was getting decimated on Twitter last night and it seems like he’s getting decimated more and more often on Twitter lately.  

OK, so it's all very scientific then.

progressive17 wrote:

Do you honestly think anyone cares about Electoral Reform? 

This Ekos poll indicates most do.
http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2016/11/the-public-outlook-on-elec...

It's another thing whether it will happen under any elected Can government, once it sees its best chance to remain in power is the-Least-Unpopular-Takes-All-Phony-Majority system. 

The only chance for reform in Canada is perhaps in BC where the Greens (to their own advantage) have likely made it a condition of support, and will probably have a say in the wording of the referendum.
====
As to the the subject of the thread. 

No, the Liberals aren't finished because of this. Though you would think including a Canadian who was convicted of attempting to murder a moderate Sihk Indian Cabinate Minister on his visit to Vancouver Island (near where I lived) would be of some consequence.

The Liberals will have few pointed/persistant attacks on the Atwal inclusion from the other parties since they all draw support from the same well.

Andrew Coyne is accurate on the Trudeau/Atwal background

L’affaire Atwal: the novelty is only that they did it on Indian soil

It isn’t that Atwal suddenly popped up among the prime minister’s retinue, uninvited, with no prior history of involvement with the federal Liberals. It’s that he was invited, and that he was invited precisely because of his connections with the party.
It doesn’t take much searching to find Atwal posing for photographs with prominent Liberals, including its former and present leaders, or to discover that he was a member of the executive of the Fleetwood-Port Kells riding association in Surrey, B.C. Atwal, then, would not have been unknown to senior Liberals; neither would his violent past. (Indeed, among his alleged victims was a former Liberal cabinet minister, Ujjal Dosanjh, who accuses him to this day of beating him over the head with a metal pipe, though Atwal was acquitted of the charge in court.)

Neither is he the only Sikh separatist, extreme or otherwise, to find a haven within the party, or to whom the party has catered: witness the prime minister’s attendance at a Toronto event earlier this year featuring flags of Sikh separatism and posters of the extremist leader Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. It isn’t that the government actively supports Sikh separatism. It’s that, for political reasons, the Liberal party has been willing to look the other way at those who do; to appear, if not sympathetic to, than at least indulgent of their cause, if that were required to attract their votes, their money and their organizational muscle....

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-laffaire-atwal-the-novelty-...

I like this thread! And probably not for the reason that automatically comes to most people’s minds. I like it because of the comments that posters are making in defence of Justin. I said it before on this forum that we’re probably not going to see any serious shift in poll numbers until after marihuana is legalized. And ironically all Justin really has in his corner is just that, poll numbers. Drop or adjust those numbers just 2-3 points away from the libs and add to conservative and NDP, then watch a whole entire new scenario unfold complete with the political junkies rushing in with the tea leaves Donald Trump NAFTA Canadian dollar interest rates evil conservatives (whom for some reason no one can explain why they can’t turn away from the dark side of the force and are just plain bad people) and pretty much anything imaginable that can influence an election. Justin’s failing so far are self inflicted and for the most part downplayed by people who want pot legal. I suspect that Justin has the corporate media circus freek side show self promotion shifted into hi gear for good reason. And that is I suspect that if the liberals can’t keep the focus of the corporate media attention, disappointing poll numbers will soon follow. 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Breaking a promise to do this -- the most important promise that effectively allowed him to come to power. It was a large number of NDP and Green supporters who bought his lie that he would do something about the electoral system.

If people were upset about that it would show by now. There is no evidence that people voted for Trudeau based on moving to PR. We would have seen a sharp uptick in NDP support when he shut it down. 

The media coverage of the trip reminds me of school yard bullying, lacking any sort of rational analysis whatsoever.   The CBC article by Evan Dyer is practially the only MSM exception: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/india-trudeau-trip-wrap-up-1.4550703

The only "gaffe" Trudeau is personally guilty of is wearing too much ethnic Indian clothing, and that's a very mild "gaffe" at that.   This will not change any votes.   As for the invitation sent to a Sikh separatist, the MP responsible may have had some kind of an agenda.

As for the invitation sent to a Sikh separatist, the MP responsible may have had some kind of an agenda.

Well, maybe, but that MP is a member of Trudeau's own party. So people might legitimately wonder to what extent Trudeau shares that agenda as well. 

If Harper had invited someone to dinner who had been convicted of bombing abortion clinics, it wouldn't be much of a defense to say "Oh well, the Conservative MP who arranged that is probably just pushing his own agenda." Most people know that Harper and his party are not completely separate from that agenda. 

I don't know if these SNAFUs is India are going to do any long-term damage to Trudeau. Personally, though, I am speculating that at some point JT is going to have his "tainted tuna" moment, ie. it might not be the one thing that kills his popularity, but it will be the dividing point at which the honeymoon is definitely over, he no longer walks on water, etc. These "India" shennanigans sort of have the feel of that, but it's probably too early to tell the long-term repercussions. 

voice of the damned wrote:

I don't know if these SNAFUs is India are going to do any long-term damage to Trudeau. Personally, though, I am speculating that at some point JT is going to have his "tainted tuna" moment, ie. it might not be the one thing that kills his popularity, but it will be the dividing point at which the honeymoon is definitely over, he no longer walks on water, etc. These "India" shennanigans sort of have the feel of that, but it's probably too early to tell the long-term repercussions. 

Yes over the long term things can make an impact as they add up. Trouble is that usually takes 8 to 12 years and sometimes 16.

The Indian government is playing it down because they issued Atwal a visa to enter the country.

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Breaking a promise to do this -- the most important promise that effectively allowed him to come to power. It was a large number of NDP and Green supporters who bought his lie that he would do something about the electoral system.

If people were upset about that it would show by now. There is no evidence that people voted for Trudeau based on moving to PR. We would have seen a sharp uptick in NDP support when he shut it down. 

I disagree. I don't think the polls far from a campaign will have high participation among switchers. I think these polls measure more the willingness to be polled or enthusiasm of the camps than the people that tune in late in order to really make up their minds.

Also I don't think this issue is one that will get attention now. But it can come up suddenly the first time the Liberals ask the NDP voters to help them stop conservatives. The NDP would be stupid not to make a deal of it then and the hypocrisy would be huge from Liberals.

Now you might say that the Liberals might not use that tactic that they have used in every election in living memory. Perhaps. But not being able to use the tactic is just as significant as using it and having it fail.

The Liberals in their arrogance have forgotten how much they use (and need) that tactic and how this damages it severely.

So -- if you read my posts for the last couple years -- I have always said it won't be a deal now but it is a sleeper issue.

Just a couple more years to find out if I am wrong.

It's shit like this that gets me on the war path of the laissez-faire attitudes by some here about the posiblitity of a Conservative majority,

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/conservatives-pledge-to-recognize-jerusa...

I'm warning all of you that  if the Conservatives gain power,look to the US as of what Canada will turn into.

Careful what you wish for. If you're unhappy with what we got,things will be worse immeasurably with a Conservative government. And Harper has only been out of the picture for 3 years,have you learned NOTHING?

Any leftist fine with a Tory majority,phoney oy not,really need their heads examined. For real.

Clearly you have no clue what I'm suggesting. Even when the Liberals aren't in power,all that some do here is bitch about the LIberals. It's an unhealthy obsession. If you think the LIberals are fucking you,than the Conservatives are raping you.

I see hardly anyone talking about Scheer,his social conservatism and the Conservative party which is worse now than it was when Harper was leading it. They are playing the same playbook as the current Republican party. That should disturb you. That's my point. If you don't like it , it's not going to make a difference in 2019. We're fucked.

Regarding electoral reform and proportional representation, many members of Fair Vote Canada are furious with the Liberals.  And members of Democracy Watch are too (see this campaign here:  http://democracywatch.ca/campaigns/pm-trudeau-electoral-reform-accountab...).  I'm not sure how activists with LeadNow feel.  But, since they're based in BC, I imagine they're not thrilled with the Liberals for both the broken electoral reform promise and the broken promise regarding KM.  This will weaken any push for strategic voting that the Liberals often count on. 

Regarding electoral reform, the NDP did adopt Guy Caron's plank regarding prioritizing PR when it comes to negotiations in minority situations, via resolution # 5-06-18.

Resolution # 5-06-18 wrote:

[prelude snipped]

Therefore be it resolved that the New Democratic Party of Canada reiterate its support for Mixed Member Proportional Representation and ensure that Mixed Member Proportional Representation be given a high profile in the NDP platform in the next federal election.

Be it resolved that : An NDP majority government will bring in proportional representation in time for the next election. In a minority parliament, the NDP would make proportional representation a condition for any potential alliance, or for support for any minority government.

Pondering wrote:

Trudeau will never allow the strategy of trying to get votes by pointing out how scary the Conservatives are. That is a loser's strategy. There is no proof that it has ever worked. The NDP tried to use it 2015 not the Liberals. It's old-fashioned. Trudeau already spoke out against it specifically because it's like saying you aren't offering anything good enough to earn votes. Nor does Trudeau need it. He will run on his track record. When called a liar he will say he's working on it, and it many cases that will be true. 

On electoral reform he did not say he would accept MMP.  The NDP wanted only MMP. The Liberals were partial to ranked ballots but not the NDP. The Liberals will say there was no consensus among parties and he will be right. There wasn't. There is no evidence that even one person voted for Trudeau rather than the NDP based on electoral reform. 

Singh has spoken about his support for PR and I believe he will make it a major election plank. That doesn't mean voters will respond to it. I think there will have to be multiple MMP provinces before it could be sold federally and I think it's easier to sell on a provincial level. The Alberta NDP hasn't even proposed PR so it can't be all that important to all NDP supporters. Quebec and Ontario are the two most populous provinces by far and neither seems particularly interested in PR.

I'd say swing voters are considerably less interested in PR.  Swing voters tune in at the last minute, check out the the leaders and pick the one they think will do the best job. Swing voters don't have any allegiance to a particular party or ideology so they don't care if seats are non-proportional. They voted for the person they wanted, win or lose, they will tune back in next election period. The grand majority of PR supporters are already NDP supporters. 

I keep coming across the narrative that a large number of voters sway between the Liberals and NDP and that those people are actually more progressive than the Liberals but they keep getting tricked into voting Liberal because the Liberals campaign left and govern right. 

As I believe Alan mentioned the Liberals are fiscally conservative but socially liberal and that mirrors the public well. It's why the Conservatives have been moving to the centre socially and the NDP has been moving to the centre fiscally. The Conservatives have no choice. People are getting far more live and let live. The Conservatives were right to fear teachers. Teachers don't get into politics in the classroom but they do teach human rights and ethics and about the environment etc. The more educated a person is the more likely they will vote NDP. 

Alan, I recall your saying just after Trudeau was elected that once people discovered the tax cuts were really going to the uppper-middle class they would turn on Trudeau. There wasn't even a ripple in his support. People are not paying that close attention. 

I have paid close attention to this gambit by Liberals in elections going back at least 30 years. It has often hurt the NDP and it has sometimes worked for the Liberals and sometimes failed.

It worked in 1988 and while it did not win the election support following the appeal did move to the Liberals. The NDP campaign was poor but did not drop until this appeal was made heavily. NDP support the previous summer had been very high -- topping the polls.

In 1993, this was employed to great effect. Combined with a weak NDP campaign at the close of the election, the Liberals made this appeal to defeating the Conservatives and the NDP lost party status.

The Liberals tried it again in 1997 and it seemed to almost have backfired a little as NDP voters, I think voted for party status believing that the Martin cuts of 1995 might have been mitagated had the NDP official party status. I remember the appeal and the reaction. Even the media attacked it sayign that the NDP was fighting for its life and owed nothing to the Liberals after the Martin cuts.

The Liberals tried it again in 2000 although they made less of a deal about it only bringing it up close to the end of the campaign. It worked a little better although the election was closer.

In 2004 the Liberals pushed it very hard at the end of the campaign and many thought that it worked reducing the NDP from about 18% to 15% in the dying days. Layton claimed that this cost several seats and resulted in his change of tactics in 2006

The Liberals tried it heavily in 2006 but the NDP pushed to hold the Conservatives to a minority. Layton asked Liberals to lend their votes to the NDP as well. It is unclear which party got the most out of this.

The 2008 election saw the rise of "independent" strategic voting sites mostly run by Liberals. At the same time people on babble started to really attack and get a hate on for Liberals pushing the tactic. This tactic did work somewhat at the end but not enough to save the Liberals who were falling fast due to Dion -- even in their fall they tried the tactic to save the furniture and it seemed to help just a bit. Interestingly the Conservatives tried a tactic in Quebec in some ridings asking BQ members to support them to stop the Liberals. May was also asked and at the time said she did not support Strategic voting. This election some say caused a major push to electoral reform.

The 2011 election saw the implosion of Ignatief but he tried the tactic as well but by the end of the campaign the tide had run out of any argument that the Liberals had a better chance than the NDP.

In 2015 both parties tried it -- first the NDP who kept going with the argument even as their polling was sliding under the Liberals and then Liberals started to throw it back in the face of the NDP.

Now whether Trudeau would personally do the appeal or not is really not an issue. Usually it was not the leader to push it. Paul Martinand Ignatieff did try personally but usually it was the campaign but certainly the leaders endorsed it (Chretien, Dion, Turner).

I remember hearing that the tactic was old in 1988 to appeal to NDP voters to stop Conservatives but I don't have specific memory of these appeals in earlier elections although I did follow closely the 1979, 1980 and 1984 elections. I seem to remember discussion during the 1984 election and that it backfired that time causing NDP support to rise after Broadbent ridiculed it -- others older than me would have to say more about it.