Don't worry about increased energy costs, it's just temporary until the green economy kicks in. Even though your going in debt just to survive, don't worry they'll be a once a year rebate!

You consider calling an election to get a majority and getting the same amount of seats a win? I guess technically
You could say every leader but the bloc lost or under performed

Once again the overall popular vote when to the conservatives though Alberta was down huge

I just do not think the Liberals can win with Justin

As for Anti vaxxers the three I know One Conservative, one PPC and one liberal. Two have gotten their shots in the last ten days . The one is just bat shxt crazy the PPC one and not cause she voted that way

Not sure why the election turned out like most expected and another 640 million dollars wasted

The Liberals did just win with him. Minor detail. Be happy - you get to whine about him non stop for a few more years!

I am shocked, let me tell you shocked a liberal candidate would do such a thing.

https://torontosun.com/news/election...pponents-flyer

totally, other than the three back to back elections he just won he probably can’t win. Makes sense.

I consider a win a majority like 2015 not these minority governments. Yes Technically it is a win

I think a liberal majority would be better than a minority as he needs to cave to Jagmit now.

See I am willing to admit the Conservatives will not win a majority with O'Toole .

So you honestly believe the Liberals in 18 months to two years can get a majority government with Justin?


Curious was Kevin Vuong's win counted as a liberal seat ?

No majority but doesn’t mean it will stop him from doing another election

FWIW if you asked the Liberals themselves to define what they would consider a win/success when they strategized and called the election this would not have been it.

I am quite confident if that question ('what would you consider just getting basically the same # of seats') was posed to them as a hypothetical they would have said 'that would be considered a significant failure/loss on our part'.

I guess I would ask 'if the Liberals ended up with less seats but still a minority would that be a failure, in terms of calling this election?'

If you say yes, then you would have to admit then that they were as close to a failure as it gets on what you would call the spectrum from 'Failure -> ... <- Success'

It was obviously not what the Liberals set out for, but a strong minority (i.e. needs any one of the three opposition to support) is still far more than a "technical win". He is the PM with a huge amount of power and almost impossible for the opposition to bring down in the near future except for some huge scandal. Heck O'Toole is putting his political life on the claim that it is Trudeau who might call an election in 18 months, as if that is a bad thing! And I think this is why they did the gamble. Best case scenario you get a majority. Worst case, a healthy minority that lets them govern fairly easily for a couple more years.

Given the static nature of the last two elections, the best prediction is another minority in the next election. But both a majority and a conservative minority seem feasible.


Technically yes, practically no. He can't caucus. He will be declared an independent on the first day of the new session. But yes he is in the red column right now as per election canada rules. Hopefully he will step down and have a byelection.

And Raini's seat was won by the green's, ot the NDP, which is interesting and I think points to some of my observation of people seeing Liberals as a ligitimate climate policy and backstopping green for climate as well when the Liberal candidate fails.

That is absolutely true.

It would also be true if he had a Majority Gov't going in and thought this was an opportunistic time to renew his majority for another 4 years and instead ended up with this Minority.

This statement would still be 100% applicable and true " It was obviously not what the Liberals set out for, but a strong minority (i.e. needs any one of the three opposition to support) is still far more than a "technical win".

But almost everyone would label that a failure.

There are two things here. And yes a Win is a Win. You can always say that they won, 'full stop'. Agreed.

But beyond that technical fact (and I do think it is technical only) to say 'but they have power and ...' is not what is at issue. They had that prior to calling the vote. The gamble ... the bet ... the contest ... was one that the Liberals had control over and bet they could improve their situation. It ws the raison d'être for this election and on that front I struggle to not call it a failure.

Meh. I'm happy to say the result was disappointing for the Liberals. But words still have plain meaning. When someone [INSERT WORD] an election and becomes or retains being the PM, the word is "wins". Trudeau won. Even if he was disappointed.

I think the liberals went into this actually believing they had a win-win situation. Best case scenario, they win a majority. Worst case scenario, they win a strong minority(for a while it looked like they might be wrong about their analysis and that a worst case scenario was a conservative minority, but regardless). And that second category is not nothing! You are extending the mandate likely a couple years. Previously it was not at all unheard of that some bad events like inflation and a worsening pandemic or whatever, and negativity builds and trudeau loses in say spring 2022. But now it is hard to imagine a snap election.

Sure I would agree that based on a desired to spin both sides may take the terms too far.

Maxine isn't wrong here though getting no seats .....

Bottom line is the biggest losers were the taxpayers that had to pay for it

Though is Jagmeet in a position to get more of what he wants

As for the Green Leader 4th in your own riding says she is gone

I doubt O'Toole survives either

Question: Do you think that in a minority government they should always serve the full four year term?

I don't really get this grumbling about costs. My 30,000 foot view is that minority governments are a broadly good thing. They allow a functioning government to continue that has checks on balances and has to cooperate and can get thrown out if they **** up too badly. I specifically like Liberal minority governments as I am to the left of the Liberals and think having to move to the NDP is beneficial to the country. But regardless, if we don't want to pay the cost of an election every ~2 years that means we have to treat minority governments as effectively the same as majority governments where they get 4 full years to do whatever they want.

Do you think the parties should all agree not to call an election for four more years? We'd "save the taxpayers money". So maybe you think they should?

Actually Inflation erases debts .

Reality is that the opposing parties will provide the checks and balances. After this last result I would say yes

If only we had a party that would promise electoral reform? Oh wait we did and they broke that promise as well. Though I am curious how a weighted system would have impacted this election

Lets face it this country is so divided and the popular vote did not go to the winning party.

Sadly I doubt you could trust all the parties to keep that agreement

The point was this - you suggested it was baffling that there was talk about O'Toole's future, and not Trudeau's. That's not baffling - it's the exact opposite. This is what we should have expected.

There is no "technically" here. Trudeau is the Prime Minister for as many as 4 more years. They won. Period.

Now, I assume what you're hinting at, and that Cuepee has argued well, is that it's not what they wanted when they called an election, and I'd agree. Depending on what their expectation was, they might view this as a failure (but of course would never admit as much). But they also might be happy enough that they've extended their mandate 2 more years, especially if they viewed the election call through the "win-win" lens that uke mentions.

Is there anyone who actually thinks than an election in 18 months to two years is the plan? I'm sure even O'Toole doesn't believe that.

Can he win a majority when an election finally does come about? Hard to say. Trudeau's definitely become polarizing, and he doesn't seem to have nearly the same charismatic appeal to most that he used to. But is there anyone there to take his place that will definitely do better?

For better or worse, I can't imagine him being forced out - the only way he's not leading them into the next election is if he decides/is convinced by others that he shouldn't. That is, absent any really major issue coming up before then.

Dude...

Some good points here; I agree that the "$600 million wasted!!!" narrative is quite overblown. For starters, it's only close to completely wasted if there's another election in 2 years or less - then you could argue that there only needed to be one. And I think that's unlikely. As a result of this election, there probably isn't one for another 3-4 years IMO. And even if there is one in two years, as you have alluded to, this is a cost that is built in to a system that allows for minority governments and elections that can be called at any time - sometimes, we'll have short terms between elections.

But on the flip side, there are legitimate reasons for people to be upset. People look at the results, and ask why we spent this money - what has their money done for them, with virtually no change? Yes, it's results-oriented thinking, but this is a result that many expected. ~$50 million extra for an election during a pandemic upsets people, and that's certainly understandable.

I don't know that anything needs to be fixed here. There is a check against calling excessive elections - the political cost. Calling this election now has definitely cost the Liberals politically; that cost will fade over time, but I think it makes it very difficult for them to call another one early. In fact, I think it makes it difficult for *any* party to force an early election this term, and that somewhat mitigates the cost of an "extra" election.

Yeah, this is definitely an area where JT dropped the ball.

I don't know if I agree with this. I mean, the only way a country isn't divided is if one party is winning by a landslide every election. When I think of a country being "so divided", I think of a country like the US, and I see two things:

1) Political discussion & difference - can people get along? Right now, this appears to be a BIG issue in the US. Everything is political, every discussion seems to divide down party lines, and there is little respect for either side. That problem exists here as well, but not to nearly the extent that it does in the US. I don't think it's at an unhealthy level.

2) Division between geographic regions, cultures, classes, etc. I don't think I need to detail how bad this is in the US. Here in Canada, there are definitely geographic divides. The usual urban/rural divide is present here, of course. That, and regionalism, are always going to be an issue, and I don't think that has to be a problem. We shouldn't expect every region to have a balanced result; BC is an anomaly in that regard. I think it can be a problem when an area is completely dominated by one party, like the prairies often are by the Conservatives; I don't know what the solution is, other than that the Liberals and NDP obviously have some work to do there. I *think* we're relatively free from the other divides (culture, class) reaching a level where it's a real problem.

So just to be clear, if the other parties force an election prior to four years up, you believe they are making a mistake and wasting tax payer dollars? Every minority government should be treated equivalent to a majority?

I also agree that the country isn't particularly divided. This election the CPC ran extremely moderate. They want a carbon tax! They want national daycare! They want gun bans! They want big deficits! They want to lower housing costs!

To be able to identify big difference between Lib and CPC is a little hard to do right now. You have to go down to the nitty gritty of policy details like the exact mechanism of the carbon tax before you find differences. The NDP is a little further away, their mechanisms are a bit different, they have the wealth tax for instance, but not that far from the libs either. There is of course the standard division with the bloc, but that isn't anything new.

Even when you listen to how people are processing the election, it isn't that they mostly hate the other party. It is things like "why even have an election"? That isn't something you say when there is a massive divide between the parties and it really, really, matters.

Good points - I hadn't thought to factor in the differences (or lack thereof) between the party's platforms.

If any other party triggered an election in the fourth wave and achieved the same results I would not be happy either. Even without the fourth wave and Afghanistan issue I do not see a different result.

Bottom line I thought Trudeau performed poorly early on and O'Toole performed poorly at the end. Why he could not admit Kenney was doing a bad job was beyond me. Trudeau played that well

Id be happy with another 4 years of a minority but I doubt we see that. Instead I think we see a new conservative leader and a Green Party leader

Let me repeat the question:

"So just to be clear, if the other parties force an election prior to four years up, you believe they are making a mistake and wasting tax payer dollars? Every minority government should be treated equivalent to a majority?"

I'm asking this because you seem to think it is wrong to call an election in the middle of a mandate if there is a minority government. I'm trying to figure out if you think this is ALWAYS wrong, or is it just wrong because of how Trudeau did it?

This is not a good look: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/con...hite-1.6185707

CPC is white as ****, and getting whiter.