Liberal Minority Government 2021 - ????

[Remius]

Keep in mind those poll ratings are actually likely higher ratings than what they are. Right leaning people tend not to participate in surveys and tend not to favour Trudeau

Properly conducted polling using proper methodology will account for that though. I haven’t looked into that particular poll though.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Properly conducted polling using proper methodology will account for that though. I haven’t looked into that particular poll though.

In case youre so inclined.

Trudeau’s approval: how does it compare to other prime ministers over the last five decades? -

Two-in-five currently approve of PMJT, though the same number “strongly disapprove” of his performance May 20, 2023 – Assessing history can be difficult in real time, with recency bias and current controversies often clouding the long view. A new study from the non-profit Angus Reid Institute...

angusreid.org

 

[Remius]

In case youre so inclined.

Trudeau’s approval: how does it compare to other prime ministers over the last five decades? -

Two-in-five currently approve of PMJT, though the same number “strongly disapprove” of his performance May 20, 2023 – Assessing history can be difficult in real time, with recency bias and current controversies often clouding the long view. A new study from the non-profit Angus Reid Institute...

angusreid.org

Ive read the article. I have not looked too deep into it’s methodology. It’s indicating it is self funded, with a +/- margins of error of 2% with a good sample size. As far as the nitty gritty deep dive I’ll pass. Angus Reid is pretty reputable and has a decent track record.

So I’m not concerned that the poll indicated would be an in accurate snapshot.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Ive read the article. I have not looked too deep into it’s methodology. It’s indicating it is self funded, with a +/- margins of error of 2% with a good sample size. As far as the nitty gritty deep dive I’ll pass. Angus Reid is pretty reputable and has a decent track record.

So I’m not concerned that the poll indicated would be an in accurate snapshot.

I took no issue with your original post. I was just providing the actual poll if you were interested in reading it is all.

 

[Remius]

I took no issue with your original post. I was just providing the actual poll if you were interested in reading it is all.

Oh yes. I definitely did read it when it was posted. I just haven’t deep dived too much into the methodology. But I trust their margin of error.

 

[Jarnhamar]

This is going to come as a shock.

No public inquiry into foreign interference: Special rapporteur Johnston to undertake 'public hearings' ​

 

[The Bread Guy]

This is going to come as a shock.

No public inquiry into foreign interference: Special rapporteur Johnston to undertake 'public hearings'​

Initial conclusions via the info-machine (also archived here)

(...)

1. Foreign governments are undoubtedly attempting to influence candidates and voters in Canada. While much has been done already, more remains to be done promptly to strengthen our capacity to detect, deter and counter foreign interference in our elections.
2. When viewed in full context with all of the relevant intelligence, several leaked materials that raised legitimate questions turn out to have been misconstrued in some media reports, presumably because of the lack of this context.
3. There are serious shortcomings in the way intelligence is communicated and processed from security agencies through to government, but no examples have been identified of Ministers, the Prime Minister or their offices knowingly or negligently failing to act on intelligence, advice or recommendations.
4. A further public process is required to address issues relating to foreign interference, but there should not and need not be a separate Public Inquiry. A Public Inquiry examining the leaked materials could not be undertaken in public given the sensitivity of the intelligence. However, public hearings on the serious governance and policy issues identified to date should and will be held, at the earliest possible date, as part of the second phase of my mandate.
5. My conclusions concerning the media allegations, including the confidential annex to my report, should be referred to and reviewed by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) and the National Security and Intelligence Review Committee (NSIRA), and they should report publicly if they reach different conclusions.
   
   (...)

Johnson's take on why not a public "inquiry" ...

... when I was appointed Special Rapporteur, I began with an inclination towards recommending a Public Inquiry. However, as I have undertaken the review process, I asked myself repeatedly what purpose a Public Inquiry could serve for Canadians in light of the restrictions on the material that would need to be before the Commissioner. I have concluded it would not serve a useful purpose to enhance trust.

A Public Inquiry would not be, in any material way, public. A commissioner would be in the exact same position I am in: reviewing material in private, speaking to witnesses in private, and ultimately providing the public with conclusions that do not cite much by way of specific evidence. This would be unsatisfying, just as my process is unsatisfying, because it cannot be done in public. But two unsatisfying processes are not going to satisfy. A Public Inquiry would delay but not prevent the inevitable grappling that Canadians (as well as media and Parliamentarians without a security clearance) will need to do with the fact that they are not going to see the intelligence, they are not going to see the internal memoranda, and they are not going to hear from the security agencies in any detailed way. This is in many ways unfortunate, but it is necessary to protect our national security, the sources our intelligence agencies rely on, and our obligations to the Five Eyes partners ...

More in the full initial report attached.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Johnson's take on why not a public "inquiry" ...

A "troops are grumbling, give them a town hall but don't bother writing notes" if I've ever seen one.

Here's an example of Johnstons thorough investigation.

Erin O'Toole says special rapporteur only met with him as report was already being translated​

 

[daftandbarmy]

This is going to come as a shock.

No public inquiry into foreign interference: Special rapporteur Johnston to undertake 'public hearings'​

 

[Quirky]

The fact that China wants the Liberals in government should be the big red flag. A vote for a Liberal is a vote for China.

 

[ModlrMike]

Doesn't China already have a big red flag?

 

[YZT580]

The fact that China wants the Liberals in government should be the big red flag. A vote for a Liberal is a vote for China.

or the NDP

 

[Lumber]

The fact that China wants the Liberals in government should be the big red flag. A vote for a Liberal is a vote for China.

What a naïve way to view the world. Do you actually have any idea why the CCP prefers the liberals? There are lots of reasons the CCP might want the liberal government in power, but that doesn't automatically disqualify them. What if the only reason they want the liberals to win is no other reason than they have a better chance with the liberals in power of getting a mining project approved on Baffin Island?

What if at the same time, Russia wanted the CPC to win, North Korea endorsed the NDP, and the neo-nazi Aryan Brotherhood endorsed the PPC? Would you just vote Green by process of elimination?

No. You look at the policies of the party and the quality of the person in your riding and make a decision based on the sum whole of a huge number of different factors. The preferences of other nations can factor into your decision, absolutely, but you can't let foreign governments decide how YOU vote simply by saying "we prefer X party.".

The longer I write this post, the more this type of thinking bothers me. Like, if I was the CCP reading your post, I'd be laughing. The LPC may be closer in ideology to the CCP, but the CPC has always been more business friendly with China. If I was China and I wanted to get the Cons in power so that I could get more favourable business deals in Canada, I'd just say "we like the liberals" and people like you would roll over for them.

 

[Quirky]

What a naïve way to view the world. Do you actually have any idea why the CCP prefers the liberals? There are lots of reasons the CCP might want the liberal government in power, but that doesn't automatically disqualify them. What if the only reason they want the liberals to win is no other reason than they have a better chance with the liberals in power of getting a mining project approved on Baffin Island?

What if at the same time, Russia wanted the CPC to win, North Korea endorsed the NDP, and the neo-nazi Aryan Brotherhood endorsed the PPC? Would you just vote Green by process of elimination?

No. You look at the policies of the party and the quality of the person in your riding and make a decision based on the sum whole of a huge number of different factors. The preferences of other nations can factor into your decision, absolutely, but you can't let foreign governments decide how YOU vote simply by saying "we prefer X party.".

The longer I write this post, the more this type of thinking bothers me. Like, if I was the CCP reading your post, I'd be laughing. The LPC may be closer in ideology to the CCP, but the CPC has always been more business friendly with China. If I was China and I wanted to get the Cons in power so that I could get more favourable business deals in Canada, I'd just say "we like the liberals" and people like you would roll over for them.

Chinas support for Justin “I love Chinas basic dictatorship” Trudeau is reason #64 why not to vote for the Liberals. Their policies are a disaster and everything they manage turns to sh*t. The Liberal leader and it’s MPs are incompetent.

 

[QV]

No. You look at the policies of the party and the quality of the person in your riding and make a decision based on the sum whole of a huge number of different factors. The preferences of other nations can factor into your decision, absolutely, but you can't let foreign governments decide how YOU vote simply by saying "we prefer X party.".

That really isn't a thing anymore. Especially under a Trudeau LPC. It doesn't matter who your member of parliament is, all that matters is who steers the ship.

 

[Lumber]

That really isn't a thing anymore. Especially under a Trudeau LPC. It doesn't matter who your member of parliament is, all that matters is who steers the ship.

Disagree, and many on here have said the same thing. Lots of people view both the LPC and CPC as shit parties (and the NDP), so they instead vote for whomever they feel will best represent them in parliament.

 

[YZT580]

Disagree, and many on here have said the same thing. Lots of people view both the LPC and CPC as shit parties (and the NDP), so they instead vote for whomever they feel will best represent them in parliament.

Oh really? There are very few MPs who voice any opinion other than the party line and those that do get booted: even if they are the attorney general. The best you can hope for is having your voice abstain or vote present over an issue that your riding opposes.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Disagree, and many on here have said the same thing. Lots of people view both the LPC and CPC as shit parties (and the NDP), so they instead vote for whomever they feel will best represent them in parliament.

I wish I had your optimism.

 

[Quirky]

Lots of people view both the LPC and CPC as shit parties (and the NDP

 

[QV]

Disagree, and many on here have said the same thing. Lots of people view both the LPC and CPC as shit parties (and the NDP), so they instead vote for whomever they feel will best represent them in parliament.

You can say and wish all you like, but you're living in a fantasy land. History has demonstrated that. Voting in that fashion is potentially a wasted vote. It's best to pick the party policies you identify with, hopefully the leader is someone you can stomach, and vote for the party.