Election News
Trudeau Liberals Electoral Chances are as Good as Dead
Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party’s popularity has plummeted to record lows in recent polls. Scandals and his carbon tax weakened Trudeau’s support after years of support. Many election Analysts belive Justin Trudeau and his Liberals will not survive the next election.
The newest Angus Reid survey shows the Conservatives leading nationwide, with Trudeau and his Liberals losing support in most provinces, especially Ontario and Quebec. Analysts say Trudeau’s leadership fatigue, unhappiness over inflation, ridiculous carbon tax, and continual policy flip-flopping are driving voters away.
Trudeau’s carbon tax is unpopular across Canada. Many Canadians hate its higher prices for homes and businesses.
Critics say it unfairly targets energy, threatening jobs and prosperity. Skeptics believe the tax fails to solve global climate challenges despite claims it will reduce emissions.
Provincial governments like Alberta passionately oppose federal intrusion. The carbon tax still divides society.
Steven Guilbeault, Trudeau’s Environment and Climate Change Minister, has lost support from neutral public and provincial governments and the powerful climate action lobby.
Don Braid of the Calgary Herald says Chickens with their heads cut off run around in circles. In politics, the federal Liberals are starting to exhibit this postmortem behaviour.
Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault, the core cabinet fowl who said no new roads should be built in Canada, continues to press his climate extremism.
“The result is political fiasco.”
Alberta and Saskatchewan have always been bitterly opposed to many measures. But Guilbeault is now losing support from the public, provincial governments that once were at least neutral and, crucially, the powerful climate action lobby.
The disasters are self-inflicted. Trudeau and Guilbeault stuck to the carbon tax even after the policy’s disastrous deflation by the “carve out” for home heating oil, a benefit mainly to Atlantic Canada.
Their faux-tough response — nobody else gets that, dammit! — actually cost farmers a break that had been planned, but suddenly looked like another exemption.
The carbon tax, revealed as a purely political tool, is ripe for axing by a potential new leader like Mark Carney. Even New Democrats have argued that the tax should exit, stage left.
Now, Guilbeault has introduced amendments to the Impact Assessment Act, allegedly bringing it into line with the Supreme Court ruling that found the law seriously intrudes on powers rightly belonging to the provinces.
Trudeau’s power grabs shot down
Guilbeault has never acknowledged this was a defeat. He treats the ruling as a simple policy problem rather than a 5-2 thumping by judges not usually known for hostility to federal power grabs.
Alberta was predictably furious about the amendments. Premier Danielle Smith always said Guilbeault would make a gesture and proceed as usual, forcing yet another court challenge.
“When you look at the unconstitutionality of the first draft, you can’t just make tweaks and bring this in line with the Constitution,” says Rebecca Schulz, Alberta’s minister for environment and protected areas.
“That’s really the issue here. Minister Guilbeault still has the ability to involve himself in projects that are within provincial jurisdiction.
“In the end, this piece of legislation remains unconstitutional. We are going to be taking this back to court and I’m confident in our position, because their changes don’t actually address the issues that we’ve raised.”
Trudeau’s middle ground game not working
The Impact Assessment Agency, the powerful regulatory body that oversees all this, said in a statement: “No decisions to designate projects will be taken. Consideration of any new designation requests will only resume, as appropriate, once amended legislation is in force.”
Most striking is the fury from the climate action lobby toward Guilbeault’s amendments.
“Overall, the bill is a complete federal abdication to address proposed high-carbon projects such as in situ oil mines,” Steven Hazell, a retired environment lawyer and federal regulator told the National Observer, Canada’s best chronicler of climate stories and policy.
Green party Leader Elizabeth May said the government was “erring on the side of stupidity.” May sees the court decision as an opportunity to go further with legislation, not retreat to meet demands of provincial jurisdiction.
Election News
Trudeau Determined to Avoid Early Election After NDP Coalition Ended
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau emphasised he does not want an early election and said he will want to work with his former partner just hours after the New Democratic Party (NDP) withdrew from an agreement it had with the current Liberal Party Government.
“I look forward to conversations with Mr. (Jagmeet) Singh about how we’re going to continue to demonstrate that confident countries invest in their citizens, invest in their future, because that’s what we’re doing,” Trudeau said, addressing the media in the town of Rocky Harbour, in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That declaration came shortly after Jagmeet Singh, who has been in power since March 2022, declared his party was leaving the Supply and Confidence Agreement.
As in previous years, Trudeau continued, “I’ll let others focus on politics, but I will point out that I really hope the NDP stays focused on how we can deliver for Canadians, rather than focusing on politics.”
With Trudeau’s party in the minority in the Commons, the opposition Conservative Party is preparing to call for an early election through the possibility of a no-confidence resolution when the House reconvenes on September 18.
The timing of the motion is still unknown, according to reports from Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the Conservative Party, who stated, “At this time, we don’t have a calendar to indicate when we can put forward a motion.”
“After Sellout Singh did this stunt today, he is going to have to vote on whether he keeps Justin Trudeau’s costly Government in power,” he stated, putting further pressure on the NDP.
“I certainly hope that the NDP will stay true to its fundamental values, which is making sure that Canadians get the support they need and keeping away from the austerity, the cuts, and the damage that will be done by Conservatives if they get the chance,” stated Trudeau, expressing optimism that early elections can be avoided.
October 2025 will see Canadian federal elections, but Trudeau’s Liberals only have 154 members of the 338-member House. It had made it through until Wednesday morning thanks to the backing of the 25-member NDP caucus.
Posting a video message on Wednesday, Singh claimed to have “ripped up” the accord and stated that “Canadians are fighting a battle.” A struggle for the middle class’s future. Justin Trudeau has often demonstrated his willingness to give up to corporate greed. People feel let down by the Liberals. From Canadians, they don’t deserve another opportunity.
The news coincided with the Trudeau Government’s severe unpopularity, which has negatively impacted the NDP. The non-profit public polling organisation Angus Reid Institute, or ARI, released a survey indicating that the Conservatives have 43% of the vote, a significant 22% lead over the ruling party.
Related News:
Justin Trudeau Hellbent on Destroying Canada
Election News
Kamala Harris Challenges Donald Trump to Transparent Debate with Live Microphones
Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for the US presidential election in November, called on her Republican opponent Donald Trump to debate her with their microphones turned on during the event.
Kamala Harris and the former president have agreed to debate on September 10th, which will be hosted by ABC News.
“Donald Trump is giving in to his aides, who refuse to allow him to debate with a live microphone. “If his own team doesn’t believe in him, the American people certainly won’t,” Kamala Harris wrote on X.
“We’re running for President of the United States. Let’s have a transparent debate, with microphones on the whole time.”
Trump has stated that he prefers to keep his microphone on and did not like it muted at the last debate against then-candidate Joe Biden.
So-called “hot mics” can help or hinder political campaigns by recording off-hand comments that were not intended for the public. Muted microphones also restrict debaters from interrupting their opponents.
A spokeswoman from ABC did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
The discussion would be the first between Harris and Trump since Biden stepped out of the presidential race following a dismal performance at a CNN debate in June that prompted concerns about his mental acuity.
Tim Walz, the Democratic vice presidential candidate, and JD Vance, the Republican vice presidential candidate, have agreed to a CBS News debate on October 1.
ORIGINAL STORY: Why Kamala Harris Campaign is fighting for Unmuted Debate Mics
Some experts believe the Trump campaign’s eagerness to maintain the muting rule for the Kamala Harris debate on September 10 is because to the great reception he received in June for a more controlled performance than many had anticipated versus Mr Biden. In practice, it rendered interruptions impossible.
The former president, on the other hand, appears unconcerned with the regulation, and has even contradicted his own team’s statements advocating for its continuation. “[It] does not matter to me. I’d prefer to have [the microphones] turned on,” he stated on Monday.
“But we agreed that it would be the same as the last time. “In that case, it was muted,” he explained.
Trump announced on social media Tuesday afternoon that he had “reached an agreement” with ABC for the September 10 debate. He did not mention mics in the post, but did say that the “rules will be the same as the last CNN debate,” which included muted mics.
In the article, he also accused the network of being “unfair,” but added that his team had been guaranteed that the debate would be “fair and equitable.”
With only two weeks until the debate, the Kamala Harris team wants to change the agreed-upon regulations so that both candidates’ microphones are unmuted during the event. What do they believe they will benefit from this change?
More broadly, they feel it has the potential to show viewers an unfiltered, even irritable, Trump, who will be audible throughout Kamala Harris’s speech.
“Our understanding is that Trump’s handlers prefer the muted microphone because they don’t think their candidate can act presidential for 90 minutes on his own,” said Kamala Harris’s spokeswoman.
Election News
Why Kamala Harris Campaign is fighting for Unmuted Debate Mics
Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are scheduled to face battle in their first presidential debate next month, but the campaigns are still fighting about logistics, specifically microphones.
Trump’s campaign is advocating for microphones to be muted when it is the other person’s turn to speak. Joe Biden originally requested this regulation as the Democratic candidate.
Trump’s team eventually consented to the request, which was clearly an attempt by Biden’s campaign to limit disruptions. (The pair’s turbulent first 2020 debate was marked by numerous interruptions, with Mr. Biden finally shouting at his rival: “Will you shut up, man?”)
Kamala Harris Campaign Advocates for Unmuted Mics: Potential Advantages
Some experts believe the Trump campaign’s eagerness to maintain the muting rule for the Kamala Harris debate on September 10 is because to the great reception he received in June for a more controlled performance than many had anticipated versus Mr Biden. In practice, it rendered interruptions impossible.
The former president, on the other hand, appears unconcerned with the regulation, and has even contradicted his own team’s statements advocating for its continuation. “[It] does not matter to me. I’d prefer to have [the microphones] turned on,” he stated on Monday.
“But we agreed that it would be the same as the last time. “In that case, it was muted,” he explained.
Trump announced on social media Tuesday afternoon that he had “reached an agreement” with ABC for the September 10 debate. He did not mention mics in the post, but did say that the “rules will be the same as the last CNN debate,” which included muted mics.
In the article, he also accused the network of being “unfair,” but added that his team had been guaranteed that the debate would be “fair and equitable.”
With only two weeks until the debate, the Harris team wants to change the agreed-upon regulations so that both candidates’ microphones are unmuted during the event. What do they believe they will benefit from this change?
More broadly, they feel it has the potential to show viewers an unfiltered, even irritable, Trump, who will be audible throughout Kamala Harris’s speech.
“Our understanding is that Trump’s handlers prefer the muted microphone because they don’t think their candidate can act presidential for 90 minutes on his own,” said Kamala Harris’s spokeswoman.
Source: BBC
-
Business4 weeks ago
Are You A Cash App User? You May Be Eligible For A Piece Of This $15 Million Settlement
-
Celebrity4 weeks ago
Liza Minnelli Is ‘Mad As Hell’ And Writing New Memoir
-
Business4 weeks ago
Susan Wojcicki, Former YouTube CEO And Longtime Google Executive, Has Died At 56
-
News4 weeks ago
Travis Scott Is Arrested At A Paris Hotel After Altercation With A Security Guard, Prosecutors Say
-
Sports4 weeks ago
Lydia Ko Finally Gets Her Olympic Gold. It Puts Her Into The LPGA Hall Of Fame
-
Entertainment4 weeks ago
Samsung Is Recalling 1 Million Stoves To Prevent Pets From Setting Your Home On Fire