Quebec votes for first conservative majority in 50 years

[Devout Pessimist]

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Hate won....

Misogyny won...

Racism won...

For reals though, aren’t Canadian “conservatives” pretty close to USA liberals...

Depends on the province.

 

[lifelessheap]

The only tribalistic white group left in Canada is trying to preserve itself? Who would have thought?

Don't worry, they will be accepting genocide soon enough.

 

[cabal]

Quebec, Canada's only primarily French speaking province and second most populous, has voted for a Conservative government tonight for the first time in 50 years. The CAQs priorities are:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-election-result-1.4846201

- smaller government
- more privatized healthcare
- extend child benefit (2,400 per year per child, right now you only get it for the first)
- decrease immigration
- secular charter: certain government employees (e.g. police, teachers) can't wear any sort of religious symbols, e.g. a teacher couldn't wear a Hijab while teaching
.

They are giving another chop at the christian roots .

 

[luckyshot]

We elect a government to handle the things we cannot as individuals. Things that are too far out of the scope of an individual or small group of individuals to effectively manage. Things like military, roads, street lights, patents, etc. and to regulate the effects of negative externalities like pollution, traffic, etc.

Providing healthcare to a family should be the responsibility of the individuals who have kids, along with other more important essentials such as providing shelter, food, clothes, etc. Unless you also want to make those free. At which point, we are basically at communism.

You have a coherent argument. I don't agree with it.

My point is that your view is very rare outside of America; even most "conservatives" from countries like the UK, Canada, or Australia would recognize the value of some form of UH (from what I have heard anyways).

Man, Ulysses Grant would be a Democrat today. I wish Republicans would take this advice in America. Especially the "supported entirely by private contributions" bit. They all about that voucher money.

 

[SammyPops]

Signs that USMCA's dairy BS may hurt Justin's Quebec base? That plus Ontario's vote for Ford ... maybe we'll get a grown up as our PM next time around.

 

[ryan3434]

Canadian Conservatives would be voting Democrat if they lived in the US..

I'd say no. The Conservative party may be along the same lines of democrats in US but given the chance I think Conservatives in Canada would go further right

 

[SRN]

Félicitations mes amis!!!

 

[Andy Capp]

Signs that USMCA's dairy BS may hurt Justin's Quebec base? That plus Ontario's vote for Ford ... maybe we'll get a grown up as our PM next time around.

Aside from his personality, to what do you object, exactly?

 

[Andy Capp]

Let these guys have a go at it, see how it goes.

Yeah, certainly that attitude resulted in something special in the US, so why not, hm?

 

[SammyPops]

Aside from his personality, to what do you object, exactly?

1. Broke his electoral reform promise- the sole reason I voted for him.
2. Got rid of income splitting
3. Got rid of every single tax deduction for hard working upper class people. We pay after school program, an education enrichment twice a week, kickboxing, swimming (summer, skating (winter), over night summer camp etc and don't get a punny.
4. Gave poor people WAY too much tax creidts. A signle working mom can get $7K tax free per kid a year.
5. The combination of 4+5 creates a value for poor people kids over upper class peoples kids. Destroying the universality of program is bad. It encourages classims.
6. He made BDS illegal- after stating he woudl not. My church is breaking the law now!
7. He has added to the debt morre than any other PM outside of a wartime economy
8. He has sexually abused a women
9. He was found guilty of ethical violations
10. His finance minister was found guilty of ethical violations
11. And just for kicks, I'll add dude's biggest accomplishment was teaching high school drama. He is a
trust fund baby, whose watch prolly costs more than that single mom makes in a year.

Just off the top of my head during my mornring coffee.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Canadian Conservatives would be voting Democrat if they lived in the US. The Democratic party of California is about the closet you would get to Canada's liberal Party and the Canadian Consevative Party are is like slightly to the left of Republican Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts or Republican Mike Bloomberg when he was Mayor of NYC.

Yup.

I always point that from Left leaning politics to right amongst major CDN and US parties it would be:

NDP.......... Liberals/Conservatives..... Democrates.................. Republicans

There is actually very little difference between Canada's national Liberal and Conservative parties. One is Centre Left and the other Centre Right and depending on the Leader at the time they can cross over each other.

 

[Andy Capp]

1. Broke his electoral reform promise- the sole reason I voted for him.
2. Got rid of income splitting -- No, he didn't,
There are still a bunch of perfectly legal income-splitting strategies you may want to consider for this tax year
3. Got rid of every single tax deduction for hard working upper class people. We pay after school program, an education enrichment twice a week, kickboxing, swimming (summer, skating (winter), over night summer camp etc and don't get a punny. - So you're complaining you make too much money to get a handout? And that's an issue?
4. Gave poor people WAY too much tax creidts. A signle working mom can get $7K tax free per kid a year. - Consider how much that adds up to in the overall scheme of things and then see if you still want to complain about some poor people getting to eat.
5. The combination of 4+5 creates a value for poor people kids over upper class peoples kids. Destroying the universality of program is bad. It encourages classims.
6. He made BDS illegal- after stating he woudl not. My church is breaking the law now!
7. He has added to the debt morre than any other PM outside of a wartime economy
8. He has sexually abused a women
9. He was found guilty of ethical violations
10. His finance minister was found guilty of ethical violations
11. And just for kicks, I'll add dude's biggest accomplishment was teaching high school drama. He is a
trust fund baby, whose watch prolly costs more than that single mom makes in a year.

Just off the top of my head during my mornring coffee.

5 is subjective, re: 6 don't know what BDS is so I'll just give you that.
8 is not a fact. Neither is 9.
10, ok so one one made a minister by any previous administration didn't? How about that scumbag Peter McKay who has been doing the media rounds lately? Point is Trudeau wouldn't have had a way to know this guy was going to do this.
11 is ad hominem.

So, I guess I see where you're coming from, but I can't say I agree. The first one, yes, I grant. The next 3 are just whining about making lots of money. I can't get behind that. People ought not to need special loopholes to avoid paying their share of taxes. That idea that a doctor can just make himself a corporation and then split his income with his wife who doesn't work at all and get a massive tax break for no other reason is total bullshit. I don't see how anyone except the rich who get to take advantage of it can defend that. It's also indefensible to me for a rich person to complain about poor people getting tax breaks. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on Trudeau. I know he's made mistakes but I am certain that the other national party leaders would be doing a far far worse job. So, be careful what you ask for, since as in the States, you might get it.

 

[Rygu]

Hopefully the rest of Canada follows suit.

The Liberals under Trudeau have been the most embarrassing Canadian government of my lifetime.

 

[SammyPops]

5 is subjective, don't know what BDS is so I'll just give you that.
8 is not a fact. Neither is 9.
10, ok so one one made a minister by any previous administration didn't? How about that scumbag Peter McKay who has been doing the media rounds lately?
11 is ad hominem.

So, I guess I see where you're coming from, but I can't say I agree. The first one, yes, I grant. The next 3 are just whining about making lots of money. I can't get behind that. People ought not to look for ways to avoid paying their share of taxes. That idea that a doctor can just make himself a corporation and then split his income with his wife who doesn't work at all and get a massive tax break for no other reason is total bullshit. I don't see how anyone except the rich who get to take advantage of it defending that. It's also indefensible to me for a rich person to complain about poor people getting tax breaks. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree on Trudeau. I am certain that the other national party leaders would be doing a far far worse job. So, be careful what you ask for, since as in the States, you might get it.

8. He himslef said you need to beleive womne, I guess just not when they accuse him?
9. Is fact. Check out ethics commissioners report re: Khan and the island. You may not like her ruling, but it is her ruling in her official position.
10. So its fine since another govt has had it happen? lol. Trudy should have sacked him.

Doc's incorporating is a different issue. I get you think its rich people complaining but for me its real. Trudy's govt's actions clearly indicate that poor kids matter and rich kids do not. His govt values poor kids enough to pay for their sports and education extras but not rich kids.

You don't think Trudy's trust fund spoiler brat image is accurate and growing in the public?

 

[sangreporsangre]

The Liberals have lost BC, New Brunswick, Ontario and now Quebec in the last couple years. I wonder if Justin and his hijinks have really hurt the Liberal brand...
2019 might not go very well for them. They're lucky that Mad Max will siphon votes away from the Conservatives.

 

[Andy Capp]

8. He himslef said you need to beleive womne, I guess just not when they accuse him?
9. Is fact. Check out ethics commissioners report re: Khan and the island. You may not like her ruling, but it is her ruling in her official position.
10. So its fine since another govt has had it happen? lol. Trudy should have sacked him.

Doc's incorporating is a different issue. I get you think its rich people complaining but for me its real. Trudy's govt's actions clearly indicate that poor kids matter and rich kids do not. His govt values poor kids enough to pay for their sports and education extras but not rich kids.

You don't think Trudy's trust fund spoiler brat image is accurate and growing in the public?

Don't you think the reasons you gave about your complaints of ending that particular version of income splitting and the last sentence are contradictory?
And yes, I didn't know that guy was still a minister, so I agree it's a mistake not to get rid of him, but that's hardly make or break in a PM IMO, which is why I pointed out the Peter McKay example.

If a financial helping hand is being given to poor kids to help them be equal to rich kids (in opportunity) why do you also want to give that to rich kids?
I think it also needs to be pointed out that yeah, if you are just over the hump in terms of tax bracket, that's gotta suck really hard. But it doesn't matter which bracket it is or how you come to be there. That's not a Trudeau hating on rich people's kids thing. That's a you happen to be right at the level where that matters hugely thing, right? If you're making $500K or more a year you couldn't possibly be complaining about something like that could you?

And again, I just can't care if you make $200K a year. Especially because of the way taxes are calculated in Canada. It's not like you pay the top tax rate on all your income; it's only the top most bit.

To wit:

• 15% on the first $46,605 of taxable income, +
• 20.5% on the next $46,603 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over 46,605 up to $93,208), +
• 26% on the next $51,281 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $93,208 up to $144,489), +
• 29% on the next $61,353 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over 144,489 up to $205,842), +
• 33% of taxable income over $205,842.

Source

So, all the way up to the first $144K a year you pay, at most, 26% in federal tax, and we're only talking about what Trudeau is responsible for here, right? The difference in the rates, if you were charged at the next lower rate for the income from 205K to 266K is easily calculated. It comes to about $2500. But let's say your spouse has no income of their own, effectively, so you get to split it in half. I'm not doing the math but you can and you'll see it's not that big a difference compared to such a large income that I can find any reason to care. Sorry.

 

[Andy Capp]

The Liberals have lost BC, New Brunswick, Ontario and now Quebec in the last couple years. I wonder if Justin and his hijinks have really hurt the Liberal brand...
2019 might not go very well for them. They're lucky that Mad Max will siphon votes away from the Conservatives.

I agree there has been a lot of successful campaigning to make the Liberals look bad. I'm just not sure how much of it represents reality. Provincial governments are funky, but I think the trend represents an unwelcome shift in some people's perceptions, so I agree the next election is going to be a rough row to hoe.

 

[SammyPops]

Don't you think the reasons you gave about your complaints of ending that particular version of income splitting and the last sentence are contradictory?
And yes, I didn't know that guy was still a minister, so I agree it's a mistake not to get rid of him, but that's hardly make or break in a PM IMO, which is why I pointed out the Peter McKay example.

If a financial helping hand is being given to poor kids to help them be equal to rich kids (in opportunity) why do you also want to give that to rich kids?
I think it also needs to be pointed out that yeah, if you are just over the hump in terms of tax bracket, that's gotta suck really hard. But it doesn't matter which bracket it is or how you come to be there. That's not a Trudeau hating on rich people's kids thing. That's a you happen to be right at the level where that matters hugely thing, right? If you're making $500K or more a year you couldn't possibly be complaining about something like that could you?

And again, I just can't care if you make $200K a year. Especially because of the way taxes are calculated in Canada. It's not like you pay the top tax rate on all your income; it's only the top most bit.

To wit:

• 15% on the first $46,605 of taxable income, +
• 20.5% on the next $46,603 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over 46,605 up to $93,208), +
• 26% on the next $51,281 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $93,208 up to $144,489), +
• 29% on the next $61,353 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over 144,489 up to $205,842), +
• 33% of taxable income over $205,842.

Source

So, all the way up to the first $144K a year you pay, at most, 26% in federal tax, and we're only talking about what Trudeau is responsible for here, right? The difference in the rates, if you were charged at the next lower rate for the income from 205K to 266K is easily calculated. It comes to about $2500. But let's say your spouse has no income of their own, effectively, so you get to split it in half. I'm not doing the math but you can and you'll see it's not that big a difference compared to such a large income that I can find any reason to care. Sorry.

Yeah, I get the contradiction to a point, but there is a big difference b/t working your ass off trying to live in Toronto and Justin's trust fund. Earning $300K as a household in Toronto is damn near poor compared to Justin.

I realize Justin is not responsible for non-fed taxes, but its misleading to not add all taxes in when lookign at what people actually take home: provincial, property, CPP, EI and so on.

Its really not 100% (see below as its a bit about it) about the value of the hand outs. I believe in universality or bust.

Whats next- if you make over $200K you don't get universal health care? I can absolutely see the class warfare: "you make $200K a year, you can afford to get a bill from the Ontario govt to cover your ER visit".

The value of the handouts is getting crazy: $7k year per kid, free university/college, subsidized rent and so on. Small town Ontario is covered with single moms who can make more money not working.

 

[trac209]

1. Broke his electoral reform promise- the sole reason I voted for him.
2. Got rid of income splitting
3. Got rid of every single tax deduction for hard working upper class people. We pay after school program, an education enrichment twice a week, kickboxing, swimming (summer, skating (winter), over night summer camp etc and don't get a punny.
4. Gave poor people WAY too much tax creidts. A signle working mom can get $7K tax free per kid a year.
5. The combination of 4+5 creates a value for poor people kids over upper class peoples kids. Destroying the universality of program is bad. It encourages classims.
6. He made BDS illegal- after stating he woudl not. My church is breaking the law now!
7. He has added to the debt morre than any other PM outside of a wartime economy
8. He has sexually abused a women
9. He was found guilty of ethical violations
10. His finance minister was found guilty of ethical violations
11. And just for kicks, I'll add dude's biggest accomplishment was teaching high school drama. He is a
trust fund baby, whose watch prolly costs more than that single mom makes in a year.

Just off the top of my head during my mornring coffee.

Stopped reading after you admitted voting for a former drama teacher to be our prime minister. You’re part of the problem with Canadian voters....