site banner
ulyssessword  23d ago (text post)   1756 thread views

Canada Federal Election 2025

Today is the day!

Poll aggregator: https://338canada.com/

Live results: https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/federal/2025/results/

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

so I see that the liberals got the most seats, but not enough to make a majority, with conservatives in a close second. Does that mean they automatically win? Or do they both have to negotiate with the BQ and NDP to see which party actually forms the government?

Liberals win, but they've formed a minority government instead of a majority. This means the liberals have to be strategic when drafting bills, as they need other parties support to get them across the finish line.

The thing with minority governments is that they tend to be shorter than majority governments, as the official opposition party has an easier time calling a confidence vote, which happens if a majority of the members of parliament no longer support the ruling party. So basically, if the liberals piss off the NDP and the Bloc, the Conservatives can call a confidence vote and force another election.

It also depends who the NDP's new leader is, and how much longer they need to be MP to get their government pension.

It's also often shorter because the minority government will be looking at polls and is likely to call/force an election when they believe they have a chance to get a majority.

So question to people who know Canadian politics better: how much Trump's "51 state" shenanigans mattered? In my opinion - which, me not being a Canadian, together with $5 gives you a cup of coffee - Trudeau was a disaster. It looks like Canadians, however, want more of the same. Is it because they really like what Canada is becoming under Trudeau? Would like to hear opinions from people with good background in Canadian politics, especially Canadians themselves.

Trump's comments were incredibly influential in the election.

The boomer left has a very strange relationship with the US. They love Obama, vacation in the US all the time, and frequently fantasize about living in NYC. However they rage against the US and Americanization.

The "51st State" comments triggered a key part of their political identity.

The results aren't so much that Conservative support collapsed. It did go down a little, but the NDP basically committed suicide this election. Hyperbole, they can come back later obviously. But this is their worst result ever, and they've been running since 1963. 7 seats is 2% of the house. They got 9 seats in 1993, but that was 3% since there were fewer seats. They lost 70% of their seats in the House.

The Bloc Québécois also lost 10 seats, or 30% of their seats.

The Green Party went from 2 to 1.

Basically the Canadian left decided to rally behind Carney.

I think the motivation isn't so much that they thought anything would happen. It's more that they see Canada as a showpiece of centre left governance, and losing to the Conservatives after Trump's comments would be globally embarrassing.

There's a lot of dislike for how Trudeau II ran things but the Liberal Party brand is incredibly strong in Canada. Back in the run up to the first Quebec separation referendum in 1980, Trudeau I, in the name of national unity, talked the Conservatives (then the Progressive Conservatives) into backing a new national identity that was closely related to Liberal policies. So "Liberals Good" is basically taught to all school children east of Winnipeg.

Switching to Carney allowed them to create some space from the unpopular policies. Most of which are probably going to continue.

Is it because they really like what Canada is becoming under Trudeau?

This is actually a very interesting topic. It's surprisingly easy and common for Canadians to not follow what's happening in Canada too closely.

Canada has two cable news networks, run by CBC and CTV.

What's the most popular cable news network? CNN.

Plus the Liberals ramped up subsidies to news media in 2018, so reporters have a strong financial incentive to stop the Conservatives from getting in.

As a result people tend to be less aware of problems than you'd expect. Things sort of have to penetrate their social networks to become aware of them.

Also the age breakdown is interesting.

https://x.com/JackPosobiec/status/1918071839365980483/photo/1

The Liberal victory came from voters aged 55+. People who are much less concerned about things like housing affordability. Also they probably figure that staying the course until they die will be less painful for them personally than making dramatic changes.

It's hard to disentangle because they happened right on top of each-other, but I think the Conservative collapse (after their, let's not forget, unprecedented historic high) was about equal parts: 1) that voting Conservative was no longer the only way to get rid of Trudeau; 2) Trump scaring the hoes.

For the Trump stuff, keep in mind that Trump is the defining central figure of conservativism to the would-be Canadian Conservative swing voter, not much less than he is to Americans. And then he:

  1. Really quite painfully betrayed and attacked Canada, in an unignorable and materially destructive way (this was less the "51st state" talk than it appears now: remember Canada was hit with the tariffs alone before everyone else)
  2. Did a bunch of wild and unpredictable shit that went way beyond what people centrally wanted out of him

These things were discrediting of conservativism to the marginal swing voter, so the Conservatives' burgeoning "it's okay to vote conservative, it's okay, nothing bad will happen, I promise, come in the water's fine" moment was cruelly cut out from under them.

Of course there could (as in, counterfactually) have also been other factors beyond Trudeau and Trump, but Poilievre failed to make it happen.

Trump definitely mattered. To give a concrete comparison, Ontario's incumbent Con premier, Doug Ford, won handily by calling out Trump's remarks.

Poilievre perhaps could have won if he tried a similar tactic, but he waffled and dragged his fight on presenting a strong front against Trump. For me personally, that and how late the Cons were with presenting their budget plan really soured me towards their party for this election.

When Biden was swapped out for Harris, she couldn't really escape being Biden's VP. She was part of his administration, had participated in covering up his decline, and didn't offer a clear idea of what she would do differently. Carney, on the other hand, wasn't even in Canada for a lot of Trudeau's time in office. And his economic background and ties to Europe (non-American allies) make him look competent to confront Trump's economic threat. Sure his policy platform might not be that different, but there's a general feeling that voting for Carney isn't voting for more Trudeau. (Or maybe that means the Liberals are just better at marketing than the Democrats.)

Trump definitely mattered. I'm not sure Trudeau would have stepped down when he did without Trump's threats. There was a real sense that Canada needed somebody new to confront/deal with Trump, and Trudeau tried at Mar-a-Lago but couldn't. Also, Liberals really leaned into painting Poilievre as Trump-lite, even planting Trump-style merchandise at Conservative events, and that just wouldn't work as well if Trump had played nice or if Harris had been elected. Prior to Trump's 51st state stuff, the Conservatives had a clear lead in all the polls. But a lot of people who might've voted NDP or Bloc to stick it to Trudeau instead voted Liberal to stick it to the Americans.

Conservatives in Canada have a really really hard time not being seen as the most regressive of the US republicans (and it doesn’t actually even matter what they say or do). There was an expression that went something like “When America sneezes, Canada catches a cold.”

I know intelligent people who were absolutely convinced the CPC was coming for gay rights and their uteruses (the leader of the CPC grew up with two dads). Combine that with our culture of TDS and you are going to have people doing anything to keep the CPC out.

Somewhat interestingly, the CPC actually got a fairly respectable percentage of the vote (around 41.5%, last time I checked) - it isn’t uncommon for the CPC to win with a percentage around 37%. Most of the reason they lost was because the NDP absolutely torpedoed their party, and most of those votes went Liberals.

Edit, because I just saw this today. https://torontosun.com/news/national/donald-trump-brags-that-he-cost-pierre-poilievre-federal-election. Take it with a bit of a grain of salt, as the Toronto Sun is definitely right wing (and honestly veers a bit hard in that direction for me personally), but it implies that Trump, at least, believes he did.

Canadian parties are more fluid than American parties. Leftists seem generally very willing to swap between the Liberals and NDP, and within Quebec the Bloc, so if you don't like one right now, you just switch for a bit. That seems to weaken general anti-left arguments. Uniting the right wing parties under the CPC got Harper elected but also gives the left a single target.

This is right on -- comparing some riding level results with 2021, it looks an awful lot like significant NDP support went to all the way to the Conservative side this time. Of course votes are fungible, so there was maybe some 3-way swapping -- but it Liberals did not pick up anything like all of the NDP losses, and somehow it's much easier for me to imagine a pissed-off NDPer voting for PP than a long-term Grit shifting that way. (to be replaced by a centre-leaning NDPer presumably)

but it Liberals did not pick up anything like all of the NDP losses

The problem is that the Conservative side does, from an economic standpoint, what the NDP is supposed to be doing far better than the NDP itself does... and from a social policy standpoint, the Liberal side does what the NDP does but better.

There's no room for them in Canadian politics now that they're as polarized as US politics are (by the same forces that resulted in that polarization).

I think I agree -- if they'd kept up with the rural wing instead of going all-in on urban progressivism, gay/gun stuff, etc there might be a small niche for them. Very candidate dependent though.

there might be a small niche for them

Of course- if the Western Leftist party returned to being the Western Leftist party there's obviously still a niche there.

The problem is that the Western Leftist party is unwilling or unable to meaningfully distinguish themselves from the Eastern Leftist party, and so trying to outcompete the Eastern Leftists on destroying Western culture in general is- in a shocking twist- not an election winner in the West.

If the West were its own country, as it should be, this would be a natural political progression. But it's not, and Westerners are (when you look at the election map) clearly more focused on having a West to begin with rather than whether left or right should rule it.

Also the "right" is far from a unified front, as it is sort of awkwardly mashing together the progressive conservatives and Reform types.

The Jivani interview (that's JD Vance's bff) last night coming right out and blaming Ford for the defeat flabbergasted the CBC panel. Quite funny to see

how much Trump's "51 state" shenanigans mattered?

Ever seem to notice how the old get into wars the young have to fight, and love excuses to have those wars?

This was a referendum on whether we should fight that war or not.
Naturally, the old love that idea (and in fairness, jingoism with respect to the US is a part of the [Eastern] Canadian identity), and voted accordingly. Since Canada doesn't have any checks and balances against those people running roughshod over the rest of the country, that's all that's needed to win.

You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into, and this is one of those times. That said, I hope the East loses this trade war and gets annexed quickly, or Alberta successfully petitions the USG for statehood, so the good people out there/here (and they do exist) don't end up suffering too much under the retaliatory tariffs. The productive, industrialized areas of Ontario voted all against this war anyway (just like they have voted against this government in every post-2015 election) and the Western provinces became even more tilted towards the Cons [their regional interest party] despite Eastern Boomer bluster (even the cities, it's worth noting, with the obvious exception of Vancouver).

All that remains to be seen is what Alberta will do in response- Smith (and to a point, Moe) seem competent enough at this game to get the tariffs reduced on energy, but as far as running an entire country I don't know.

Remember that the part of Canada that defines what Canada is [the East] has effectively no land border with the US (it's 100% dependent on long bridges these days), and the part of Canada that does not define what Canada is [the West] has literally all of the land border. Additionally, remember that each province does more trade with the US than they do with each other. An EU-style state of affairs (with respect to Canada and the US) is economically the correct one, something we were closer to at one time (before 9/11), and to a point where we've been headed all this time (especially given NAFTA; the way you stop your best and brightest running away is to become a part of that country yourself) but the US needs to control our immigration policy for that to work. And I'm OK with that given how it's been abused already.

What are the actual odds that Alberta secedes? How likely are Saskatchewan, Manitoba to go with it? Is it even possible for the non-Vancouver parts of BC to go?

Albertans saying they'll secede because the Liberals won should be viewed the same as Democrats saying they'll move to Canada because Trump won. Lots will talk about it, some will try, but not enough to make a difference.

According to a survey conducted a few weeks ago, support for secession is about one-third in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Quebec, and one-fifth or less everywhere else.

For context, Texas secession varies from 30% to 66% depending on the recent news, wording of the survey, etc. That makes this sound like the same order of improbability.

That makes this sound like the same order of improbability.

Yes, but Texas has never actually tried to do this.

Quebec has actually tried it a few times; this idea is in the Canadian political lexicon to a much greater extent than the American one for that reason.

And there's no southern America that's richer and larger egging on Texas. There's no way they're equally improbable.

Also, secession is explicitly legal in Canada.

Annexing Canada would be a disaster for US politics. We'd get a large influx of left-leaning population who are already culturally desensitized to the right's worst nightmares (no weapons, no free speech, rampant multiculturalism, full DEI, nationalized medicine, etc.), which would essentially make it California-but-Cold and ensure permanent domination of Democrats in both House and Senate, and probably enough to also ensure Presidency goes to Democrats permanently. I don't think getting a dozen or so of heroic truckers and whoever else on the right side that is in Canada is going to change that. So I don't think anybody entertains this as a serious possibility. If we're talking about piecemeal arrangement, it might be less of a disaster but I don't think it's possible to pull it off in 3 years.

At the moment, the Canadian left is pretty united behind Carney, but the NDP will come back. If the NDP manages to rebuild enough before Union happens, they could naturally make common cause with the Bernie Left and cause a rift among the Democrats.

but the NDP will come back

Not with Canada in its current configuration, they won't. Western Leftism (which is what the NDP is) has given way to Westernism, and until that is satisfied there's no future for anything else. The last 3 elections have shown that pretty conclusively.

ensure permanent domination

Not how politics work. It’s never over. The entire political spectrum moves left with the new median voter, maintaining equal winning chances. Show goes on.

It has been over in Europe for a long time, for the right. True, there's AfD in Germany (shut out of "polite society" but still alive) and LePen (here the establishment succeeded to do the same they failed to do to Trump) but there's no movements comparable to MAGA (or even Tea Party) and no powers comparable to Republicans on the right in Europe. I don't see why America must be any different and why, if the circumstances allow, Republicans couldn't be turned into AfD-like permanent opposition, useful for scaring the voters into compliance but powerless otherwise. Of course, there still be politicians competing, just like there are politicians competing in San Francisco or Chicago, but that would be like watching which Politburo member is elected into the Central Committee - whoever it is, it's still a Politburo member. There's no real alternative.

You can define "the right" to exclude mainstream conservative parties like the German CDU, and then say it is all over for the right. But then you are using non-standard definitions of words to do the work, not facts about the world.

The point @Tree is making is that functional political parties adjust their positioning in order to chase votes. Big-tent right-wing parties are torn between their desire to win elections and their desire to push right-wing policies, and end up positioning themselves slightly to the right of the median voter. @Tree is right that no matter how left-wing a country is, there will usually be a right-wing party doing directionally right-wing things, and consisting of recognisably right-wing people. Even in Denmark, which is so left-wing that the main right-wing party is called "Left" and the centrist liberal party is called "Radical Left", you have a right-wing party full of obviously right-wing people (they stick out like a sore thumb at Liberal International conferences) and with obviously right-wing policies like tax cuts and reduced immigration.

@JarJarJedi is of course correct that it is all over for a specific policy agenda if that political agenda becomes sufficiently unpopular. If you define "right" sufficiently strictly, then it was all over for the right in 1945 (and good riddance). And if @JarJarJedi thinks that Meloni and Farage are insufficiently right-wing to count, then for him it probably was.

conservative parties like the German CDU

They present as "conservative" but from their actions it doesn't seem like they actually are. It looks more like what is called the Uniparty in the US context - parties that pretend to provide alternative solutions but once elected fall back into the same set of policies no matter which label is on them currently.

The point @Tree is making is that functional political parties adjust their positioning in order to chase votes.

Sure, I do not disagree with this. And that's exactly my point - if you instantly add a California-worth of leftist voters, the political parties will have to shift left, or go extinct and be replaced by the left-shifted ones. And if your politics is based on principles and not on whether "our team" or "their team" wins, and your political principles happen to be on the right, then it would be a disaster for you, because no political party - however it would be called - would be willing to adhere to your principles and provide any policies according to them.

then it was all over for the right in 1945

If you mean the German National-Socialist party, calling them "the right" was a propaganda trick in 1930s and will remain so in 2030s. Mentioning them in the broader political context as the valid definition of the whole term raises from a trick to a libelous smear. A behavior one would be ashamed of if there were any decency left, but we all know that ship has sailed long time ago.

And if @JarJarJedi thinks that Meloni and Farage are insufficiently right-wing to count, then for him it probably was.

I never mentioned Farage (for the simple reason that his political power right now is microscopic, 4 seats out of 650?). But I would like to hear in plain speak what you mean by this, because it certainly sounds like you're calling me a Nazi. Which would be nothing new - it is basically a propaganda tick of the left since, again, 1930s, but I'd like a clarification this this particular case - what do you mean by this?

If you mean the German National-Socialist party, calling them "the right" was a propaganda trick in 1930s and will remain so in 2030s.

The German right (in particular the DNVP, the Stahlhelm, Papen's right-wing faction of Zentrum and the clique of conservative aristocrats around Hindenburg) were broadly supportive of the NSDAP and actively enabled Hitler's rise to power. The German left (in particular the SDP) opposed it. I'm happy to admit that the relationship between the NSDAP and the KPD was more complex. But I think "the Nazis were right-wing" had a clear meaning in the context of 1930's Germany and that meaning is obviously correct given who was on which side. If you think you understand the politics of the NSDAP better than the German politicians of its time, then you need a better argument than "there is an S in NSDAP."

Mentioning them in the broader political context as the valid definition of the whole term

My position is that the CDU (and CSU in Bavaria) is "the right" in 21st century Germany. You disagree, and argue that "the right" should correctly refer to some other political tradition which rejects the CDU from a further-right perspective. The reason why no such political tradition has existed in Germany since 1945 is that "the right" in your sense discredited itself by being either proud supporters of or useful idiots for Hitler, and thus contributing to the utter ruination of Germany. It wasn't just Nazism that discredited itself in this way - it was the broader illiberal right including the DNVP, the Chamberlain-Halifax wing of the British Conservative party, throne-and-altar conservatives in Catholic Europe, and the militaristic conservatism of Quisling and Petain.

it certainly sounds like you're calling me a Nazi

I'm not calling you a Nazi - just as I wouldn't call Papen and Hugenberg Nazis, because they weren't. But they both did jail time after WW2 for collaborating with Nazis. I think that you are defining "the right" in a way which means anyone who is a reliable ally against Nazis doesn't qualify. I note that you explicitly endorsed the AfD, a group that was kicked out of the right-populist ID group in the European Parliament after its lead candidate defended the role of the SS in WW2, as an example of what you consider "the right". I think the AfD is lousy with Nazis (it isn't a Nazi party per se), and I think that someone who supports the AfD is sufficiently comfortable working with Nazis that they fall into the broad category of "right-wingers whose approach to politics should have been discredited by events leading up to 1945."

I never mentioned Farage (for the simple reason that his political power right now is microscopic, 4 seats out of 650?)

The proposition we were arguing about is "the right is over". Farage doesn't have power right now, but nobody paying attention to British politics thinks that Reform UK is "over". If you say that "the right is over" in the UK, you are implying that Reform UK isn't right-wing enough for you.

I think that you are defining "the right" in a way which means anyone who is a reliable ally against Nazis doesn't qualify

This is quite misleading - since there aren't any proper right-wing movements available in Germany, except maybe AfD, and AfD can not be a "reliable ally" to any other party due to the consistent policy of those parties to reject any cooperation with it, then it may be vacuously true, but that's exactly my point. Your explanation is "the right you're talking about are essentially Nazis and that's why there's no proper right in Germany" (which btw doesn't explain what happens with the rest of Europe?) - but that's completely untrue. It is possible to have a right-wing movement that does not include Nazis (at least not in any political way - an individual Nazi sympathizer of course can join any movement and it's impossible to prevent it in a free country) - it's just that in Europe there's a distinct lack of such movements that have any power or serious influence on the current politics. And this has nothing to do with Nazis or my definition of the right converging to Nazis (it does not). It's just that the population of Europe seems to be fine with the soft-left policies they are getting. They probably wouldn't be fine with full-scale hard-left communism, but the center of mass for the modern Left is not there, it's more around big-government woke welfare open-borders state with heavily regulated economy, still nominally allowing private ownership but within tightly controlled boundaries (and private speech and political participation within tightly controlled boundaries too). Europeans have the full right to like this package, but that's exactly why I am saying "the right is over" - because there are no serious offering outside this package on the political scene. And no, "that's because you want Nazis" is not a good answer to it - there can be a lot of potential offerings outside this package that do not include Nazis. They are just not available on the European political market.

nobody paying attention to British politics thinks that Reform UK is "over"

They are not "over" as the party still exists, but they don't have any power, so it's not "over" because it never was actually "in". Britain is a bit different case because it does have a functioning conservative party that is not in name only, and sometimes can implement policies - even though in many important aspects, again, there's not much departure from the same package there either.

throne-and-altar conservatives in Catholic Europe

What throne and altar conservatives were discredited by(or indeed relevant in) WWII? The Carlists in Spain probably would have picked Hitler over Churchill but they weren’t a relevant factor(indeed they were a minority party of a neutral power). There were clerical fascists in central Europe who collaborated but that is, literally, a different thing.

I think that someone who supports the AfD is sufficiently comfortable working with Nazis that they fall into the broad category of "right-wingers whose approach to politics should have been discredited by events leading up to 1945."

Do you feel the same way about left wingers who are comfortable working with communists?

More comments

The entire political spectrum moves left with the new median voter, maintaining equal winning chances. Show goes on.

I hate this attitude to politics (as I have written elsewhere on the web many times). It treats it like modern professional sports, where you pick your "team," and all that you care about is how often your team "wins." It treats "[insert party here] wins elections" as a terminal goal, rather than an instrumental goal.

I do not care that the Republican party would "maintaining equal winning chances" if it has to move leftward to do so. Because what I care about is where we are (and which way we are moving) on the political spectrum. I care about "my party winning" as an instrumental goal, as a means to that end.

"The entire political spectrum moving left" is a long-term loss for the right, regardless of whether or not some body called the "Republican party" wins or loses elections.

It was not a value judgment. Those who keep predicting this upcoming 'permanent democratic party domination' are simply wrong, because of the mechanism I described. I did not say it was not a loss for the right. I understand a lot of you people are chronically depressed pessimistic, but let's keep that black-tinted perspective in focus at least.

Not how politics work. It’s never over.

England has not had significant influence over American politics since, depending on one's accounting, either 1776 or 1812. Likewise, the Romanov dynasty ceased all significant contribution to Russian politics in 1918. The Japanese ended native Japanese Christianity in the 1600s, and it stayed ended for about three centuries. The 101st airborne marched into the south and ended segregation at bayonet-point, and at least that form of it did in fact stay ended right down to the present day.

Sometimes the show does not, in fact, go on. If you've noted that all of these examples involved mass-bloodshed, and most of them involved the sort of mass bloodshed we can't really even attempt to put a smiley-face on, well, that'd be why I'm generally a pessimist.

Eh, we did end up developing the Special Relationship. There’s no country on earth with a better track record of influencing American opinion.

My mid-1800s history is a bit rustier, but I understand slave economics were rather entangled with the British market, since textile industrialization was in full swing. The Confederates were certainly hoping for more direct support from their trade partners.

Sure, but if you graph political influence over time, I'm pretty sure by far the biggest change on the graph is 1776, and everything else is inconsequential. And notably, that's the one you can mostly put a smiley-face on.

In my area of the US, once you get past the jingoism and into discussion, people would be happy with integrating Alberta, Sasketchewan, and the non-Vancouver parts of BC. Manitoba is a maybe, and the territories are might as wells, they wouldn’t get treated like states anyways.

Some kind of integration between Alberta and the USA would be the most likely first step, short of a war where the US just takes the parts it wants and leaves the rest as a rump state.

people would be happy with integrating Alberta, Sasketchewan, and the non-Vancouver parts of BC

The Canadians in those areas say the same, and (as you can see from the election map) have voted accordingly.

The thing about Manitoba is that it's always been quasi-Canadian [Canadian as defined by the East] due to being the last stop into the Prairies (also that thing in the late 1800s when the Metis fought it out with the Upper Canadians); it's also sufficiently French for official language to actually be a concern (and Winnipeg is the westernmost city for which that's true). It could go either way with them, honestly- the fact they're also a resource-poor province on average compared to the rest of the West makes for some unique politics (and is part of why, historically, MB and SK are where the NDP come from).

We'd get a large influx of left-leaning population who are already culturally desensitized to the right's worst nightmares

That's why you don't annex the East first; all the problem people are out there (just like in the US, for that matter).

You want to pull the places that actually care, are actually culturally similar to the US midwest (which the productive, Western parts of Canada very much are), and those that are actually willing to negotiate. Trump could force the East to the table with the tariffs (you'll notice that all the people in the affected areas voted Conservative, and that's not an accident) but the West was already getting interested in some level of sovereignty on its own (permanent disenfranchisement in a rich province will do that).

A Western party, for the most part, cannot win in Canada; that much has been known for the last 150 years. If the West wants to preserve its culture it will need to act.

Polls closed in Newfoundland two hours ago, and it's not looking good for the pollsters. CBC has called two seats for the Conservatives and they're leading in a third, while three have been called for the Liberals and they're leading in a fourth. The prediction was 7-0 Liberal (two "toss up", five "Lib. Likely").

The Maritimes are closer to the prediction, with the Conservatives leading/called in 8 ridings vs. the prediction of 7.

I'm confused about how Canadian regions are divided. Which ridings are you counting? Central Newfoundland, Terra Nova, Avalon, Long Range, Labrador...what am I missing?

I'm confused about how Canadian regions are divided.

Join the club. There are multiple different systems used interchangeably. Some of the regions include:

  • the Maritimes: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and PEI
  • Atlantic Canada: the Maritimes plus Newfoundland and Labrador
  • Quebec
  • Ontario
  • Central Canada: Quebec and Ontario
  • Western Canada: Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and sometimes BC
  • the Prairie Provinces: Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and usually Alberta
  • BC
  • the North: Yukon, NWT, and Nunavut.

Which ridings are you counting? Central Newfoundland, Terra Nova, Avalon, Long Range, Labrador...what am I missing?

You're missing Cape Spear and St John's East.

Better yet: Manitoba is only “Western Canada” if you’re in Toronto or farther east. Ask people from Manitoba where they are and they’ll tell you they’re in the centre of Canada and Western Canada is everything from Saskatchewan on, which is damn fucking right if you look at an actual map. And then tell people in Québec you’re from Manitoba or Saskatchewan and they’ll say “Oh, like you’re from the Midwest?” Which is some sort of frequent Mandela effect-type misapplication of a purely American term by people for whom it’s all just Anglophone flyover country anyways.

Nah, I'm from Saskatchewan, and Manitoba is one of us. We're both part of Western Canada, along with Alberta (but not BC).

they’ll tell you they’re in the centre of Canada and Western Canada is everything from Saskatchewan on, which is damn fucking right if you look at an actual map.

Now I want geographically-defined regions. Anything below the 49th parallel is the "Deep South", 49-55 is "South", 55-66.5 is "Central", and anything in the Arctic circle is "North", with 80+ degrees being the "Far North". BC and Alberta are "West", Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and western Ontario are "Central", while the rest of Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada is "East".

“Oh, like you’re from the Midwest?”

See also: 38 degrees in the Middle East

Roughly, Canadian regions are divided as follows:

  • Quebec (Lower Canada)
  • Toronto-Montreal (Upper Canada)
  • Maritimes (Atlantic Canada- they'll argue they have distinct identities, and they do, but they're too small to be relevant here)
  • West (Everything Else)

Take US politics, remove all the checks and balances that prevent SF/NYC/DC from turning the US into a one-party state, and you have Canadian politics. It's a very simple country to understand.

  • fake france
  • fake NY
  • fake midwest
  • fake seattle

If you're going to do it this way you need to include fake Texas.

Probably helpful to keep in mind that a big chunk of the population operates under an even simpler system: World Class City and Rest Of Canada.

And they know they're fake, and they're very, very self-conscious about being fake.

Personally I mentally separate the West and BC. When people talk about "the West" they are not talking about Coquitlam.

BC is split between "Left Coast" and "Western Canada", with the former having a higher population, but the latter covering more area.

If you want a breakdown of the situation in BC you have but to look at the election map- notice how, much like some states, the small city runs more or less roughshod over the rest of the province.

It didn’t necessarily used to be that way, but it is that way now, functionally permanently; turns out city vs. everyone else is a strong local maximum for the city.

The GVRD might as well be its own province at this point; it creates the same problems for the rest of BC that Ottawa does for all of Canada.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats