Canadians vote for more Trudeau…
…but not for more of his party.
Actually, it was somewhat of a trouncing for Trudeau, although with all the parties involved he managed to be re-elected anyway:
Not only was Trudeau’s Liberal Party forced by voters to accept a demotion to a minority government — grabbing just 157 of 338 seats in the House of Commons — but about two-thirds of the country voted against him. His party’s share of the popular vote clocked in at just 33.1 % — less than the 34.4% earned by the rival the Conservative Party of Canada and its leader Andrew Scheer. (Despite receiving a greater percentage of the vote, the Conservative Party picked up 36 fewer seats than the Liberals.)…
…Liberals lost many seats in western Canada, and in fact were completely wiped out in oil-rich Alberta and agriculture-dependent Saskatchewan, signaling widespread displeasure there over the imposition of a punitive carbon tax, oil pipeline politics and arrogant indifference over their frustrations.
It turns out that governments with less than 50% of the popular vote are nothing new in Canada. But more often they are majority governments as opposed to the just-elected minority government:
Not since the Progressive Conservatives of Brian Mulroney in 1984 has a federal party won an actual majority of the popular vote in Canada. It received 50.03 per cent of the popular vote en route to the largest ever majority in the House of Commons (211 seats out of 282). From 1993 to 2003, Jean Chrétien led the Liberals to three straight majorities, none of them with higher than 42 per cent of the popular vote.
Since the turn of the century, neither of the two latest majority governments (Harper’s Conservatives in 2011 and Trudeau’s Liberals in 2015) even cracked the 40-per-cent mark.
Given the current fragmentation of the electorate and the rise of smaller parties—about a third of Canadians are projected to vote for another party than the Liberals or Conservatives—it is increasingly difficult to imagine any party of whichever colour win more than half the votes in any given general election.
Well, now I know more than I used to know about Canadian politics, which apparently have become more and more convoluted lately.
63% of the votes nationally were for “progressive” parties, according to the progressive AP.
Jagmeet Singh is head of the progressive New Democrat party, which opposes construction of an oil pipeline in western Canada.
If you want “progressive”, with Trudeau’s carbon tax (since Canada is such an enormous component of global warming!), you know where to go. It is such a haven for diversity that it welcomes the monies Chinese princelings spend on abodes in Vancouver.
Ugh.
Ordinal balloting would be appropriate for a country with an electorate like Canada’s. Also, a velvet divorce between Quebec and the rest of Canada would be agreeable, as would greater decentralization, a rectification of provincial frontiers, and a bill of rights worthy of a free people (rather than a bill of rights apposite for a country of social worker’s clients, which is what they have now).
It does appear the people of Canada (actually, make that Ontario and Quebec) believe that they can live with the kind of progressive corruption (and requisite cover-up) that Trudeau so colorfully conjours up. He may certainly be a corrupt poseur, but he’s OUR corrupt poseur—and NOT, thank the powers that be, a Conservative….
And while the spate of blackface incidents may have been embarrassing for him, no reasonable person should hold a politician responsible for what he or she may have done while in one’s boisterous flowering of youth (unless of course that politician happens to be a Conservative, in Canada, or a Republican, in the US).
Besides he apologized from the bottom of his heart. Several times. And besides he’s NOT a Conservative. (Did I mention that?)
On the other hand, politics may be about to be getting just a tad more interesting in the True North Strong and—cough, sputter—Free!
https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2019/10/22/bloc-quebecois-big-winner-of-federal-vote/
Whenever I get to thinking that a parliamentary system might be better than our Constitution, I see the results in Canada and the UK and think that our system is better.
Essentially, what the Democrats are trying to do is establish the precedent of a “no confidence” vote to remove the elected executive for no other reason than that they want to.
Whenever I get to thinking that a parliamentary system might be better than our Constitution, I see the results in Canada and the UK and think that our system is better.
Better for what purpose?
I used to travel frequently to Alberta (Calgary, Edmonton, Ft. McMurray, etc) on business.
Albertans like to say that BC (i.e., British Columbia) really means bring cash.
They also joke around about “Newfies;” that would be folks from Newfoundland and the Canadian Maritimes. They would joke that Newfies were mentally deficient, not too bright, etc.
Albertans are not fond of Quebec. More than one Albertan told me that they wished Quebec would separate from Canada; just get lost. They consider Quebec to be a financial parasite.
Of course, no one in Alberta speaks French, even though French is an “official” language in Canada.
Alberta sends more $$$ to Ontario than they receive from Ontario; and the folks in Alberta do not like this one bit.
Canada has their “family” problems just like we here have in the USA.
Kate:
I think it’s quite different from a parliamentary no confidence vote. In a parliamentary system, the head of the government is ordinarily of the party that holds the most seats in Parliament compared to any other party, or of a coalition formed by his or her own party who holds the most seats compared to the others. So the head of government’s own party must ordinarily be the party making the move. In the US right now, the president’s party has nothing to do with this and is not even in on it at all.
If there is an impeachment vote the GOP will get to vote but as a minority they will lose. The only time they will get a chance to make a difference would be in the trial in the Senate. But so far it is unclear whether the House vote or the Senate trial will ever happen. For the present “impeachment inquiry,” the procedure and the power is very different than what happens in a no confidence vote. At least, that’s the way I understand it.
I see your point about the technical aspects of a no confidence vote, Neo. Thanks.
What the Democrats are doing is establishing a new precedent. If a party in opposition to the president gains a majority in the House, they can try to have the president removed because they don’t like him, not because of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
“…our system is better…”
Rather ironically, the Conservatives won the popular vote!!
(Can one smell the dank, acrid stink of Rossian interference—very much like a repulsive combination of bathtub vodka and three-week old under-refrigerated beluga? NO? Hmmm.)….
No doubt, as we speak, Hillary “WE WUZ WOBBED!!” Clinton is gearing up—Givenchy mukluks, Canada Goose parka, Patagonia mittens, double-thermal Victoria Secret intimates, Arkansas diamond-studied balaclava (and several cases of Glenrothes—no Canadian Club for her, thank you very much)—to head over to the Conservative Party of Canada’s “war room”—situated, appropriately, in a triple-concrete-reinforced bunker dozens of meters under the Monkey House at the Calgary Zoo—to give her fellow American in need (oh, Andrew Scheer just happens to have American citizenship—gosh! who knew?) her finely honed expertise regarding how to subtly insinuate (in line with Canadian sensitivities) that certain Slavic political entities act to pervert and derail elections….
Or maybe not.
Where was I? Oh, yes, in any event, every system has its strengths and weaknesses. (Which is no doubt why in Canada—as in the US—one must allow as many as possible illegal immigrants into the country and give them the right to vote forthwith.)
double-thermal Victoria Secret intimates
So fitting! And surely tax-deductible, later, on discard to thrift shop.
“…no one in Alberta speaks French…”
Generally true but not entirely the case. There are some French Canadians living there, many but not all of them members of the Canadian Armed Forces, whose general policy has been to transfer Francophone soldiers (and, if married, their families) to Army and Air Force bases in Alberta.
Officially, all government agencies and offices must have some French speakers. (This is also—officially—the case for the National Parks.)
In addition, over the past thirty years or so, French immersion elementary schools have caught on and become popular, with some of the students continuing with High School immersion. As well, the larger cities do (or used to) have “French bookstores and Cultural Centres” of sorts.
And then there are the universities, mainly the U. of Alberta (in Edmonton) and U. of Calgary, which attract some Canadian (and other) Francophone students and professors. In the past, as well (though no longer), there was the allure of a booming oil-based economy to attract Canadians seeking jobs; but jobs have dried up over the past decade or so—since the price of oil plummeted. Alberta’s economy has taken a huge hit with the result that many fewer jobs are available and Alberta is not at all the jobs magnet it once was. (It should be nothed that there is a considerable high-tech sector there.)
This downturn may change—as it changed after the first time Alberta’s oil economy went bust in the 1980s due in large part to the policies of Trudeau’s father, Pierre Elliott. So no, the Trudeau brand is still not overly popular in the province.
Corrections:
“…Air Force bases in Alberta.” should be “…Air Force bases in the western provinces, including Alberta.”
In addition, federal government offices and agencies do, by law, need some French speaking personnel to deal with the public; but I’m not sure if this is the case with provincial or municipal government offices…
Yeah, Canadians by law have an “arrete” below the STOP in the octagonal red stop sign used throughout North America. The Francophile Canucks are apparently unable to recognize the meaning of the octagonal red sign unless it is so stated in French.
Canada was basically founded by the loyalists in the US who fled north into British territory after our revolution. That national dose of DNA persists.
Canada was basically founded by the loyalists in the US who fled north into British territory after our revolution.
New Brunswick was founded by Loyalist refugees, not the other components of Canada.
I think Justin Trudeau’s presence and persistence is indicative of the degree to which Canada is not a serious country (as does Obama in re the United States, for much the same reasons). IIRC, Paul Martin and Brian Mulroney are just about the only Canadian prime ministers of the last half century who spent a considerable run of their life doing something other than hold patronage positions and sit in elected office. Neither proved to have much of a constituency with the Canadian public. #nationoftools.
Art Deco:
New Brunswick was, uhh, British!
As to Alberta and Saskatchewan, so much further West, they got settled many years later, just like our Nebraska and Utah!
Eastern Canada set the Canadian British-based future, much as New England and the East Coast with its victorious rebels set our future!
For many years we liked to go to Whistler, B.C. and hang out for hiking, fishing and the natural beauty of the place. Gradually, the progs took over. After the Winter Olympics were held there in 2010, it was overrun with government bureaucrats with regulations. The last time we were there, about five years ago, there were signs everywhere forbidding everything. Don’t pick the flowers, don’t move the rocks, don’t litter, leave the bears alone, don’t pee in the lakes, on and on. No one was doing any of that stuff before, but they just had to have signs telling people what not to do. We haven’t been back. BC used to be a great place to visit. Thankfully, we saw it and enjoyed it before government bureaucracy took over. Canada is not on the right track!
The last time we were there, about five years ago, there were signs everywhere forbidding everything.
J.J.: Sorta on-topic…I recently learned that the whole take-your-shoes-off ethic, which I see often in blue households, originated in Sweden — as a response to the state:
“In the 1930s, one of the first things the [Swedish] welfare state organized was housing,” Asbrink told The Post. “These were tax-paid flats, and the state wanted to control the inhabitants. So they had inspectors and actually sent them into people’s homes.”
The government issued extensive, exacting rules of conduct, cleanliness and behavior for its agents to enforce.
“The residents had to open the windows at certain times of the day. Everyone had to take a bath once a week,” Asbrink said. “And they were required to take their shoes off indoors.”
Anyone who refused to comply could be evicted.
That quirky facet of everyday Swedish life “did not rise naturally from the people at all,” Asbrink said. “It came from the state wanting to train them.”
https://nypost.com/2019/09/28/the-lefts-belief-in-a-swedish-utopia-is-based-on-dark-secrets-and-lies/
Both Canada and the US use first-past-the-post (simple plurality) systems to elect representatives. An important difference is that Canada has many more competitive political parties. Part of this is regional but some of it is a lack of convergence to a two parties as has happened in the US. In this election, five parties won seats: Liberals (Trudeau) 157, Conservatives 121, NDP (far left) 24, Bloc Québécois 32, and Greens 3.
Second, with a parliamentary system and with only one effective body (the Canadian Senate is appointed, not elected, and only can stop legislation, not initiate it), the executive is the leadership of the party (or coalition of parties). When Trudeau has a majority, the other parties could not stop legislation, since party cohesion on votes is much stronger, nor could they subpoena or otherwise investigate the majority party. Only budget votes or votes designated by the majority are “confidence votes” where a failure results in an election.
A similarity to confidence votes in the US are the omnibus continuing resolutions. The point of each is to enforce a logroll vote trade within the majority. I tend to think of the Canadian system as an elected dictatorship, since confidence votes concentrate so much power in the prime minister’s office.
The other major difference is that only the US has a written Bill of Rights which limits what the government can do. Canada leaves some areas to the Provinces, such as ownership of natural resources, but there is no 1A, 2A , etc.
“When Trudeau HAD a majority…”
As an addendum, now that his party doesn’t have a majority, there is a chance that the other parties could issue subpoenas and do investigations on things like the SNC-Laval scandal. With a majority, Trudeau just blocked those attempts.
Also, Trudeau in his first term had promised to consider moving to a proportional representation system. Given that under most PR systems, the Conservatives would get more seats given their 34.4% vs the Liberals 33.1%. That is likely dead now.
Huxley: “I recently learned that the whole take-your-shoes-off ethic, which I see often in blue households, originated in Sweden — as a response to the state:”
Aha! Lots of Swedes here in the People’s Republic of Puget Sound. Shoes off indoors is a very common custom here. We don’t require it in our house. We’re Scots and we like dirt. 🙂
I used to drive up from Portland OR to Vancouver BC and stay there for a week or so in a cheap motel on Kingsway back in the late 1980s to the late 1990s. It just had a very different atmosphere from Portland; the architecture employed in just ordinary housing was of what seemed a faintly exotic style. Vancouver felt just enough like a foreign country, yet everyone spoke English. There was much more East Indian food available than down in Portland, and this is my favorite cuisine.
It was a nice break from my usual routine. There was a lot to explore. I would take my notebooks and so forth with me and work on whatever I was working on at the time.
Then I would drive like a demon back down I-5.
“…not the other components of Canada…”
Well, except for significant settlement of southern Ontario (north shore of Lake Ontario), SE Ontario, the Ottawa River valley, parts of N.S.
(To be sure, these “components” may not count that much in the grander scheme of the universe….)
Correction: “SE Ontario” should be “SW Ontario”.
Trudeau should have lost because he is a pathetic wuss. I couldn’t care less if he wore blackface to a costume party. Someday we will be free!
A more trenchant analysis:
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/election-43-leaves-nation-fractured-with-a-liberal-minority/
Short version: “There’s a very good reason why Obama finds Trudeau a comrade in arms.”
Art Deco
New Brunswick was founded by Loyalist refugees, not the other components of Canada.
Founded or not, New Brunswick was not the only area in Canada to which substantial number of Loyalists fled.Pioneer Life among the Loyalists in Upper Canada.
Kenneth Roberts’s Oliver Wiswell is a good historical fiction treatment of the Loyalists. In the book, Oliver Wiswell settled in New Brunswick.
I remember the Newfie jokes from Canadians in the oil field.
As further evidence of substantial number of Loyalists emigrating to Canada not part of the Maritimes (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island), consider the fact that the emigration of Loyalists into Canada was responsible for Quebec being split into Upper and Lower Canada.Quebec.
That being said, what numbers I have seen indicate that most Loyalists went to the Maritimes.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/98-187-x/4151286-eng.htm
This puts the population of the various provinces remaining a part of the British Empire at 200,000 ca. 1790. It also estimates the number of Loyalist migrants at 40,000. IIRC, the first permanent settlement in Nova Scotia was in 1604; that at Montreal, 1608; that in Newfoundland, ca. 1713.