# Election 2015



## Edward Campbell (3 Aug 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The (web site) headline above _Globe and Mail_ columnist Jeffrey Simpson’s latest offering is:  *The Conservatives are down and out in Quebec – and know it*
> 
> *Good - and good*, in my view.
> 
> ...




More, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, this time from John Ibbitson, who appears to be swinging towards some of the positions I have enunciated in the past:

1. It is possible to win and govern *without Québec* ~ not _against_ Québec, just without either pandering to it or depending upon it for electoral success; and

2. There is a divide, which I have called (not my phrase) “Old Canada” (East of the Ottawa River) and “New Canada” (the five provinces West of that river) ~ which Ibbitson calls the “Pacific province(s).”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/quebecs-profound-isolation/article2117494/ 


> Quebec’s profound isolation
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...



Québecers are free to ask, “why they're a part of this country,” and they are free to leave if they really want that. But the old question “what does Québec want?” is not longer important. That's what has changed; Québec is a province, _”comme les autres,”_ neither more nor less. If that is not suffiecient reason to be Canadian then, sadly, _”Sayonara.”_

This, I suspect, _may_ be the ballot question for 2015: which direction - back to the East (our European roots) or forward to the West - is best for "New Canada?"


Edit: formatting


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Aug 2011)

Nobody could ever confuse me with anything other than an ardent Brit despite my being Canadian. Consequently my natural orientation is, like Quebec's, towards the East.

However, as I look to the East and contemplate a world of David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Alex Salmon of the SNP and Tony Blair  (4 Scots God help us), not to mention Sarkozy (a Hungarian) and the EU, I find it very easy to turn away from the past and continue to take my chances with Canada in general and Alberta in particular.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Aug 2011)

Interesting look at how public attitudes are changing according to the Manning Institute. In a way this tracks with the Libertarianism as a social movement meme, but a few disconnects still remain (both Quebec and the different preception of critical issues between the political class and the public):

http://princearthurherald.com/archives/6227



> *Fedun: Manning Centre Barometer and its read on Canada’s political climate*
> Posted on August 3rd, 2011 by Stan Fedun in Opinions, Politics
> 
> How long can this government maintain power? Will the Liberals be able to recover from their loss? What role will the NDP play in the future? These are all questions that arose after the election and most definitely will be talking points when Parliament resumes this fall.
> ...



Given the restructuring of the Canadian body politic outlined upthread, even a renewed LPC will be fighting over a smaller portion of Canada against  the NDP, Bloc and Greens ("Old Canada"), while being much less competative with the CPC in the "New Canada". The downside of this is that the CPC will lack the challenge to remain a competent governing party.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Aug 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Interesting look at how public attitudes are changing according to the Manning Institute. In a way this tracks with the Libertarianism as a social movement meme, but a few disconnects still remain (both Quebec and the different preception of critical issues between the political class and the public):
> 
> http://princearthurherald.com/archives/6227
> 
> Given the restructuring of the Canadian body politic outlined upthread, even a renewed LPC will be fighting over a smaller portion of Canada against  the NDP, Bloc and Greens ("Old Canada"), while being much less competative with the CPC in the "New Canada". The downside of this is that the CPC will lack the challenge to remain a competent governing party.





Don't underestimate the LPC's capacity to reinvent itself in whatever part of the political spectrum it can find room to grow. Stephen Harper has made the CPC a _centrist_ party ~ most of us have assumed that the only place for the Liberals is _centre-left_ (_left of centre_ being the NDP's domain) ... what about a Liberal party on the _right of centre_, tilling ground the CPC ignores.


----------



## Ayrsayle (3 Aug 2011)

I wouldn't entirely count out the NDP either - While it is likely that as the liberal party begins its recovery a significant chunk of NDP support will shift, the efforts of the NDP during this period might have them establish establish themselves as a legitimate opposition. Even as an NDP supporter, I think the odds are against them in this regard (but nonetheless still a possibility, which is a fair sight better then they have had historically). The NDP have made some motions about moving more centrist (just how far, or how effective it would be is up for debate however).

I've also spent my time in Alberta and watched the emergence of the Wild Rose party (due in no small part to the stagnation of provincial conservatives lacking credible opposition) - as the CPC moves more central, who is to say we will not have a legitimate successor to the farther right of politics? 

Thank you for sharing however - interesting stuff.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Aug 2011)

>f so, then the next time Quebeckers ask why they’re a part of this country, what will the rest of us tell them?

Because we have a stronger dollar than the Quebec franc (or whatever) can ever hope to be, and the nation of Quebec will not include Ungava.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Aug 2011)

I would expect something more like a "Maple Leaf Party" to grow on the right, similar to how the Alberta Conservatives are now facing a challenge from the "Wild Rose Alliance" party than for a renewed LPC to track right. This will happen in the post 2015 time frame, since by then the CPC will have been in power for 9 years and  have developed a dissatisfied right wing....


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Aug 2011)

Oh, a poll! ... reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/recent-nanos-poll-shows-conservative-support-slipping-nationally/article2122386/


> Recent Nanos poll shows Conservative support slipping nationally
> 
> JANE TABER
> Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update
> ...




But this is SHOCKING!  :  Given the margin of error, the Tories are ... within the same margin of error from their 2 May 11 results.   :boring:

That the Liberals have gained some ground, mostly at the expense of the NDP should surprise no one.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Aug 2011)

> The pollster notes Liberal numbers always improve when they don’t have a permanent leader. For example, their numbers increased when Paul Martin announced his departure and again when Stephane Dion resigned.



What does that say about a party that's more popular without a leader than with?


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Aug 2011)

Life After Layton

The headlines say “Layton's shoes hard to fill.” Indeed they are. Jack Layton was _sui generis_; he captured the affections of ordinary Canadians, especially of ordinary Québecers, like no one since “Uncle Louis” St Laurent back in the 1950s.

So who is to fill his shoes?

There are two pairs of shoes: leader of the NDP and Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. For the moment – until 2015 – one person will have both jobs, thanks to Layton's excellent performance in the 2011 general election.

But it is not clear to me that any NDP leader, even the late, lamented Mr. Layton, could repeat his 2011 performance in Québec. It is too soon to write off the BQ (or the PQ) although both are in trouble. A really good political leader, which Layton might have proven himself to be, can hold the Québec caucus together and, maybe, even deliver enough to Québec to keep a whole lot of voters onside in 2015, but 53 seats? No, I think not – not even Layton, certainly not Mulcair or Davies.

So who is to lead the NDP?

The pickings are slim: Thomas Mulcair is the best choice; he is in Layton's _centrist_ camp – Layton dragged the NDP, kicking and screaming, _towards_, not to, the political centre, Mulcair is of the same opinion. Libby Davies would take the _Dippers_ back _towards_ the Judy Rebick, Marxist-Lunatic fringe and , consequentially, back towards 20 seat territory. There are a few other 'possibles' including foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar (but I'm not sure how good his French is). Nycole Turmel is a joke. I'm not sure what she is but leader is not on the list.

But who will lead the opposition after 2015?

The Liberals are as leaderless as the _Dippers_. The only useful candidate – ie someone who can give Harper a real run for his money – is, in my personal opinion, Scott Brison and I think that:

1. He has a lot of 'negatives,' and

2. The Liberals have a well entrenched tradition of alternating between English and French leaders and the French caucus is very weak.

Good luck to both parties, but the tasks are monumental and _tempus fugit._



Edit: Spelling  :-[  Nycole Turmel is such a joke that I misspelled her name, twice! She may be a joke but she deserves to have her name spelled correctly.  :facepalm:


----------



## a_majoor (27 Aug 2011)

A look at the NDP's place in the Canadian political spectrum, and why we should not expect them to do as well in 2015 (with or without Jack Layton)

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/alternative+reality/5315860/story.html



> *The alternative to reality*
> 
> Robert Fulford, National Post · Aug. 27, 2011 | Last Updated: Aug. 27, 2011 5:23 AM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2011)

Two headlines from the daily papers:

_Globe and Mail_: NDP leadership race effectively starts now

_Ottawa Citizen_: Liberals gather in Ottawa ith focus on party's future


This is, on the surface a good time for Stephen Harper; it will also keep both the Liberals and NDP in the media spotlight and that is a double edged sword. My guess is that both leadership races are going to be tough and nasty – each will involve a _right_ vs _left_ debate and Harper may be able to exploit that: “See that? They are just like us.” when the parties' right wings are exposed, and “Do you really want these clowns running the economy?” when the left wing is on top. But there are also dangers. Some of the leadership contenders in each party will be attractive and articulate and will garner considerable media attention – the Tory attack machine will need to go back into high gear but, hopefully, with some sublety.


----------



## GAP (29 Aug 2011)

I think the Tories should just stay in the background during these coronations.....let the rabble select their best.........

then do the character assassination......as they did with Martin, that what's his face....professor....Dion, and Iggy......

The NDP is going to surprise everyone including themselves if they are able to find an effective leader, otherwise....it'll be dogmatic rhetoric  101.....I still see Olivia Chow trying after the next leader crashes......


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2011)

Olivia will have to work on two things, I think, her French and her policy base. She was a moderately successful city politician but I'm not sure she has many useful 'roots' in e.g. organized labour.

I think that, assuming it can be done subtly and well, the character assassination can begin any time ~ feeding Tory friendly media well made 'scripts' on the dual themes of fiscal irresponsibility or the Liberal or _Dipper_ being on the *right* wing.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Aug 2011)

Meanwhile, a "look at me" from Bob Rae via e-mail:


> It's a speech that will set the course for the next session of Parliament and the next phase of rebuilding, and you can watch it live online at 1:30pm EDT.
> 
> Two months ago, I set out across Canada on a national summer tour. From one end of the country to the other I listened carefully to Liberals and Canadians who care deeply about our Party's future.
> 
> ...


Awfully big photo for an interim leader.....


----------



## GAP (29 Aug 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Olivia will have to work on two things, I think, her French and her policy base. She was a moderately successful city politician but I'm not sure she has many useful 'roots' in e.g. organized labour.



I read a quote on the weekend that defined Olivia to a T....

she was a typical upper class dimwit, slumming with the chic downtrodden of the day, who couldn't bake a loaf of bread without romanticizing the distress of the flour and the noble savage qualities of the yeast.


----------



## Rifleman62 (29 Aug 2011)

Beat me to it GAP.

She is back to being a nothing. Don't be surprised it she now addressed as Mrs. Olivia Layton.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Aug 2011)

(Most) Liberals not keen on merger w/NDP....


> Veteran Liberal MP Denis Coderre says he favours merging his party with the New Democrats.
> 
> But the Montreal MP seems to be a lone voice at a four-day Liberal caucus retreat to plot strategy for next month’s resumption of Parliament.
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (29 Aug 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> (Most) Liberals not keen on merger w/NDP....



Would you expect anything else at this time?

I am a bit surprised at Coderre's position, unless he sees himself as the leader of the merged party and the future Prime Minister. If so, he is a couple of elections and a decade or so out of date.

To be frank, at this stage the NDP is probably not ready to do more than suggest that the Liberals disband and urge their members to join the 'real' progressive voice for Canadians.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Aug 2011)

Is it possible that Coderre is trying to get to the head of the Quebec parade so as to salvage whatever relevance that province may have as a powerbase going forward?

The Liberals power has been based on being able to supply a strong cohort of Quebecers since the days of Lafontaine.  With Quebec all over the map, a declining population and a declining share of the Canadian population the influence of Quebec and the Liberals is declining apace with the rate at which their bridges are falling.

Coderre's best shot at the leadership is predicated on the Anglo-Franco alternation.  But if the Francos can't deliver a base then the New Liberals might be encouraged to start looking westward for an alternate base with which to associate.

Ralph Goodale still holds his riding.  There a Liberals in BC and Manitoba of a rightish persuasion.  And even the Dippers on the prairies tend to be of different cast than the Eastern Dippers - more Co-Operative than Socialist.

That could suggest an alternative alignment that wouldn't favour Quebec or Coderre.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2011)

My WAG (Wild Assed Guess - it's not even a SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass~) at this time) is the QC is, _de facto_, irrelevant in the next election. The vote may split something like:

Liberals -                                               15  seats (of 75)
NDP -                                                     10   "
BQ (revived) -                                        20   "
Verts -                                                     5   "
New Left Wing _Nationalist_ Party -          20   "
Conservatives -                                       5   "


Edit: to make it clear I mean that the vote split will produce something like this outcome - a split in seats that benefits no one.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 Aug 2011)

An interesting, and very early, poll of voter preferences in Quebec. I suggest that the NDP position in the long term is not all that secure, at least at the levels of the latest Federal election. The next leader will probably shape the results of the 2015 election just by breathing. By that, I mean that the Dippers will be challenged to find someone who will be popular and relevant in Quebec while not alienating the voters in the ROC.

The story is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

Without Layton, Harper's Leadership Numbers Jump In Quebec 

The Huffington Post Canada Eric Grenier  First Posted: 8/30/11 05:37 AM ET Updated: 8/30/11 05:49 AM ET 


On the eve of Jack Layton’s death, the NDP still dominated the province that swung so decisively in its favour on May 2.

But there are signs that the party’s support in Quebec could be at risk.

A CROP poll for La Presse that surveyed 1,000 Quebecers between August 17 and 22 found that the New Democrats still enjoyed 40 per cent support in the province, down insignificantly from the 42.9 per cent of votes cast in Quebec on election night.

The Conservatives stood at 22 per cent, up a more significant — but still modest — five points since May 2.

However, compared to CROP’s last poll in the province carried out in June, it is clear that the NDP’s position in the province could be fragile.

In that poll, the New Democrats stood at a whopping 53 per cent support. Since then, the NDP has dropped 13 points, with support leaking to each of the other four major federal parties. The Conservatives were at 18 per cent in that poll, meaning the Tories have picked up four points in the last two months.

But the most telling shift comes in the leadership numbers. In June, Jack Layton was considered the best person to be Canada’s prime minister by 48 per cent of Quebecers, eclipsing Stephen Harper’s 16 per cent and interim Liberal leader Bob Rae’s five percent.

Though this new poll was taken before Layton’s death, CROP replaced Jack Layton’s name with that of Nycole Turmel, interim leader of the party. This led to Harper topping the list with 21 per cent, a gain of five points. Turmel stood at only 11 per cent, 37 points behind Layton's June numbers, while Rae’s score was bumped to 10 per cent.

The orphaned respondents who thought Layton would make the best PM in June opted instead for “none of the above” (29 per cent) or “don’t know” (23 per cent), an increase of 13 and 10 points respectively. This makes up for almost two-thirds of the drop between Layton’s and Turmel’s numbers. The support of many Quebecers, it appears, may be up for grabs.

Nevertheless, the New Democrats are still in a very strong position. In addition to an 18-point lead over the Tories, the NDP is well ahead of the Bloc Québécois (20 per cent) and the Liberals (12 per cent).

The NDP holds comfortable leads among francophones (41 per cent to the Bloc’s 24 per cent), non-francophones (36 per cent to the Tories’ 31 per cent), in Montreal and outside of the province’s two major centres. 

The Liberals are especially troubled, down two points from the election and four points in and around Montreal, the only part of the province that elected Liberal MPs on May 2. Conversely, the Conservatives are doing well in Montreal (up nine points) and especially in and around Quebec City, standing at 46 per cent support – an increase of almost 20 points since the election.

With these numbers, the New Democrats would likely still win about 58 seats in Quebec, down only one seat from their Quebec caucus’s current standing in the House of Commons. The Conservatives, however, would pick up seven new seats, with gains both in Quebec City and on the island of Montreal. The Liberals would be reduced to four seats (including those currently occupied by Denis Coderre, Justin Trudeau, and Stéphane Dion) while the Bloc would hold on to only one: that of Jean-François Fortin, one of the likely candidates for the party’s leadership.

The next leader of the NDP will take over a party leading in the polls in Quebec, but maintaining that support over the next four years will likely be his or her greatest challenge.

Éric Grenier taps The Pulse of federal and regional politics for Huffington Post Canada readers on Tuesdays and Fridays. Grenier is the author of ThreeHundredEight.com, covering Canadian politics, polls and electoral projections.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Aug 2011)

Another contender to fill Jack Layton's shoes:

http://pragmatictory.blogspot.com/2011/08/who-is-ndp-leadership-contender-brian.html



> *"Who is NDP leadership contender Brian Topp?"*
> 
> On the day of Jack Layton's funeral, Jane Taber wrote a flattering piece about Brian Topp and his emerging candidacy to become the next permanent leader of the NDP. I first took notice of Mr. Topp's existence in February 2010 after he appeared on the Soloman Show to promote his book "How we almost gave the Tories the boot", where he detailed the attempted coup of December 2008. He was one of the primary architects of the NDP's move to form a coalition with the Liberals to overthrow the newly democratically re-elected Conservatives. After the attempt to seize power failed, Mr Topp suffered from post traumatic stress disorder. Far be it from me to dispute or belittle the diagnosis, I just don't think that someone who has a nervous breakdown after his own party's failed effort to seize power is a strong candidate to one day become Prime Minister. My apologies to anyone who suffered PSTD after a genuinely traumatic event.
> 
> Scott Reid seems to think that Topp's candidacy is a sign that Layton's inner circle is trying to keep Thomas Mulcair out of the leadership chair, and Scotty might actually be right on this one. Topp would be a good candidate for interim leader rather than permanent leader. The best possible replacement is Gary Doer, but his candidacy is unlikely unless he wants to leave his diplomatic post in Washington. It is also likely that Doer is considered too far to the right by many of the NDP membership. Peggy Nash should get the most support from the unions given her past as a high profile union leader. If there is indeed a strong movement within the NDP to keep Mulcair out of Stornoway, then perhaps there is hope for them. I would support Topp over Mulcair without a moment's hesitation, but neither of them are in Gary Doer's league.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Aug 2011)

More on the 'merger,' reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/talk-all-you-want-but-liberal-and-ndp-pieces-just-wont-fit/article2147672/


> Talk all you want – but Liberal and NDP pieces just won't fit
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> OTTAWA— From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
> ...




I think Ibbitson is right when he focuses on the _political DNA_. The old PCs and _Reform/Alliance_ folks were, indeed, different breeds of the same species but the Liberals and NDP are completely different species: wolves and donkeys.

Coderre is impatient; he judges, I'm guessing, that it's his turn - now or never - but that the next leader of the Liberals will lead them to another defeat, as did Dion and Ignatieff, and that he will suffer the same fate as they did. But, I guess he guesses, a coalition _might_, just, succeed in 2015; I suspect he sees it as his only chance because Trudeau is gaining on him.

The NDP knives are out for all to see. It is Topp and the old Layton gang vs. Mulcaire and the new Québec team – which I beieve he has in his camp. I understand that Topp is on the left of the party – not as far left as e.g. Libbie Davies but far left of Mulcaire and some of the new Québec MPs.

My guess is that Mulcaire does not have much (any?) support outside of the Québec caucus but that no one other than Mulcaire has much support in that caucus. The result: stalemate and, eventually, a backroom deal that will please no one. That's one of the reasons why I am 99.99% certain that the NDP will drop from 50+ to 20- seats in Québec in 2015.

How is this for a prediction for 2015?

Conservatives – 163 seats
Liberals –             60 seats
NDP –                   60 seats
BQ (revived) –      20 seats
New QC Party –   20 seats
Greens –               5 seats


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Aug 2011)

Good point raised in this column on the merger mutterings - highlights mine....


> .... there was Denis Coderre, the Liberal MP from Montreal. He thought it was an idea worth exploring.
> 
> And then Justin Trudeau, another Montreal Liberal, said he wasn’t in favour of a merger but that all ideas should be on the table.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Aug 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> How is this for a prediction for 2015?
> 
> Conservatives – 163 seats
> Liberals –             60 seats
> ...



For someone who regularly quotes MacMillan on "events" and Wilson on political "weeks"  that's quite the prediction.   ;D

Do you fancy a flutter?

http://betting.ladbrokes.com/en/politics-betting


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Aug 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> For someone who regularly quotes MacMillan on "events" and Wilson on political "weeks"  that's quite the prediction.   ;D
> 
> Do you fancy a flutter?
> 
> http://betting.ladbrokes.com/en/politics-betting




Nope!    My confidence level is _waaaay_ below reasonable.

But I am betting, with myself, on both a BQ resurgence and a new 'soft left' Québec _nationalist_ party and a consequential vote split. I see both those parties gaining seats at the expense of the NDP.


----------



## GAP (31 Aug 2011)

I don't know ER.....the ADQ was as conservative as all get out, but they nearly beat the provincial liberals....I think there's a good solid core of conservative-ism in QC, they're just "not  comfortable with the skin they're in"...to paraphrase badly..... ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Aug 2011)

I agree there is a solid 'conservative' core, I'm just not sure if it is very large - but it is also _nationalist_, that core is the heir to Duplessis' _Union Nationale_. Harper has, correctly, I think, rejected that brand of _nationalism_ so those voters also reject the CPC.

The BQ, revived or not, is to the left of the NDP on many issues and I look for a new 'soft left' party to stake out the _nationalist_ ground between the NDP and the Liberals. The Liberals might be the beneficiaries of of such 'conservative _nationalist_' votes as exist.


----------



## GAP (31 Aug 2011)

I can't disagree with that....


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Aug 2011)

For now, anyway....


> A new poll suggests Jack Layton's untimely death has triggered another orange wave across the country.
> 
> The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey pegs support for Layton's NDP at 33 per cent — tied with the ruling Conservatives and well ahead of the Liberals at 21 per cent.
> 
> ...


Not going to continue for long.


----------



## Journeyman (31 Aug 2011)

> A new poll suggests Jack Layton's untimely death has triggered another orange wave across the country.
> 
> The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey pegs support for Layton's NDP at 33 per cent — tied with the ruling Conservatives and well ahead of the Liberals at 21 per cent.


You'd think some ambitious political strategists would start killing off their party's leadership


----------



## RangerRay (31 Aug 2011)

I cannot see any possible merger of the Liberals and NDP.

Aside from the huge cultural and ideological differences of the two parties, the Liberals would *never* agree to be a junior partner, which is what they would become under current circumstances.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Aug 2011)

So far as I can tell, the entire merger kerfuffle was triggered by an off the cuff remark by the young Dauphin (oh, wait, aren't all his remarks....), and another by Denis Codere.

On one level, a merger does make sense, bringing the Orange Liberals and perhaps the Greens together in a Socialist Alliance Party would eliminate vote splitting and make Progressives competitive in an election. The undigested bits like Libertarian Greens and Blue Liberals could be ejected to form noncompetitive rump parties or merge with the CPC. The electoral map would be pretty starkly divided between Classical Liberals and Progressives, and paralyzed minority governments would be very rare.

As noted, there are many issues which make the idea impractical for now. The Liberals will have to take another drubbing at the polls before their operatives realize there is no more chance to gain access to the public trough, and the NDP will have to slide back pretty badly (perhaps in a scenario similar to what Edward suggests) before they can settle their differences and strike a merger deal. I still think long term a Socialist Alliance Party will rise from the various bits and pieces of the left wing parties, but how well such a party will do against the rising demographic, political and economic power of New Canada (the West + Ontario) is a very open question.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is part of the NDP's internal dilemma - nearly 60% of the NDP's parliamentary strength is in Québec but the Québec delegation (which will help elect the new leader) has only 2% of the votes in the leadership race. It has ABM (Anybody But Mulcaire) written all over it:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndps-quebec-wing-urges-delayed-leadership-convention/article2149384/


> NDP’s Quebec wing urges delayed leadership convention
> 
> DANIEL LEBLANC
> OTTAWA— From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> ...




So the saintly NDP is not above backroom political manoeuvring after all. _Quelle surprise!_ And _Saint Jack_ set this ABM movement in notion in the now nearly sacred death bed letter wherein he called for an early leadership convention ~ one that punishes Québec for giving him the keys to Stornoway. Class act, Jack.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2011)

As a dyed in the wool Conservative (since 1966, anyway) I really hope the _Grits_ are remain as stupid as they have been since about 2005. If they do stay stupid then they will ignore this excellent advice, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, proffered by Antonia Maioni of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/grits-be-bold-or-get-lost/article2149382/ 


> Grits: Be bold, or get lost
> 
> ANTONIA MAIONI
> 
> ...



This advice apples equally well to Conservatives and _Dippers_, too. The Tories appear to have overcome the “white knight syndrome,” but we shall see when, eventually, Harper retires. Policy does matter and Prof. Maioni has hit two good areas for all parties:

1. The eventual, necessary _reform_ of health care; and

2. Foreign (and defence) policy.

I can see three distinct, separate areas for each party on both issues but, in my opinion, none of the three has a coherent, sensible plan in either – or most other areas. A combination of retail politics and _image_ politics has overtaken all three Canadian _national_ parties.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2011)

Here, CAW chief Lewenza urges NDP to consider merger with Liberals, is the only sane reason for a Liberal/NDP merger: special, vested interests do not have access to the levers of power so long as the Conservatives form the government. Those special interests have no interest in the parties involved, only in whether or not they have "friends in court" in Ottawa.

Some (not all, by any means) Liberal and NDP members are _clients_ of some of those special interests - especially of big labour. (But others, in all parties, are also _clients_ of other special interests like "big pharma.")

I'm still with Ibbittson: the political DNA is too different and it will be like breeding lions and lambs; they _might_ lie down together - but nothing more is possible.

Ken Lewenza is right to want a merger. Neither the Liberals nor the NDP can gain power any time soon and his constituency, Big Labour, is, therefore, shut out of the corridors of power. A Liberal/NDP coalition _might_ have a chance at power - a chance is better than no chance, so a merger suits him.

In a way it also suits old, blue blooded Tories like me ~ the result of the union* would be a monster that would soon consume itself, destroying both old parties and sending the _progressive left_ in Canada out into the political wilderness for a generation.


_________
* Inter species unions only work in folk songs - Lawenza wants a "talking fish" but he's fishing for a Kraken.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Sep 2011)

I know Ken Lewenza personally and he is only out for one thing.

Himself.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2011)

The gloves are coming off in the NDP leadership race according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-firebrand-toots-his-own-horn/article2152741/


> NDP firebrand toots his own horn
> 
> DANIEL LEBLANC
> OTTAWA— From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> ...




I guess it will be obligatory, for a year or so, to give _Saint Jack_ credit for everything, even making the tide come in ... but Mulcair can, fairly safely, snipe at Topp and the NDP _officials_ who want a January leadership race that, procedurally, would be dominated by the party establishment that represents pretty much every vested, special interest except Québec.

My guess is that Mulcair wins this one and the leadership convention is in the spring.


----------



## Old Sweat (3 Sep 2011)

I think Muclair is willing to play full contact hocket without helmets, and if he really has a following in the Quebec caucus - which is by no means clear - he could splinter the party before Jack is barely in the cold, cold ground. This may be the lone, remaining political situation where Quebec still has real influence.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Sep 2011)

The "night of the long knives" is yet to pass for the NDP. Just the same, I hear the sharpening stones ringing. This issue with Quebec is going to be interesting indeed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2011)

And, as if the _Dippers_ don't have enough trouble, the Tories are making more according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Tories+accuse+violating+Elections/5352634/story.html


> Conservatives accuse NDP of violating Elections Act
> 
> By Carmen Chai, Postmedia News
> 
> ...




Running conventions is a costly endeavour; big conference centres and all that food and drink cost real money. My guess, but it is an educated guess because, in my second career, I had to run several conferences and symposia, is that running a pretty good conference - without sponsors - means each delegate must pay *about* $350 - $500 per day.

I have no idea about the laws and regulations regarding political party funding but I'm guessing that it might not be too hard for convention organizers to run afoul of the political donation regulations. the NDP might be in a bit of trouble; part of their reputation involves being squeaky clean.


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Sep 2011)

Interesting. The NDP and its union movement integration likely constitutes a good topic for another thread. 
Can you imagine the hysteria that would erupt if oilsands companies from Alberta paid for food, drink and costs of a convention for the Conservatives and then were also granted up to X% of the vote to pick a leader of the CPC?


----------



## canada94 (4 Sep 2011)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Interesting. The NDP and its union movement integration likely constitutes a good topic for another thread.
> Can you imagine the hysteria that would erupt if oilsands companies from Alberta paid for food, drink and costs of a convention for the Conservatives and then were also granted up to X% of the vote to pick a leader of the CPC?



I could only imagine what the state broadcaster would have to say about that..


----------



## AJFitzpatrick (4 Sep 2011)

Any idea if 'contributions' as defined by the Election Act covers 'goods-in-kind' or volunteered services ?


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Sep 2011)

It seems to me from what I know have worked on several federal campaigns that only individuals are allowed to contribute and then, only within strictly proscribed limits. Two campaigns ago I was with our CPC candidate when we went into a local establishment for lunch. The owner tried to pick up the tab and he politely informed him that this was not allowed.

I would suspect that any donation of cash, goods or services for a convention would fall within the $1100.00 annual individual contribtution limit, unless there is some way to get around the intent of the law by donating/providing the same to the organization such as a hotel or convention centre that is hosting the event. That seems really dodgy to me, but the ability of people to create loopholes is truly amazing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2011)

And things spill out into the open, according to this article,  reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-solidarity-cracks-over-role-of-unions-in-picking-leader/article2153405/


> NDP solidarity cracks over role of unions in picking leader
> 
> DANIEL LEBLANC
> Ottawa— From Monday's Globe and Mail
> ...




The relationship with Big Labour was troublesome when the CCF (J.S. Woodworth, Tommy Douglas, M.J. Caldwell and all those folks) merged with the Canadian Labour Congress (David Lewis _et al_) to for the NDP. In the main the 'working class' votes with its wallets ~ and, therefore formerly good labour ridings like Whitby-Oshawa now elect Tories like Jim Flaherty. But Topp is Big Labour's man and Mulcair _might_ have the caucus - and the media.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Sep 2011)

> ...working people and their labour movement...



This contention that only those who belong to unions are "working people" is repellant. I work damned hard, and I don't belong to a union. Don't tell me I'm not "working people"!


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> This contention that only those who belong to unions are "working people" is repellant. I work damned hard, and I don't belong to a union. Don't tell me I'm not "working people"!



In the 1950s and into the '60s (at least) Big Labour could deliver as many as six or eight seats - back when parliament only had 200+. The CLC was a political force with which to recon; unions were big and powerful. A lot has changed in 50 years.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Sep 2011)

Elections Canada is investigating the NDP? Will they relentlessly persue this the same way they have gone after Liberal leadership hopefulls who still have tens of thousands of dollars worth of illegal contributions dating back to 2006?


----------



## mariomike (4 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The CLC was a political force with which to recon; unions were big and powerful. A lot has changed in 50 years.



Not sure if it was posted here. But, for what it is worth regarding those changes:
The Globe and Mail (  July 18, 2011 ) reports a "... a precipitous drop in Canadian private-sector unionization rates, down to 16 per cent. In contrast, public-sector unionization rates have grown steadily to 71 per cent."

From the same article, regarding the power of "government unions":
"Taxpayer-financed monopoly status has empowered government unions to extract ever more extravagant wages, benefits and even “no contracting out” clauses that block competition. Strike-fearing governments have repeatedly capitulated to these demands."


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2011)

The NDP leadership contest is germane, maybe crucial, to the 2015 election ~ the NDP leader may well shape Canadians' choice for second place.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, is more on the _internal_ politics of _Saint Jack's_ party:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/09/05/don-macpherson-ndp-leadership-drama-is-worthy-of-shakespeare/


> NDP leadership drama is worthy of Shakespeare
> 
> _Postmedia News_
> 
> ...




It needs to be remembered that Jack Layton herded the NDP cats towards the political centre - thereby making them more and more acceptable to more and more Canadians. Simultaneously, he, himself, made his party into an acceptable alternative to Gilles Duceppe and the BQ for left wing _nationalists_ in Québec and he was able to expand the breach Mulcair had made earlier.

Mulcair appears, to me, to be of a similar political _centre_ as Lyton was - or appeared to be, but ever since Milcair arrived there have been rumours about his ambitions and Layton's distaste for the man and his ambitions - think Chrétien/Martin.

Whoever started this very _public_ display of the _Dippers'_ dirty laundry has done the party a disservice; sooner, rather than later, Canadians will see that the NDP is just a party, _comme les autres_, more interested in politics than in principles.


----------



## GAP (6 Sep 2011)

And the CBC is keeping all it's options open, starting with a syrupy interview with Olivia.....she tearfully disclaimed any interest other than present grief, but the whole interview had that feeling of "more to come"....


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_ is Lawrence Martin's take on it:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lawrence-martin/firebrand-mulcair-is-the-best-bet-to-take-on-harper/article2152485/


> Firebrand Mulcair is the best bet to take on Harper
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...




Now, Lawrence Martin, as we all know, is quite Churchillian in that he would find something nice to say about the devil if he thought it might help defeat Hitler Harper (Martin gets the two confused). But in this case I agree with him. I have faith in the Liberals' ability to pick the wrong leader:






Denis Coderre

I also have confidence in Québec's ability to remain in a political cloud cookoo land and void its votes.

That means, I think, that only the NDP has even a remote chance of beatuing Harper - not likely in 2015 but, if they get an effective leader, maybe in 2019.


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_ is Lawrence Martin's take on it:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lawrence-martin/firebrand-mulcair-is-the-best-bet-to-take-on-harper/article2152485/
> 
> Now, Lawrence Martin, as we all know, is quite Churchillian in that he would find something nice to say about the devil if he thought it might help defeat Hitler Harper (Martin gets the two confused). But in this case I agree with him. I have faith in the Liberals' ability to pick the wrong leader:



Your assessment of Mr Martin is spot on. 
Denis Coderre and Thomas Muclair could be the best things to happen to the Conservatives in a long time.




> I also have confidence in Québec's ability to remain in a political cloud cookoo land and void its votes.




WRT Quebec, it will matter less and less as seat redistribution takes effect. 




> That means, I think, that only the NDP has even a remote chance of beating Harper - not likely in 2015 but, if they get an effective leader, maybe in 2019.



I don't know that Mr Harper will run in 2019, but neither do I think the NDP has a shot at forming the government by then. It will be many, many years before the NDP is ready for prime-time.


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Sep 2011)

After the Obama socialist dictator mess in the USA, who would vote NDP? 

You could also add McDinky to that as a Lieliberal.


----------



## Journeyman (6 Sep 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> After the Obama socialist dictator mess in the USA, who would vote NDP?


Most likely the same ones who believe that any problems Obama and the US economy face are completely the responsibility of the right-wing, obstructionist Congress....for the same blindly ideological reason they believe that everything wrong with this country is because of the evil right-wing Conservatives.

You imply that voters actually research and think through options before voting, rather than merely stumbling from cliche, to diatribe, to the discourse of "oh,....oh ya?!."

[/cynicism]


----------



## GAP (6 Sep 2011)

oh,....oh ya?!


----------



## RangerRay (6 Sep 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> After the Obama socialist dictator mess in the USA, who would vote NDP?



The common thing that I hear from most *non-political* people is that Obama is hobbled by cleaning up Dubya's mess.  They haven't tied the current problems in the US to the Obama Administration.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Sep 2011)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> The common thing that I hear from most *non-political* people is that Obama is hobbled by cleaning up Dubya's mess.  They haven't tied the current problems in the US to the Obama Administration.



I'm Stateside quite often and I find quite the opposite. Bush hardly rates mention anymore. He's almost relegated to a footnote. Most don't perceive of him as having left a mess.

When politics, or just the general state of the country, state, city, housing, jobs, things in general, etc, gets mentioned, almost invariably the first words spoken are "That f***ing Obama".

His 'jesus' status has definitely worn off over there.


----------



## RangerRay (6 Sep 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm Stateside quite often and I find quite the opposite. Bush hardly rates mention anymore. He's almost relegated to a footnote. Most don't perceive of him as having left a mess.
> 
> When politics, or just the general state of the country, state, city, housing, jobs, things in general, etc, gets mentioned, almost invariably the first words spoken are "That f***ing Obama".
> 
> His 'jesus' status has definitely worn off over there.



Sorry, I should have clarified that I talked to non-political *Canadians*.  They still think it's all Dubya's fault, and that Obama walks on water and $%!ts daisies.  :facepalm:


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Sep 2011)

Its the media stupid! 

Some of the TV commentators even have dribbles down their legs ( let alone the corner of their mouths) at the mere thought of Obama. Some get regular invites to Dinners at the White House.

Last winter in Texas there were lots of bumper stickers consisting of a photo of Pres Bush with the caption: "Do You Miss Me Yet!"


----------



## a_majoor (6 Sep 2011)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> Sorry, I should have clarified that I talked to non-political *Canadians*.  They still think it's all Dubya's fault, and that Obama walks on water and $%!ts daisies.  :facepalm:



I'll keep that in mind in 2012 when I vote..... 

I'm sure people in Canada, Micronesia and Middle Earth may still believe that everything can be blamed on [insert name here], but from any practical perspective, the only thing that matters is what American voters believe.


----------



## RangerRay (6 Sep 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'll keep that in mind in 2012 when I vote.....
> 
> I'm sure people in Canada, Micronesia and Middle Earth may still believe that everything can be blamed on [insert name here], but from any practical perspective, the only thing that matters is what American voters believe.



Unfortunately, most *un-interested Canadians* are not exposed to knowledge that many Americans are exposed to, so feel that Obama's NDP-lite policies are not to blame for their current situation.  They still believe what the Canadian MSM tells them, that it was rampant un-regulated capitalism that caused the crash, and their inability to climb out of the Obama-hole.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2011)

And Jean Chrétien enters the lists, in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberal-ndp-merger-could-come-very-quickly-chrtien-predicts/article2155542/


> Liberal-NDP merger could 'come very quickly,’ Chrétien predicts
> 
> BILL CURRY
> Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update
> ...




While I would be loathe to question _'tit Jean's_ political judgement, and while I note that he has talked out of both sides of his mouth (_comme d'habitude_) by saying _"it will come very quickly or"_  [it will] _"not happen"_ [at all], I do dispute his assertion that a merger would have changed the results of the last election. My take is that Canadians will accept a merger IF it is done well before and election - as a matter of principle (such as those ever exist in Canadian politics), but they would have punished such a merged party if they concluded the merger was just to win the forthcoming election.


----------



## GAP (7 Sep 2011)

They had better frame their ideology pretty quickly then, if they do merge....honestly, I have difficulty reconciling the two together and coming up with a logical mandate.....other than getting elected....


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2011)

IF they merge we will, in my opinion, end up with three new parties:

Left wing rump of the NDP - cannot abide Liberals  ---  New Merged Party - more centrist than left  ---  Right wing rump of the Liberals - cannot abide _Dippers_

Eventually the Left wing rump will grow and prosper, so will the New Merged Party, but they will continue to split the "left," to the Conservatives' advantage; the  Right wing rump will join the real Conservatives, leaving three 'national' parties, as we have now, plus the Greens plus, in my _guesstimation_ two Québec _nationalist_ parties.

Bring it on!


----------



## a_majoor (7 Sep 2011)

I am reading 4 parties in the future:

CPC
Socialist Alliance Party (Liberal-NDP Merger)
Greens (too far removed from the mainstream to incorporate or be incorporated into the other parties: the "new" NDP for this era)
Quebec Nationalist Party (limited and declining value nationally, but a never ending protest vote from Quebec. Tactically aligned with the Socialist Alliance Party)

Now the Socialist Alliance Party and Quebec Nationalist Party might not have these names, but for now this will act as a useful marker for discussion.

Incidentally, there are at least 19 registered parties Federally, although I think they most are fighting over @ 2%-5% of the electorate. This might become significant is any form of PR voting is enacted in the future.


----------



## RangerRay (7 Sep 2011)

Further to what I was talking about earlier, here is something from today's Globe and Mail that reflect Canadians' attitudes to Obama.  This backs up what I'm hearing from non-political Canadians, even ones who voted Conservative.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/america-as-a-trading-partner-yes-economic-model-no/article2155332/



> Canadians do not blame Barack Obama for his country’s problems. In the Globe/Nanos survey, an overwhelming majority of Canadians believe he is doing the “best job possible.” Inferentially, they’re saying the U.S. political system is a mess – which, of course, it is, although he isn’t responsible.


  :facepalm:

If Canadians do not equate Obama's policies to economic meltdown, they will not equate Liberal/NDP policies to meltdown.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2011)

And the knives are out in the Liberal Party of Canada too, according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/seeking-liberal-presidency-sheila-copps-vows-to-fight-merger/article2156921/


> Seeking Liberal presidency, Sheila Copps vows to fight merger
> 
> Montreal— The Canadian Press
> 
> ...




I think, I actually hope that both the LPC and NDP will have _principled_ discussions about a merger: pro and con. It will help both parties, and all Canadians, to examine and profess their core values and to expose their _political DNA_ to public scrutiny.

I'm guessing that both parties will, over the next few years, lose members, maybe even including sitting MPs, to the others.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think, I actually hope that both the LPC and NDP will have _principled_ discussions about a merger: pro and con. It will help both parties, and all Canadians, to examine and profess their core values and to expose their _political DNA_ to public scrutiny.



Except that thus far neither party has been particularly pubic with their political DNA. What makes you think they'll involve the public in any navel gazing exercise?


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2011)

But NDP insider Jamey Heath makes a cogent case *for* the merge in another article in the _Globe and Mail_. He notes, for starters, that the _"interim Liberal leader is a former New Democrat"_ and a _"leading contender for the NDP leadership is a former Liberal,"_ which is both true and too cute by half. Heath disputes the "different species" argument proposed by many opponents and neutral observers. He notes than, in a merged party, _"John Manley, say, probably wouldn’t enjoy joint caucus meetings. But Sheila Copps probably would,"_ and he goes on to suggest that is _"Mr. Manley or other rightward Liberals find co-operation unpalatable, they should do us all a favour and join the Tories to rebuild their left flank."_

It should be an interesting debate.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Except that thus far neither party has been particularly pubic with their political DNA. What makes you think they'll involve the public in any navel gazing exercise?




I doubt either party will be able, even with a generally lazy compliant media, to keep it all under wraps. The advocates will have to conscript the media to reach their own members and supporters.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Sep 2011)

I'll repeat my earlier guess: the leftward portion of the Liberals will join the NDP and the resulting party will drift left, the rightward portion of the Liberals will join the CPC and it will gravitate to the centre, and eventually the rightmost portion of the CPC will break off over disagreement with the centrists.  We will be back to 3 parties: one firmly left, one left centre/centre, and one centre/centre right.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, is some good stuff and a persistent LIE that the Liberals and NDP continue to tell:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/merger+agenda+Topp+says/5367840/story.html


> NDP merger not on the agenda, Topp says
> 
> Tobi Cohen, Postmedia News
> 
> ...




The "good stuff" is that, of course, _"a coalition remains a "perfectly legitimate" option."_ That's 100% true.

The lie then follows, in Topp's own words: _"If Canadians elect a minority Parliament, in which there's a progressive and centrist majority that finds a way to work together, then we should [work together] because that's what the majority of the public have elected ..."_

That's arrant nonsense and it is a lie, but it is a lie that the anti-Harper folks love to tell. The "majority of the public" did not, in e.g. 2006 or 2008, elect a "progressive and centrist majority." A plurality of the public voted for the Conservatives, smaller groups voted for an array of parties other than the Conservatives but none, not one single Canadian voted for a "progressive and centrist majority" or anything else, except for _n_ MPs from four different parties (plus an Independent or two).

Now Brian Topp, like most "progressive and centrist" commentators, is a smart guy; because he's a smart guy he must know that what he's spouting is incorrect. People who, knowingly, spout incorrect information are liars ... Topp is in 'good,' ""progressive and centrist" company, many of them lie with practiced ease.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2011)

One thing you gotta love is the eternal, albeit clueless, optimism of the loony left. Here,  reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, is a column by a charter member of that group:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/solution/5374463/story.html


> The Rae solution
> 
> By Susan Riley, Ottawa Citizen
> 
> ...




Well, as Alexander Pope said: _"Hope springs eternal in the human breast,"_ even for the loony left. But: could it happen? Yes, Rae, I'm guessing, salivates or wet dreams (pick your desired image) at the idea. I wouldn't be surprised if the Rae machine didn't plant the idea ~ it seems at little 'advanced' for Riley.


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Sep 2011)

Bob Rae as leader of any merged left wing party will likely guarantee the Torries all remaining seats in Ontario. There's still considerable anger about his last time at the helm that it's unlikely voters there will give him another chance.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Sep 2011)

There's a much more significacnt leadership issue in Canadian federal politics:  How long will Stephen Harper hang on?

He runs a tight ship, and though there is minor background activity going on, there are no open challengers.  But when will he hang up his hat, and what will that mean to the party?  There are still strong Reform/ Progressive Conservative rifts that a leadership contest could worsen.  Similarly, I'm at a bit of a loss to identify the last successful leadership transition in federal politics for an incumbent government.  Trudeau to Turner?  Mulroney to Campbell?  Chretien to Martin?

All to say that while the Grits and Dippers have leadership woes, the Tories are not immune to the same, and need to start thinking on their longer term succession plan.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The gloves are coming off in the NDP leadership race according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-firebrand-toots-his-own-horn/article2152741/
> 
> ...




It looks like I guessed wrong. The media tells us that the NDP leadership convention will be held on 24 Mar 12 in Toronto. That's in the spring, but just barely; Mulcair _et al_ wanted late April, May or even June - to give them adequate time to sell many tens of thousands of memberships in Québec and, thereby, have more delegate votes at the convention.

At a guess: Québec sees this as yet another _humiliation_ and it strengthens the _nationalist_ hand and, therefore, weakens the _Dippers_ - holy shot in the foot, Batman. (Mind you, the Québec _nationalists_ are in such dire straits that a nice sunny day would strengthen their hand.)


----------



## a_majoor (17 Sep 2011)

More on the NDP leadership race:

http://www.atory01.com/blog/2011/9/16/the-ndp-and-the-stephane-dion-factor.html



> *The NDP and the Stephane Dion Factor*
> DateFriday, September 16, 2011 at 11:13AM
> 
> It seems that every day we are treated to another relatively unknown NDP MP declaring that they are thinking about running for the NDP leadership position.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Sep 2011)

So how low can the Liberals go?

http://stevejanke.com/archives/321872.php



> *The flip side of the Orange Crush*
> Monday, September 26, 2011 at 06:29 PM
> Comments: 2
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Sep 2011)

Shaping the ground:

http://www.ottawasun.com/2011/09/27/blue-vs-orange-get-used-to-it



> *Blue vs. Orange: Get used to it*
> 
> david-akin
> By David Akin ,Parliamentary Bureau Chief
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (9 Oct 2011)

This is also applied in the Ontario election, with the Public Service Unions fronting various pro Liberal election ads as well:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Unions+spent+plus+federal+election/5524199/story.html



> *Unions spent $400,000-plus on federal election ads*
> 
> By Glen McGregor, The Ottawa Citizen October 8, 2011
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2011)

The issue of how many seats will be contested in 2015 may still be in doubt according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/quebec-fears-delay-plan-to-add-seats-in-commons-for-ontario-alberta-bc/article2200754/


> Quebec fears delay plan to add seats in Commons for Ontario, Alberta, B.C.
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> OTTAWA— From Friday's Globe and Mail
> ...




Knowing, with about 99% certainty, that Ibbitson is a strong advocate for new seats and that he regularly uses his 'reports' as columns, it might be that the Conservative dithering is not as bad as he projects but there should be no doubt that Québec vehemently opposes an enlarged parliament. We will face this for decades, unless and until a government makes (at least proposes) a _major_ redistribution - an example of which I gave here - a model that gives Québec new seats, too.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Oct 2011)

If the price of getting the redistribution done, while salving Quebec's honour, is additional MPs then I believe the bargain to be fair.

MPs may be pricey, and some may be undesirable, but it is hard to argue against better representation in a democracy.

Fewer electors per representative SHOULD equate to greater ease in "Petitioning the King".


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Oct 2011)

> Fears of a Quebec backlash have delayed the Harper government’s plan to give the growing parts of Canada a larger share of seats in the House of Commons.


Fears of the huge ROC backlash has expedited  the Harper government’s plan to give the growing parts of Canada a larger share of seats in the House of Commons.

Quebec, Quebec, Quebec.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Oct 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Fears of the huge ROC backlash has expedited  the Harper government’s plan to give the growing parts of Canada a larger share of seats in the House of Commons.
> 
> Quebec, Quebec, Quebec.



I don't like my buggered up knees either.  But..... adjust, adapt, accomodate and keep moving forward.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Oct 2011)

Frankly, Quebec voters rejected the current governing party and are fighting a rearguard action against the growing demographic, economic and political power of Western Canada. Elections do have consequences.

Of course Prime Minister Harper will also consider more seats in the West means more freedom of action for the GoC, as there is less and less ability for Quebec to take the ROC hostage.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Oct 2011)

I too would prefer to see realignment within an overall ceiling of 308 rather than additional MPs - or rather, realignment under an overall ceiling of 301 after the necessary carveouts for the territories and PEI (do I have that number right)?.   Regardless, if Quebec's share of population warrants an increased share of MPs under a static head count or an increased one, then it must be granted those MPs.

>The NDP, which achieved a breakthrough there in the election, and many Quebec politicians vehemently oppose the plan.

But this is just bullsh!t.  The NDP has formally abdicated any right to claim it is "democratic" if it is unwilling to support any plan which at least partially addresses the current imbalance.  Parliament is supposed to be a "rep by pop" democratic institution, and it is the institution at the heart of everything that falls under the umbrella of the word "democratic".


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Oct 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ......
> 
> >The NDP, which achieved a breakthrough there in the election, and many Quebec politicians vehemently oppose the plan.
> 
> But this is just bullsh!t.  The NDP has formally abdicated any right to claim it is "democratic" if it is unwilling to support any plan which at least partially addresses the current imbalance.  Parliament is supposed to be a "rep by pop" democratic institution, and it is the institution at the heart of everything that falls under the umbrella of the word "democratic".



As noted by others, and yourself I believe, we have a perfectly feasible institution in place where "rep by pop (mob rule)" can be balanced by Community Rights.  It is known as the Senate.

If Quebec wants its Community Rights guaranteed then all it has to do is agree to making the Senate more effective by improving its legitimacy (mechanism to be determined - perhaps all that is necessary is of all the Provinces to assert the legitimacy of the Senate in its current form.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The issue of how many seats will be contested in 2015 may still be in doubt according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/quebec-fears-delay-plan-to-add-seats-in-commons-for-ontario-alberta-bc/article2200754/
> 
> Knowing, with about 99% certainty, that Ibbitson is a strong advocate for new seats and that he regularly uses his 'reports' as columns, it might be that the Conservative dithering is not as bad as he projects but there should be no doubt that Québec vehemently opposes an enlarged parliament. We will face this for decades, unless and until a government makes (at least proposes) a _major_ redistribution - an example of which I gave here - a model that gives Québec new seats, too.




But, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, Prime Minister Harper says he is going ahead with expanding the HoC:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Tories+balance+seating/5554280/story.html


> Tories vow to balance seating
> *Bill would add 18 Ontario seats, 7 more in B.C. and 5 in Alberta*
> 
> By Mark Kennedy And Marianne White, Postmedia News
> ...




Maybe John Ibbitson of the _Good Grey Globe_ achieved his own aim and flushed the PM from the bushes.

IF the PM wants to add more seats in QC he probably has to add many more than 18+7+5 - maybe something like 25+10+7+5 which would give us a HoC of 355 seats, 80 (23%) being from QC.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2011)

And still more, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, on redistribution _plans_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-pare-back-increases-in-commons-seats-for-ontario-bc/article2205121/


> Tories pare back increases in Commons seats for Ontario, B.C.
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON, KAREN HOWLETT AND DANIEL LEBLANC
> Ottawa and Toronto— Globe and Mail Update
> ...




I think we need to wait and see. This _plan_, if that's what it is, based mainly (exclusively) on keeping QC at 23%, gives us +13 (ON) +6 (AB) +5 (BC) +2  (QC) = 26 new seats. It's better than now but not good enough.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And still more, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, on redistribution _plans_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-pare-back-increases-in-commons-seats-for-ontario-bc/article2205121/
> 
> I think we need to wait and see. This _plan_, if that's what it is, based mainly (exclusively) on keeping QC at 23%, gives us +13 (ON) +6 (AB) +5 (BC) +2  (QC) = 26 new seats. It's better than now but not good enough.



Progress of any sort is better than status quo, as it establishes precedent for future changes.  Waiting for perfect results in lost opportunities - and often results in no change at all - and further reinforcement of the status quo, making future change even more problematic.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2011)

While it is a pretty solid bet the NDP will have shot itself in the foot by 2015 (perhaps multiple times), this demonstrates the Liberals still won't be contenders, and it is my thought they will eventually go the way of the Unionist, Whig, and Progressive parties:

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/1074341--john-turner-still-fighting-for-the-liberals



> *John Turner still fighting for the Liberals*
> Published On Fri Oct 21 2011Email Print
> Rss
> Article
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2011)

> Turner still burns with frustration over how MPs have allowed themselves to be steamrollered by centralizing PMOs and party machines. Elusive Destiny charts how Turner, back in 1963, was eager to speak out in favour of greater independence for MPs, giving a speech at the McGill Liberal club titled “Is Democracy Behind Closed Doors.”
> 
> “We were far better in the 1960s than we are now, but I saw the warning signs,” Turner said in his interview this week. “And I’ve been expanding on it ever since.”
> 
> ...




I actually agree with John "Chick" Turner:

1. The _centralization_ of power in the PMO and in the PCO is a problem; I'm not sure about democracy but we do have "Government Behind Closed Doors;"

2. Both democracy and government were, in my opinion "healthier" in the 1960s; and

3. The Liberal Party can, and I am fairly certain, will be rebuilt but it must be, a Turner suggests, "a massive task" and one that must be done "from the bottom up."

For a start the Liberal;s must stop looking for saviors - both 'leader/saviors' and 'savior policies.' They need to pick a good, solid parliamentary leader* and a top flight party leader. If I were the Liberal brain trust then Dominic Leblanc would be my choice for parliamentary leader.






Dominic LeBlanc
Beauséjour, NB. In the HoC since 2000; prior to entering a lawyer (UNB & Harvard) in NB; fluently bilingual.

If I were the party leader I would start with several local and regional Party conferences where MPs and party _insiders_ would listen to local Liberals and, at least as important, listen to people who used to vote Liberal. I would not attempt a _national_ conference until early 2015 - and I would not allow it to become a leadership convention.

If I were the Liberal Party I would cede the loony left to the NDP; in fact I would push the far left edge of my own left wing out of the party. I would aim for the _mushy middle_, the people Stephen Harper is in the processing of converting into Conservatives. I would preach fiscal prudence and a social conscience. My model Liberal would be:





Louis St Laurent: A man of sterling honesty and superior intellect.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2011)

Further, if I was the Liberal brain trust, I would mount a two phase attack on Canadian political power:

The Phase 1 objective is _Stornoway_ - the official residence of the Leader of the Opposition. The Liberals need to return to being the official opposition party by 2015. By all means campaign to become the government, but focus on beating the NDP. 





Stronoway: residence of the Opposition Leader and the the Liberals main target in 2015

The Phase 2 objective is 24 Sussex Drive and the PM's office. The goal is to secure Phase 2 in 2019, by which time Canadians will, likely, be tired of the Conservatives - even if they govern fairly well for the next eight years.





24 Sussex Drive: residence of the Prime Minister of Canada and the Liberal's final, 2019, objective.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Oct 2011)

Cool.  How long has Stornaway had that half-pipe?


----------



## GAP (22 Oct 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Cool.  How long has Stornaway had that half-pipe?



Steven took up skateboarding when he was opposition leader.......


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Oct 2011)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealin provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is art of the challenge for both the Liberals and the NDP:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/the-common-thread-in-ottawas-moves-this-week-they-all-point-west/article2210004/


> The common thread in Ottawa's moves this week? They all point West
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON | Columnist profile | E-mail
> Ottawa— From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> ...




Assuming that there will be 26 new seats in the House of Commons ( +13 (ON) +6 (AB) +5 (BC) +2  (QC) ) then the distribution of seats will be:

1. _Old Canada_ (East of the Ottawa River):   109

2. _New Canada_ (West of the Ottawa River): 225

3. TOTAL:                                                    334

This is the new reality. A majority can be had with 168 seats; that's _only_ a tiny bit less than 75% of the seats in _New Canada_ alone. Diefenbaker took nearly 79% of the seats in 1958 and Mulroney took 74.8% in 1984 so such victories are not unknown. Political parties that want to gain or hold power *must*[, above all else appeal to Canadians _West_ of the Ottawa River.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2011)

Will Rona Ambrose and Lisa Raitt play more important roles as we approach 2015 in an effort to strengthen the Conservative's share of the female vote?

Maybe so, according to this article reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ambrose-and-raitt-deftly-manage-difficult-files-for-harper/article2211267/


> Ambrose and Raitt deftly manage difficult files for Harper
> 
> JANE TABER
> OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
> ...




Last female Foreign Minister: *Barbara McDougall* (Conservative, 1991-93), preceded by Flora MacDonald (Conservative, 1979-80);

Last female Minister of National Defence: *Kim Campbell* (Conservative, 1993)

Last female Minister of Industry: *Judy Erola* (Liberal, 1983-84) but she was Minister of Consumer of Corporate Affairs, a portfolio with much less clout than the current Minister of Industry; and

Last female Finance Minister: _You're kidding, right? Has hell frozen over? Have the Leafs won the Cup?_


----------



## a_majoor (29 Oct 2011)

Looks like the Orange Crush was a one time only event. Based on this article, I am starting to miss Jack Layton already; he at least could keep the loons in line and deliver the death blow to the Liberals. OTOH, having the left fractionalized between the LPC, NDP and Greens (who will be a vote splitting spoiler for a long time to come) will allow the CPC to continue to dominate the center and move Canadian politics to the right over the next decade or two...

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/returns+roots/5626472/story.html



> *The NDP returns to its roots*
> 
> National Post · Oct. 29, 2011 | Last Updated: Oct. 29, 2011 4:08 AM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## RangerRay (29 Oct 2011)

Damn.  Looks like the Liberal Party will live.

The NDP never miss a chance to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Oct 2011)

Everything I need to know about the NDP I learned from reading Asterix comix.  "These Romans are crazy.  (Toc, toc, toc.)"


----------



## a_majoor (5 Nov 2011)

Driving more nails in the Liberal coffin. How many Liberal party leadersip candidates from the 2006 race still owe monies from "loans" (which are now illegal campaign contributions by _existing_ electoral laws, except that Elections Canada never seems to get around to enforcing these laws):

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/11/03/harper-finds-another-way-to-drive-the-liberals-nuts/



> *Harper finds another way to drive the Liberals nuts*
> 
> Kelly McParland  Nov 3, 2011 – 11:58 AM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2011)

The only thing that bothers me slightly about the "loan ban" proposal is that individual should be able to use their own money for their own purposes. That means that if, say, my younger son runs for political office he (and I) ought to be able to spend his (and my) money - provided it is not cast as a loan. But if he ran and had, say, $200,000 in debts he should be able to cash in his savings, even his RRSPs or whatever, and I should be able to give him a gift (not a loan) to help him retire that debt. It is our money and so long as the purposes for which we decide to use it are legal - and campaigning for public office is a legal, proper and even honourable thing - then the government ought not to be able to tell us what to do with our own money. But I could still claim, for tax rebate, *only* the allowed $1,100 (rising to $1,200 in 2012).


----------



## a_majoor (5 Nov 2011)

Spending you own money should not be penalized and indeed it is possible to do so; when I ran for mayor in 2006 I was limited by election laws as to how much money I could raise from other people and even where I could raise money (I had to turn down lots of offers from friends and well meaning people because they did not live in nor own property in London), but could spend as much of my own money as I wished up to the campaign spending limit (@ $170,000 at the time, as I recall).

The issue here is "loans" from non institutional lenders put the candidate on the hook with obligations to the lender (which might be discharged in ways the voters and taxpayers might consider undue influence). Giving yourself a "loan" as opposed to straight spending or gifting cold also have negative consequences; you as an elected official might be looking for ways to quickly "pay off" the "loan" ( since you have depleted your own resources and might be feeling the pinch) and thus be susceptible to outside influence. There is another potential danger, I read a case of a US Congressman (from California, I believe) who "loaned" the money for the campaign from their own resources at a nominally high interest rate, then used campaign contributions to "pay back" the loan, including interest, thus enriching themselves directly at the expense of their constituent supporters. (I am looking for the specifics, and will report back when I find it).


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Nov 2011)

We need to applaud this gain in Liberal support, as reported under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/federal-liberals-gain-on-ndp-conservatives-poll-finds/article2251570/


> Federal Liberals gain on NDP, Conservatives, poll finds
> 
> KIM MACKRAEL
> OTTAWA— From Monday's Globe and Mail
> ...




There is a real danger that Canadians can get used to the idea that the NDP is a viable alternative government in waiting. *It is not.* The NDP is, institutionally, economically, socially and strategically irresponsible ~ the party is in the hands of _activists_ who are at least akin to the American _Tea Party_ in the rigor with which they hold their beliefs and the _extremity_ of those beliefs. Jack Layton was _sui generis_, better suited to being a provincial NDP leader (à la Gary Doer) than leader of the national party. Libby Davies is much more representative of the NDP's _centre_.

The Conservative are, it appears, to me governing from a position close to or just _right_ of the centre ~ where many Canadians are happy. The NDP painted themselves are a _centre left_ party earlier this year, but they are not; they are not even left of centre, they are a hard left political party with well established policies that would destroy our economy and our social fabric. The Conservatives cannot, in my opinion satisfy Canadians beyond 1919: we are going to have, probably in the 1919 general election, maybe not until 2020 if the Tories win a minority in 1919, another party in power; it needs to be the Liberals, _*not the NDP.*_


----------



## a_majoor (28 Nov 2011)

Robet Borden might be surprised to discover the NDP will contest his Prime Ministership. (The Winnipeg Strike obviously hurt his chances  )

Agree the NDP in its current form is in no way a viable "governing party"; they may have the organizational ability of the TEA Party movement but their platform is straight #occupy.

The problem is the Liberals are in no way a governing party either; they have yet to even attempt to shed the baggage of the past, find a viable platform or even work thier way from being squeezed out of the "center".

Perhaps the only way the CPC can remain viable in the 2010 election is for Stephen Harper to have gracefully retired from politics and a new leader (and perhaps a new front bench) taking charge and renewing the party.


----------



## RangerRay (28 Nov 2011)

But Peter C. Newman has written the obituary for the Liberal Party of Canada.  They have some serious organisational and ideological problems.  If this continues, I cannot see the Liberals being a government-in-waiting any more than the NDP.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Nov 2011)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> But Peter C. Newman has written the obituary for the Liberal Party of Canada.  They have some serious organisational and ideological problems.  If this continues, I cannot see the Liberals being a government-in-waiting any more than the NDP.



Twenty years ago the PC party was into its second majority mandate.  Today, they no longer exist.

Whether we see a Liberal, NDP or other centre-left party as a counterweight to the modern Conservative party by 2020 is irrelevant; such a creature will exist.  And all the pundits will, after the fact, talk about how obvious it was, and that anyone in 2011 who couldn't see it coming was blind.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Nov 2011)

This one raises several interesting questions:

1. Why are NDP members innumerate?
2. What did happen to all that money?
3. Why isn't anyone being held accountable for the expenditure?

http://surecures-remedy.blogspot.com/2011/11/ndp-math-for-beginners.html



> *NDP math for beginners!*
> 
> Much has been made over the NDP blasting the PM's handling of the first nations community of Attawapiskat. Some $90,000,000.00 has been spent on this community and that's just the amount since the Conservatives have been in office.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Dec 2011)

I recommend you take a look at this, John Ibbitson's analysis of the collapse of the _Laurentian consensus_ and what it means for 2015 and 2019 and beyond.

He's right that the old _pentagon_ of Toronto, Montreal, New York, London and Paris no longer matters as much as the new _pentagon_ of Hong Kong, Beijing, Tokyo, Vancouver and Toronto - yes, Toronto, which is fast becoming a _Pacific_ city thanks to immigration.

His analysis of Mead's _fear_ about *too much reason* is spot on - we are, *all*, indeed, a writhing mass of ideas ad values and experiences and prejudices and they all shape our politics.


Edit to add: and here is a _Globe and Mail_ article related to the presentation.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Dec 2011)

Perhaps some related grist for the mill:

GDP-BUSD 

China               10,000
EU                   15,000
Commonwealth 10,000
US                   15,000
Asian Tigers      10,000

Population-Billions

China                 1.3     
EU                     0.5
Commonwealth	2.1				
US                     0.3
Asian Tigers        1.0 (estimated)

Trade BUSD

Canada-US 500
Britain-EU  450

Canada-Britain   21
Australia-Britain 14
India-Britain      12			

India's GDP     - 4000 BUSD
Canada's GDP - 1500 BUSD			

As a salesman I would be looking for UNSATURATED Markets.

Going forward the 2.1 Billion, young, under-served, and under-equipped members of the Commonwealth (India principally) look to be a better bet than the saturated (and sated) markets of Europe and the US which (like John Knox) have "one foot in the grave".

China is an equivalent market but not as politically aligned with our values as the Commonwealth.  Nor is it as aligned with us as the Tigers (largely writ).  They may not be liberal but they are considerably more liberal and open than China and arguably at least as liberal and open as the EU.  Perhaps moreso.

We should appeal to the "decentralized" end of the market and live by the motto "your politics are your own".

We'll a' gang tae h*ll oor ain gait onyways.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Dec 2011)

How well the NDP follows this advice...

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=11968



> *Some New Year’s Advice For The New Democrats*
> 
> Well, seeing as how this coming Friday is the last sitting day for the House this year, I’d say 2011 is pretty much a write-off now, at least for the NDP. After all, they’re distracted by a leadership race, the substitutes on the front bench ain’t performing so hot, and the rest of the nation (well, at least those who really care about politics) are still keeping an eye on the caucus that’s a lot closer than what they’re comfortable with. So with this in mind, let me make a few suggestions as to how the New Democrats can improve their performance. Here we go:
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Dec 2011)

The Liberals are on the march towards 2015 using a good, well established tactic, fear mongering about the Conservative's _hidden agenda_© according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/abortion-gay-marriage-could-be-next-on-chopping-block-chrtien-warns/article2269178/


> Abortion, gay marriage could be next on chopping block, Chrétien warns
> 
> JANE TABER
> 
> ...




This is all "good stuff" and, as Jane Taber notes, the Liberals are just copycatting the Conservatives who are past masters at energizing their base. The problem, it seems to me, is that the Liberals do not have a "base," any more. They frittered it away during the Trudeau and Chrétien decades when they assumed they could stay in power forever by being all things to all people; campaigning on the left and governing on the right - as Laurier, King and St Laurent did - was one thing, but campaigning on the left and then governing all over the place (_Ubique_ as my gunner friends might say   ) was quite another. My guess is that Rae and Chrétien understand that their "base" didn't just stay home, it blew away - in all directions, and now they must re-form it by emphasizing tried and true Liberal shibboleths, including the fear that the Conservative barbarians are going to sweep away Medicare and reinstate public hangings or, at least, floggings for adultery and sodomy.

Actually, I wish the Liberals well; we need the Liberal Party of Canada to displace the NDP as the "government in waiting" for good, sound economic reasons. The _Dippers_ are the *real* barbarians who would slash and burn their way into the national poorhouse.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Dec 2011)

Pure tripe! There will be no repeal of abortion, or gay marriage. There will be no whole scale privatization of health care. Halloween has passed, put your goblins back in the attic!


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Dec 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Pure tripe! There will be no repeal of abortion, or gay marriage. There will be no whole scale privatization of health care. Halloween has passed, put your goblins back in the attic!




Of course it's tripe but it's tripe that an amazingly large minority, maybe even a slim majority of Canadians believe. Prime Minister Harper's Conservatives got a solid majority earlier this year with just 39.6% of the popular vote and I'm willing to bet that some of those Tory voters want capital punishment back and want abortion gone, and some others want Medicare at least partially further privatized, and some others voted Tory despite believing in the hidden agendaTM because they were more worried about the economy.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Dec 2011)

I too believe that at least a considerable fraction of Canadians will believe this bullsh!t. Many supposedly intelligent pundits and bloggers, and their loyal followers in comments and letters to editors, blackguard Conservatives (and conservatives) in terms that lead me to conclude that either the most vile descriptions have lost their meaning, or those people genuinely believe the political right is occupied by something barely human.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2011)

In 2015, the CPC may have to dust off the message of a famous conservative leader:

"Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

If the answer is clearly "yes", then all else follows.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Dec 2011)

> I too believe that at least a considerable fraction of Canadians will believe this bullsh!t.


  because it will be rammed down their throat at every opportunity by the lame and lazy, oops I mean the media.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Dec 2011)

Good news about new seats in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/adding-seats-to-house-of-commons-a-political-windfall-for-tories/article2271940/


> Adding seats to House of Commons a political windfall for Tories
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...




Roll on 2015!


----------



## Swingline1984 (15 Dec 2011)

Too early to judge if there will be any impact in the long term, but, NDP support in Quebec appears to be slacking off:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-in-free-fall-in-quebec-poll-finds/article2271529/


----------



## Journeyman (15 Dec 2011)

Swingline1984 said:
			
		

> Too early to judge if there will be any impact in the long term, but, NDP support in Quebec appears to be slacking off:



I suspect, given my belief that the average voter has the attention span of a gnat, that any recent change reflects media attention on the Bloc Québécois leadership race, rather than any serious thought on the matter by those surveyed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Dec 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> More on the 'merger,' reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/talk-all-you-want-but-liberal-and-ndp-pieces-just-wont-fit/article2147672/
> 
> ...





It's not even four months, but I'm updating my prediction based on:

1. A 338 seat House; and

2. My perception  that the NDP will falter in Québec.

Here is my new guess, for fall 2015, at end of year 2011:

Conservatives:                 177
Greens:                               3
Liberals:                            69
NDP:                                 61
New QC Nationalist Party:  21
Others:                               7
*TOTAL                            338*


----------



## a_majoor (15 Dec 2011)

So you don't see the Bob Rae/Power Corp gang going for the brass ring of the Liberal Party? The infighting in the LPC will probably prevent them from running any sort of effecive campaign (they don't even have any sort of identifiable "theme" right now besides "We're not them"), and I totally agree that the NDP will probably implode as well.

I'm actually willing to suggest the CPC will probably manage to gain more seats in traditional Liberal and NDP ridings simply by running up the middle (the CPC candidae for London North Center did so; she had the same % of the vote as the previous CPC candidate, what changed was the NDP vote rose enough to "eat the LPC vote [which had been enough to get a slim win in 2006]). IF the two parties are still in disarray by then (and bitter leadership battles could ensure this) then the real danger to us is the CPC becomes complacent and lazy, with poor government as a result.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Dec 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So you don't see the Bob Rae/Power Corp gang going for the brass ring



Here I thought that I was the only one that rings that bell ;D


----------



## a_majoor (16 Dec 2011)

This suggests that the BQ or any other "Quebec Nationalist" party will be able to gain many seats in 2015:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/12/15/national-post-editorial-board-yesterdays-bloc-quebecois/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter



> *National Post editorial board: Yesterday’s Bloc Québécois*
> National Post Editorial Board  Dec 15, 2011 – 4:42 PM ET
> 
> Marie-France Coallier/Postmedia News
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Dec 2011)

Perhaps the only reason this may not come to pass is people have now gotten a chance to see the "real" NDP in action, not the sanitized "Jack Layton" facade:

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=12140



> *Annus Impotenus Liberalis*
> 
> When reviewing a past year, entities can have an annus mirabilius (or a miraculous year), or an annus horribilus (a rotten year, a phrase made famous by the Royal Family). For the Liberal Party of Canada, 2011 has shaped up to be an annus impotenus – a year that reveals the entity’s impotence.
> 
> ...



Possible and maybe even feasible, but the prospect of an NDP government should give everyone a cold chill (I lived through Bob Rae's stint as Premier of Ontario, so I have first hand knowledge of the catastrophy). The Liberals may have too much "baggage" to reboot (and certainly too many of the old timers are still belly up to the trough), but so long as Elizaberth May runs the show the Greens have no realistic prospects either.

Prediction: a crippled LPC lives on past 2015, but still fails to recapture the opposition given a strong NDP and resurgent Quebec nationalist party taking most of the vote, and enough "Green" voters to ensure vote splits everywhere else. CPC continues to dominate the political center, and small "C" conservative parties improve the ground game at the Provincial level, keeping the Liberal farm team out of power as well.


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Dec 2011)

In this column from the Globe and Mail Margaret Wente has some fun at the expense of the evil Harper crowd. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.


Is Stephen Harper the Dear Leader in disguise? 

Margaret Wente  

From Thursday's Globe and Mail 

Published Thursday, Dec. 22, 2011 2:00AM EST

Is there any difference between Stephen Harper and North Korea’s defunct Dear Leader? Maybe not as much as you might think. Many eminent Canadians are warning that Mr. Harper and his hard-right Conservatives are turning our beloved nation into a thuggish, dictatorial, one-party state.

In an exit interview the other night with As It Happens, outgoing Senator Tommy Banks (appointed by the Liberals, and best known as a jazz musician) declared that he is deeply alarmed about the country’s direction. He vowed to keep fighting as long as he has breath to set things right. Chronicler Peter C. Newman is similarly distressed. In his book When the Gods Changed, he argues not only that the Natural Governing Party is finished, but so too is the Canada he once knew and loved.

A lot of people in my postal code (adjacent to the University of Toronto) believe that our progressive paradise is lost. “The most remarkable feature of the first half year of Conservative majority rule is how quickly we have been herded toward a one-party system,” writes critic Michael Harris. Our international reputation is also on the skids. By abandoning Kyoto, Mr. Harper has turned us into a pariah state.

Contempt of Parliament. Authoritarian rule. Demagoguery, deceit and dirty tricks. Abuse of power, along with the growing stench of corruption, as the country hurtles down the wrong track. Why, it almost sounds like – the Chrétien government circa 2000!

If this indictment sounds familiar, it’s because the Conservatives made the same case against the Liberals when their positions were reversed. Majority governments in Canada have a lot of power, which is great if you’re on the winning side and awfully frustrating when you’re not. Their power is even greater when the opposition is hopelessly fragmented, essentially leaderless and out of new ideas. Today, the federal centre-left in Canada is furiously impotent – just as the centre-right was for most of a decade.

If you happen to identify with the out-group – as Mr. Banks and some of our leading public thinkers do – it’s a whole lot more satisfying to demonize the bad guys than try to unite the good guys. Perhaps that’s why so many of them insist that Mr. Harper is “dangerous,” or even “extremely dangerous.” This view was recently expressed by Stephen Clarkson, a prominent liberal academic, who warned that Canada is being crushed under the jackboots of the reigning proto-fascists. Mr. Harper, he wrote in the Literary Review of Canada, is “a dangerous figure” who “threatens the country’s constitutional heritage,” and “has rejected consensual centrism in favour of a program carefully conceived to overturn the social-market legacy he has inherited.”

If you are a faithful follower of the mainstream media, you will also know that Mr. Harper is guilty of valorizing the military, being indifferent to the plight of downtrodden aboriginals and clamping down (at vast expense) on imaginary crime. He has also created a quasi-totalitarian world called Harperland in which no dissent is tolerated.

But here’s the worst part. Canadians don’t care! In fact, they claim to be pretty happy with the way things are going. According to a new poll published in Maclean’s, 86 per cent of us believe Canada is the greatest country in the world. For some unfathomable reason, we are way more optimistic than either the British or the Americans. On top of that, the Harper government’s dangerous and misguided policies are overwhelmingly popular. According to a poll by Ipsos Reid, two-thirds of Canadians approve of its efforts to boost the military and fight crime. Sixty per cent of the public feel the government is enhancing Canada’s reputation in the world. And a whopping 80 per cent agree with its decision to ban the niqab at citizenship ceremonies – a move derided by much of the progressive left.

It doesn’t get worse than that.

To tell the truth, I don’t agree with all of Mr. Harper’s policies myself. (e.g., the niqab.) But it seems obvious to me that his government is far more in touch with mainstream Canadians than all those critics who accuse him of abandoning the mainstream. He’s worse than an extremist – he’s a populist. Or else he has duped and terrorized the masses so effectively that they are powerless to resist. Kind of like you-know-who.


----------



## GAP (22 Dec 2011)

> But here’s the worst part. Canadians don’t care! In fact, they claim to be pretty happy with the way things are going. According to a new poll published in Maclean’s, 86 per cent of us believe Canada is the greatest country in the world. For some unfathomable reason, we are way more optimistic than either the British or the Americans. On top of that, the Harper government’s dangerous and misguided policies are overwhelmingly popular. According to a poll by Ipsos Reid, two-thirds of Canadians approve of its efforts to boost the military and fight crime. Sixty per cent of the public feel the government is enhancing Canada’s reputation in the world. And a whopping 80 per cent agree with its decision to ban the niqab at citizenship ceremonies – a move derided by much of the progressive left.
> 
> It doesn’t get worse than that.
> 
> To tell the truth, I don’t agree with all of Mr. Harper’s policies myself. (e.g., the niqab.) But it seems obvious to me that his government is far more in touch with mainstream Canadians than all those critics who accuse him of abandoning the mainstream. He’s worse than an extremist – he’s a populist.



It must be tough to make that agument and still try to stab him in the back.....poor Margaret..... :


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Dec 2011)

I probably should have typed the Harper is evil crowd, which is what I meant, instead of the evil Harper crowd,


----------



## Infanteer (22 Dec 2011)

What a great article.  It highlights 2 important realities about politics in Canada - namely that:

1.  The adversarial nature of Canada's parliamentary system produces an entire industry based around a class of political-whiners (ie: the losers) who we just have to put up with; and

2.  Most Canadians are happy if their routine of get up, have breakfast, drive the SUV to work, make a paycheck, get home, watch hockey, put the 1.5 kids to bed, watch the news, go to sleep, and repeat isn't messed with.  They are happy to ignore the political-whiners provided the government of the today produces results supporting said routine.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Dec 2011)

I think the article points out the real problem that the "liberals" had and have.  They don't like the status quo.  They don't like who Canadians (Brits, Yanks, Aussies, Francais, Gerries, Greeks....) are and they feel the need to change us.

Unfortunately for them the feeling is reciprocated.  The majority of Canadians etc don't like those that constantly nag at them telling them how vile they are and how they must change.

The real mystery of the Liberal Party is how it managed to get elected for so long with so many anti-populists in their ranks.  Perhaps "money and influence" really did buy elections.

The biggest fear of the anti-populists may be that they will never again be able successfully to oppose the popular will and lead us to their desired change.

Ralph Klein, the populist's populist and bete-noire of the progressives, was in power from 1992 to 2006 - a total of 14 years.

I wonder if Harper can continue feeding the masses what they want (boring non-interference) for 14 years.  That would take him out to 2025 and a suitable retirement age of 66.

The Annex must be mortified.


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Dec 2011)

"Everybody look at me. I'm an activist!" The ex-senate page rides again, this time in this story from the Winnipeg Free Press reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.



Ex-Senate page who held up throne speech with 'Stop Harper' sign finds her voice

 By: Diana Mehta, The Canadian Press

 Posted: 12/23/2011 3:16 AM | Comments: 12 (including replies)


It was just a 20-second silent protest, but it helped her find her voice.

Ever since holding up a hand-painted red "Stop Harper" sign during the current Conservative government’s throne speech in June, former senate page Brigette DePape has thrown herself into grassroots activism and now spends her time expressing her dreams for her country.

"It’s been so inspiring to take part in collective action," DePape told The Canadian Press in an interview.

"I really think that it is through action that we can have hope and it's really only by taking action that we can start to imagine a better Canada."

The University of Ottawa graduate was catapulted into the national spotlight after she pulled her sign out from beneath her skirt and held it up in the middle of the Senate Chamber to an astonished audience before being escorted out.

Her actions prompted an array of responses from across the country, and made more people tune into highlights of the throne speech than in previous years, but the aftermath of the stunt wasn’t easy for the 22-year-old.

She recalls being referred to as a schoolgirl while being escorted out of the Senate while others yelled out “Shame” as she walked by. Later, she dealt with belittling comments from some quarters as news of her actions spread.

"At first it was difficult because there were many Conservative groups and people who were very critical of the action,” she said. “There's a real effort to demonize those who are challenging power in different ways.”

But DePape thinks her bold moves have paid off.

She hopes she’s jolted older Canadians into realizing that all of the country’s youth aren’t apathetic and that their concerns deserve a national stage.

“People have come up to me in the streets to give me a high five or a hug. I think it just shows the excitement for taking action and the real hunger for change.”

While her time in the spotlight was brief, DePape hopes her actions helped unify resistance among those who aren’t happy with the way the current federal Conservatives are running the country.

“There seems to be this recognition that the regular institutional means for making change simply are not working for us,” she said. “The support for the action really showed that people are understanding the importance of taking direct action.”

DePape’s primary cause at the moment is “climate justice.” The issue is so important to her that she joined The Canadian Youth Climate Coalition and travelled with the group to observe international climate talks taking in place in South Africa this month.

“We’re working to organize against Harper’s climate crimes,” she said from Durban.

“The message that we are trying to get across is that our government is working on behalf of corporate polluters rather than working for us."

Besides pushing for a drastic improvement of Canada’s environmental record, DePape is also penning columns for British Columbia-based news magazine The Tyee in which she writes on “direct action movements” she’s experiencing.

In the future, she hopes to continue working on climate justice issues with other young adults "to really hold the government to account."

"It's not just politicians whose voices should be heard," she said. "Everyone's voice matters."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Dec 2011)

I doubt she's living off the kindness of strangers or some inheritence.

Expect to hear from this one for years to come. This isn't a cause for her anymore, it's become her job.

She's likely pulling down, at minimum, a middle\ high upper class wage created by donations and stipends from various rights\ world peace\ enviromental organisations, et al.

It wouldn't suprise me to see grants from the Liberal or NDP party in there either.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Dec 2011)

How come all *our* jobs involve creating or protecting wealth....[/sarcasm]


----------



## a_majoor (26 Dec 2011)

Another plan for "strategic voting" by a would be NDP leader, and a pretty detailed (if very long) critique: 

http://www.punditsguide.ca/2011/12/pros-and-cons-of-the-cullen-plan-a-sceptics-guide-to-electoral-coalitions-in-canada/

Summing up in the comments:

[quoote]
The idea of “strategic voting” is a pipedream. A great many NDP supporters said they would vote Liberal last time – as they always do – and lied. They didn’t. Furthermore, there is a great deal more that separates most Liberals and Dippers that people care to admit. I for one would never vote NDP, but would vote Conservative under certain circumstances. A great many Liberals are like me.
[/quote]


----------



## a_majoor (28 Dec 2011)

The shift that the CPC government is creating is truly amazing, especially considering it is coming along with the sort of grace and majesty of continental drift. Rather than loud, flashy, expensive and ultimately symbolic rather than effective initiatives, the CPC is changing the political landscape in more subtle ways. Kirkhill's observations about the difference between "leadership" and "management" in terms of how people are governed seem to be apot on here:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/technology/Harper+takes+government+Canadians+lives/5917386/story.html



> *Harper takes government out of Canadians' lives*
> 
> By Barry Cooper, For the Calgary Herald December 28, 2011
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jan 2012)

In this case, the blog post is much more informative than the initial piece which prompted it. More on what ails the LPC (and why we should probably not expect too much in 2015). 

http://stevejanke.com/archives/325266.php



> *Another gutless Liberal whines*
> Monday, January 02, 2012 at 07:56 PM
> Comments: 4
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jan 2012)

What I'm seeing is that Steven Janke, a well known Conservative (big C and small c) blogger, is the one doing the whining ... OK so Veniez didn't single out people and organizations by specific names, he still laid out some pretty damning evidence of the Liberal's structural incoherence. Janke's comment, while "fair," adds nothing to any debate - it's just whining and piling on.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jan 2012)

Shared under the usual Copyright caveats.

*Canada won’t be blue forever, Rae says*

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1109774--canada-won-t-be-blue-forever-rae-says

Susan Delacourt Ottawa Bureau 



> OTTAWA -- Bob Rae, the interim Liberal leader, isn’t buying all the talk about Conservatives permanently changing the face of Canada.
> “I think there’s no question the Tories are doing damage. But I’m not one of those people who says that the damage is irreparable,” Rae said in a year-end interview with the Star.
> “Only in their own minds do they (Conservatives) believe that they are effecting a permanent ideological change to Canada and that we can never get it back. We can always get our country back. We just have to have the political will to do it.”
> Rae says it’s worth remembering that Ontario Conservatives, under former premier Mike Harris, tried to make long-lasting changes in the province’s political culture in the 1990s, especially in the realm of education, health care and social services.
> ...



I'm near speechless ( I know, hard to believe). Maybe they're finally accepting that they lost, maybe not.

There is no damage, only in the eyes of the liberal faithful that won't take off their blinders. Those that can't see that Canadians were tired of the 'Great Social Experiment' that the liberals fousted on us.

The country is changing because the people wanted it changed. The libs are threatening to turn back the clock (in 4 or 8 years) to the disfunctional, socialist society that they have made us into. The one that if it was so good, Iggy would be PM.

Iggy lost. He should mind his business. The Feds are finally divesting themselves of the nanny status that has made the Provinces dependent, instead of dealing head on with THEIR problems.

The damage that Rae did to Ontario, is still being felt. He can't blame it on Harris or give credit to McGuinty. We're trapped and wallowing because of Rae.

The Criminal Code has doubled in size, not because of Harper, but because of the namby pamby, hug a thug, revolving court justice brought in and instilled by the liberals and NDP.

NDP people like Bob Rae.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Jan 2012)

Vowing to simplify the Criminal Code is probably their one good idea, so far.

And Rae is right- the Conservatives will not be in power forever.  It maybe 2015, 2019, etc- but they will, eventually, be defeated.  By some party (Liberals? NDP? Something else that does not even exist today?).  And they will probably deserve it, too.  It is the way of the world.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Jan 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Vowing to simplify the Criminal Code is probably their one good idea, so far.
> 
> And Rae is right- the Conservatives will not be in power forever.  It maybe 2015, 2019, etc- but they will, eventually, be defeated.  By some party (Liberals? NDP? Something else that does not even exist today?).  And they will probably deserve it, too.  It is the way of the world.



No arguement. It needs to be simplified. No more two (three) for ones. No probation. Mandatory sentences, remove discretion from the judges for criminal offences. Prisoners rights need to go back to basic rules of incarceration, etc.

They will get defeated, eventually. Hopefully, whoever replaces them will look back and learn, and instead of regressing twenty years past, move forward and build upon the good things wrought by all parties.

There is no doubt the Opposition landscape will be very different than it is now. Just as, I'm sure, the CPC position will be when that time comes.

We have to ensure that whoever it is, they understand implicitly, that they work for us. Not us for them, and we won't tolerate them bullying us or treating us like long term lab rats.

Whoever they are.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jan 2012)

The howler in the article is Rae's asserting rolling back the changes of the "Common Sense Revolution" was a good thing. I don't suppose he has thought about Ontario's current unemployment figures, $100 billion debt or projected $16 billion deficit for the coming year under the current Liberal government? Or maybe that is his definition of what good government looks like.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jan 2012)

The _Good Grey Globe's_ John Ibbitson asks the right question (_"Will this ... help save John McCallum’s hide in 2015?"_) in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/saving-john-mccallums-seat-will-be-true-measure-of-liberal-reforms/article2290817/


> Saving John McCallum’s seat will be true measure of Liberal reforms
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...



Québec, urban Ontario, the West ... the Liberals *must* rebuild there, at the expense of both the Conservatives and the NDP if they are going to return to official opposition status in 2015 and to government in 2019 or 2023.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jan 2012)

For a party that needs to re-establish itself in the West, the Liberals seem to miss every opportunity to miss opportunities.

Notice how their major meetings occur in one of three palces:  Toronto, Montreal or Ottawa.

I suspect a minor change of geography would serve them well.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2012)

Reading Ibbitson's piece suggests to me that the Liberals may be setting themselves up for a David Orchard.  In fact I understand that he is still available.

Some friends are worse than enemies.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jan 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Reading Ibbitson's piece suggests to me that the Liberals may be setting themselves up for a David Orchard.  In fact I understand that he is still available.
> 
> Some friends are worse than enemies.




We might credit Orchard with saving the Tories. He switched his support to MacKay who promptly stabbed the stupid SOB (Orchard) in the back and "united the right" with Harper's Alliance. Dumb as a bag of hammers might be the best way to describe Orchard - which makes him an almost perfect Liberal ...


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jan 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We might credit Orchard with saving the Tories. He switched his support to MacKay who promptly stabbed the stupid SOB (Orchard) in the back and "united the right" with Harper's Alliance. Dumb as a bag of hammers might be the best way to describe Orchard - which makes him an almost perfect Liberal ...



Fair comment.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jan 2012)

If this is how the Liberals are going to ger more seats ( ) there will be some very interesting moments in the House and in caucus:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/10/kelly-mcparland-lise-st-denis-pokes-another-pin-in-deflating-ndp-bubble/



> *Kelly McParland: Lise St-Denis pokes another pin in deflating NDP bubble*
> 
> Kelly McParland  Jan 10, 2012 – 11:49 AM ET | Last Updated: Jan 10, 2012 11:56 AM ET
> 
> ...



In a different article, the MP is quoted as saying "They voted for Jack Layton. Jack Layton is dead,", indicating she at least understood the primary reason the NDP was able to make such historic gains (and why it will be very difficult to consolodate and grow from there)


----------



## GAP (10 Jan 2012)

In watching Power Play tonight Jean Belavance brought up the point that most NDP's higher ups were hoping it was Lise St-Denis that was crossing the floor. She turned out to be a sever pain in the a$$, and they wished her on someone else, especially the Liberals or maybe the BQ


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jan 2012)

It is, in a way, rather sad that the Liberals and the NDP must fight over the remains of _*old*, lesser Canada_ while the Conservatives solidify their hold on _*new*, growing Canada_. But that's what this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, says is happening:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/defection-reminds-ndp-and-liberals-its-quebec-or-bust/article2298466/


> Defection reminds NDP and Liberals it’s Quebec or bust
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...




The "old Canada/new Canada" (East and West of the Ottawa River) thesis is not mine (and I cannot find the article (by Michael Bliss?) from which I took the thought) nor is it uncommon. The fact, and it is a fact, is that "old Canada" (NL through to and including QC) is _stagnant_, Eurocentric, _statist (conservative)_ and always in search of the "brass ring," the big project that will turn everything around. (Although, in fairness, NL might be turning away from this model.) "New Canada" (BC through to and including ON) is _bustling_, increasingly Asian, _individualistic (liberal)_ and too busy making money to search for a "brass ring."

I will repeat myself: to govern Canada in the 21st century means to govern from "new Canada," and that means learning to win and to govern _*without* Québec_ - *not* against Québec, just without very many MPs from _la belle province_. It also means accepting, even embracing the French Canadian _nation_ but treating Québec as _"une province, comme les autres"_.


----------



## RangerRay (11 Jan 2012)

The NDP must be in bad shape if she jumped from Official Opposition to the third party.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jan 2012)

I think her main point, that Québec voted for Jack Layton, not the NDP, is valid.

If the _Dippers_ want to hold on to some of their Québec MPs in the 2015 election they had better elect Mulcair as leader. Even with Mulcair they will lose some seats and we may see, with the new seats added, something like this:

Conservatives:        175±
Liberals:                   70±
NDP:                        63±
Other QC Party:        25±
Greens & Others:       5±
TOTAL                    *338*


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jan 2012)

Preston manning on what ails the LPC, and what may happen to the CPC as well. I note that one advantage the CPC has is their intellectual "establishment" of Classical Liberal think tanks and policy groups is largely supported by private donors (like me), unlike the government funded machine Mr Manning describes. Still, complacency is a danger to be avoided at all costs:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/because-one-day-tories-youll-be-out-of-office-too/article2297893/print/



> PRESTON MANNING
> *Because one day, Tories, you’ll be out of office too*
> preston manning
> From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
> ...


----------



## RangerRay (17 Jan 2012)

Mr. Harper is starting to slip in the eyes of many right-leaning British Columbians.  First by intervening in an area of provincial jurisdiction (natural resources/environment) and now by cozying up to Premier Clark and the BC Liberals, who are toxic to everyone, left and right.

Alex Tsakumis is a former advisor to Socred Premier Bill Vander Zalm and Prime Minister Mulroney.  He has been very active with the BC Social Credit, federal Conservatives, and Vancouver's free-enterprise Non-Partisan Association.

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2012/01/16/dear-prime-minister-harper-are-you-feeling-well-sir-what-the-hell-were-you-thinking-most-disappointingly-you-werent/



> *Dear Prime Minister Harper: Are You Feeling Well, Sir? What the Hell Were You Thinking?! Most Disappointingly, You Weren’t…
> *
> 
> 
> ...



The the PM doesn't want to lose seats in BC, he should stay away from Christy Clark and the BC Liberals.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Jan 2012)

On the NDP front, some dual citizenship questions popping up for Mulcair....


> NDP leadership hopeful Thomas Mulcair holds dual Canadian and French citizenship and vows to keep both even if he should one day become Canada's prime minister.
> 
> That would set Mulcair at odds with the man he seeks to succeed, Jack Layton. Layton, in 2006, said he thought it inappropriate that Stephane Dion hold dual French and Canadian citizenship as leader of the Liberal Party.
> 
> ...


QMI/Sun Media, 17 Jan 12


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jan 2012)

This and this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ may well frame the 2015 election debate:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/bruce-anderson/harpers-davos-speech-puts-canada-on-the-path-to-substantive-politics/article2318782/


> Harper’s Davos speech puts Canada on the path to substantive politics
> 
> BRUCE ANDERSON
> 
> ...




I think there is some political reward is saying, _"We are making the tough choices now, for your and your children's futures,"_ but I also agree with Anderson that Harper must protect his weak flank: Canadian's inchoate desire to "protect" the old and vulnerable. I think Anderson has the right answer but for the wrong reason; the risk, I believe, is not that the left and some of the centre will coalesce around that issue - they'll do that no matter what, the risk is that Harper already equates to "hard," "uncaring," even "mean" and he needs to put forward a "soft," "caring" side to a tough programme.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jan 2012)

While we are talking about the Federal election three years from now, it is worth thinking about how the various provinces are shaking out. While political preferences at the provincial level don't automatically translate into federal preferences (and it used to be a truism that Ontario would vote one way provincially and the opposite way federally), they do identify trends that could be used to advantage by the federal parties:

http://aprogressiveconservativesview.blogspot.com/2012/01/looking-to-2012-2013-provincial.html



> *Looking Forward to Provincial Politics in 2012, 2013*
> 
> In 2011 we saw that Canadians, overwhelmingly, chose to keep governing parties in power. In Yukon, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland conservative parties (ascribing to various names) were resoundingly re-elected. Federally the same was true. In Manitoba it was a very close race, by votes cast, but due to oddities in the first-past the post system the NDP was re-elected with a strong majority. In Ontario voters settled on a re-elected Liberal minority government. That was the 2011 election cycle. It was exciting for me and reassuring. All of the provinces that elected conservative parties seem to be settling on a consensus that free-market policies are undoubtedly the way forward for Canadians. Nationally, one hopes, we are coming towards this consensus as well. Manitoba and Ontario both look ripe for political change in their next round of elections, which is likely to benefit conservative parties and the well-being of the provinces themselves. What of the provinces that are set to vote in the next two years? Here I think things get quite exciting too.
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Feb 2012)

Pretty good article, but to be fair Ontario and Manitoba were more lost rather than won. Both suffered from lack luster Conservative campaigns with predictable results. It will be interesting to see where AB, QC and BC go this year.


----------



## GAP (1 Feb 2012)

As far as Mb goes, the NDP won because the Cons totally blew it....what a sad performance. 

It would seem Ont. was in the same situation from what I read.............


----------



## RangerRay (1 Feb 2012)

BC is a dogs breakfast at the moment.  The free enterprise coalition that was the BC Liberals has pretty much imploded, and the NDP grown beyond their traditional ~40%.  If Christy Clark can't stop the bleeding and rebuild the coalition (which I doubt she could) we are looking at an NDP government.  It's tough to say whether it would be a majority, or a minority with the BC Conservatives (which hasn't elected an MLA since the 1970's) holding the balance of power.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Feb 2012)

The PCPO most certainly lost the last election, partly because they could not seem to comprehend the opposition was not the Liberals but the Public Service Unions through the "Working Families" front organization.

While I am sure to get the usual deamonization for pointing this out, Civil Service unions get a much better deal overall than the taxpayer in terms of virtually every metric, from wages to pay increases to benefits and pensions. Dalton McGuinty has been paying the Danegeld ever since he achieved office, and you know the people who benefit from this will be fighting to the last taxpayer to keep their perques.

We have seen the test shots being fired WRT the trimming and reorganization of the government in the Government Re-org and trimming thread, expect more of the same and a powerful push by "Working Families" type groups as we get closer to the election.


----------



## RangerRay (2 Feb 2012)

Correction to my last...



			
				RangerRay said:
			
		

> ...and the NDP *has not* grown beyond their traditional ~40%...


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Feb 2012)

The implications of this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, go far beyond the 2015 Election:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/stephen-harpers-census/article2326375


> Stephen Harper's census
> 
> JOE FRIESEN
> 
> ...




THE big challenge for Prime Minister Harper, indeed for Canada, is to "fix" Ontario ~ it constitutes more than 1/3 of the country's population (actually 38%) but only 37% of Canada's GDP, down from 39% in 2005. Given that "old Canada," Canada East of the Ottawa River is unlikely to ever be a net contributor to the national commonwealth it is essential that "new Canada," (BC, AB, SK, MB and ON) are, in aggregate, always producing more than their 'fair share' to help support the weaker sisters.

THE big challenge for Ontario is to recover from the huge losses in the manufacturing sector over the past 20 years. During my lifetime we saw the manufacturing sector grow from a low skill/low wage proposition into a low skill/high wage thing and then start to collapse. It is unlikely that:

1. Ontario can, ever again, be a low skill/high wage manufacturing hub - but it can have some low skill/low wage manufacturing and more high skill/high wage manufacturing; or

2. Ontario can, nearly alone, "carry" the national economy, as it did for 50 years from 1950 to 2000.

The entire country needs to shed its "culture of entitlement," a holdover from the socio-economic idiocy of the Trudeau era, and regain its frugal, self reliant spirit - which was nearly wrung out of us by the pain of Great Depression combined with the drought of the "dirty thirties" and the giddy growth after World War II. We translated the best elements of a "cooperative" culture into an unsustainable "culture of entitlement" and, simultaneously, we denigrated the virtues of hard work, thrift and self reliance. These are social and attitudinal matters more than they are policy or political issues.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Feb 2012)

When I came over to Canada (Peterborough) in 1966 I can remember our Grade 6 teacher making comment on the Autopact recently signed by Pearson and Johnson (1965).  Since then I have laboured under the apprehension that Ontario's "prosperity" was the result of a political construct rather than any "natural" advantage.  Coincidentally that change seems to have occurred concurrently with the closing of all the lumber mills and hard rock mines in Northern Ontario (ie from Peterborough to Kenora).

In 1965 the US could afford to be generous with jobs. Ontario got a hand up from the Yanks (for which she has been eternally grateful  :sarcasm.  Now the Yanks want and need those jobs back (and we need them to have them back so they can afford once again to buy "stuff" from us). Ontario is going to have to find something else to sell to them. What does Ontario have that they can't provide themselves?


----------



## a_majoor (4 Feb 2012)

Thereality is Ontario is badly damaged, and only a pretty drastic policy turnaround can change the reality of these numbers. Whoever takes over will be in a far worse position than when Mike Harris picked up the pieces from Bob Rae:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/McGuinty+syndrome/6101585/story.html



> *The McGuinty syndrome*
> 
> National Post · Feb. 4, 2012 | Last Updated: Feb. 4, 2012 5:15 AM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Feb 2012)

> Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced today that a by-election will be held on March 12, 2012 in the riding of Toronto-Danforth (Ontario).


PMO Info-machine, 5 Feb 12


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Feb 2012)

This, the topic of this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, might be a "sleeper" issue that, finally, unites _busybody_ social conservatives with more traditional Tory fiscal conservatives:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/does-the-state-have-a-role-in-promoting-married-family-life/article2329065/


> Does the state have a role in promoting married family life?
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...




First, a *principle*: religion is a wholly private matter in which the state has no interest; it is a matter between you and your god(s); it is enough that you ring your bells, blow your horns and call the faithful tpo prayer in public - we, the people, have no interest in your views and neither you nor your popes, priests and other assorted shamans nor your gods have any political *right* to impose your views on us; but

Second, a bit of pragmatism: this sentence from Ibbitson's article is demonstrably true - *"an increasing number of children are raised in single-parent environments, which places them at greater risk of poverty, poor nutrition and inadequate education."*

As a matter of good public policy we should be outraged by the "single parent" problem. But, let us be clear: we are not talking about marriage; the issue is that young men and women who make babies have a *responsibility* to raise their children in such as way as to maximize the children's opportunities for social and economic success in our modern world. Those involved in the welfare _business_ can comment on this better than I, but the data (Canadian and American) is clear and persuasive, if not, sometimes, shocking. We must, as a matter of public policy, stop creating and sustaining an _underclass_.

The first way to make fewer single families is to make abortion more easily available and to counsel children on how to get one.

The second way to make fewer single families is to require fathers (and maybe grandparents)    to assume responsibility for their children - much, much easier said than done, I am sure.

A potential third way is to cut off welfare payments - to force young women and their babies out on to the streets, to sink/starve or swim without public support. Maybe young women will learn that the best birth control pill is an aspirin clutched firmly between the knees.

A fourth way is to remove children from _underperforming_ families and raise them in _kibbutz_ like communal centres.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... The second way to make fewer single families is to require fathers (and maybe grandparents)    to assume responsibility for their children - much, much easier said than done, I am sure.
> 
> A potential third way is to cut off welfare payments - to force young women and their babies out on to the streets, to sink/starve or swim without public support. Maybe young women will learn that the best birth control pill is an aspirin clutched firmly between the knees ....


So, if you can't get the fathers to do their duty, we throw the moms & kids to the wolves?


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Feb 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> So, if you can't get the fathers to do their duty, we throw the moms & kids to the wolves?




It's a bit cold, I admit, but I have heard of "welfare families" where three single mothers (that means four generations!) live together and the oldest, the new great grandmother, is not yet 60! If that's true then whatever we are doing now isn't working.


----------



## ballz (7 Feb 2012)

I've stated my arguments for it before, but since the problems it would help *solve* are being brought up, I'll state what I think the solution is, and that's national childcare.

You can cut an awful lot of that social assistance going to a single mother if her kids are being looked after for her during the work day. You wouldn't be throwing the child to the wolves, since you could socialize it, educate it, even feed it one good meal during the day. You wouldn't even be throwing the mother to the wolves, you'd be forcing her to choose between the wolves and a full-time job.

This would also prevent having to "remove children from underperforming families and raise them in kibbutz like communal centres," which usually doesn't do a whole lot of good for the child's quality of life.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Feb 2012)

The problem is that "available national childcare" quickly becomes "mandatory national childcare".  And that is a massive intrusion into people's private lives, with great potential for misuse and abuse - on the physical and moral planes.







Photo of North Korean children, from the World Health Organization


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It's a bit cold, I admit, but I have heard of "welfare families" where three single mothers (that means four generations!) live together and the oldest, the new great grandmother, is not yet 60! If that's true then whatever we are doing now isn't working.


Perhaps, but it's a bit of an unbalanced incentive scheme there.  Young dads do nothing to support their kids?  Nothing happens to them.  Young moms can't get dads to do anything?  Out you go.  Someone more left-of-centre than I could suggest that this makes it look like it's the young mom's fault, given she faces the harsher punishment than the other half.


----------



## ballz (7 Feb 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The problem is that "available national childcare" quickly becomes "mandatory national childcare".  And that is a massive intrusion into people's private lives, with great potential for misuse and abuse - on the physical and moral planes.



Kind of like public schools from Kindergarden to Grade 12?

It would never become "mandatory," it would just make better financial sense for almost everybody to use it, and posting a picture of kids in North Korea is not going to scare me into thinking that it would be anything like that in Canada :


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Feb 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but it's a bit of an unbalanced incentive scheme there.  Young dads do nothing to support their kids?  Nothing happens to them.  Young moms can't get dads to do anything?  Out you go.  Someone more left-of-centre than I could suggest that this makes it look like the young mom's fault, given she faces the harsher punishment than the other half.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

>


No question, hence the need for dual sticks (no pun intended), not just unilateral ones.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Feb 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but it's a bit of an unbalanced incentive scheme there.  Young dads do nothing to support their kids?  Nothing happens to them.  Young moms can't get dads to do anything?  Out you go.  Someone more left-of-centre than I could suggest that this makes it look like the young mom's fault, given she faces the harsher punishment than the other half.




Seriously, that's one of the reasons I called it a "potential" way ... but we know, from the data and the anecdotal evidence of those in the welfare 'business' that we have a problem: kids in single parent families do migrate towards a growing _underclass_ that we do not need and cannot afford. Given that a "f__king licence" seems neither practical nor popular we need to find some way to reverse the (growing?) trend towards single parent families. MAybe the consequences, for *both* parents, need to be "worse" to convince them to change their habits of unprotected sex and then bringing the results to term.


----------



## CountDC (7 Feb 2012)

lol extreme measures!

Childcare for the welfare - seen it done with a friend of my wife.  She got childcare for her son, no cut in welfare payments and she had to do.....nothing.  If they want to go with the national program then they certainly have to make sure something is in place to prevent abuse.  

Some othe suggestions I have seen by politicians and others are:

Forced fixing.  1 child, want welfare?  Then you will have the surgery. Not personally fond of this.  Maybe the woman actually gets her life on track, meets someone and wants to have a family with them.

I believe this was a politician in BC - 1 child we will support as everyone makes a mistake, any more and you are on your own as it is no longer a mistake but plain stupidity.  No more money.  I like this - seen too many welfare cases where they would have numerous kids to get the extra money.  The money of course was not used for the kids but cigarettes, drugs and alcohol.
Not sure if it was the same case or a seperate one but it was also suggested that the 1 child was supported for 5 years and then you were expected to actively seek employment.  Kids in school no reason you can't work.

Some other steps that are worth looking at - make all rent payments directly to the landlords.  Seen cases where the rent was spent, eventually they get evicted or just move to a new place and continue to draw welfare. Some landlords go after the money while others have stated it is just not worth the time and hassle.  That is one reason some places no longer rent to welfare. 

More random surprise spot checks - it is totally stupid to have to contact someone 2 days prior to let them know you will be over to do a spot check.  Get real-it is no longer random or surprise.  Here is the case I heard about (can't remember where I heard it from):

Social Services gets a call that this woman on welfare has no food in the house.  They call and let her know they will be out in 2 days for a surprise check.  She goes to her mothers house and stocks up from her fridge and pantry.  Social worker arrives, her firdge and pantry is full, they check it off as good and she returns her mothers stuff.  3 times!  

Never been a fan of the make the grandparents responsible but if you are making them responsible then you have to give them rights too. Many grandparents will happily pay up if it means they have garunteed visitation rights. 

 Fathers are already meant to assume responsibility - the problem is in enforcing it.  Many dead beat dads with child support bills outstanding and nothing is really done. I know one case of $50 a month for almost 18 years and not a payment made.  The problem (unless it has been changed) is that the mother was told if she found out the father had an income and where he was living that she could report it and they would try to get the money.


----------



## ballz (7 Feb 2012)

CountDC said:
			
		

> lol extreme measures!
> 
> Childcare for the welfare - seen it done with a friend of my wife.  She got childcare for her son, no cut in welfare payments and she had to do.....nothing.  If they want to go with the national program then they certainly have to make sure something is in place to prevent abuse.



Hence why I said to cut the welfare payments. That is the measure that will prevent abuse.


----------



## GAP (7 Feb 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> Hence why I said to cut the welfare payments. That is the measure that will prevent abuse.



Until the first sob story comes out about emancipated children, no food in house, rats and cockroaches everywhere. It's never the parents fault for spending the money, its the welfare dept's fault for not giving them adequate resources...... :


----------



## ballz (7 Feb 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Until the first sob story comes out about emancipated children, no food in house, rats and cockroaches everywhere.



There are people that will be in that situation no matter what you do or don't do for them, and they'll be in the exact same situation as they were in before National Childcare/Welfare cuts, the only difference is that their child will be getting one hot meal a day and some early childhood education.

For the majority though, they'll 1. be enabled to work (because they won't have to pay for childcare, which makes it *not worth working*) and 2. forced, by circumstance, to work.

The fact that we would be enabling them the *time* to work by looking after their kids for them, really makes it morally sound (from my perspective) to cut a big chunk out of their welfare payments. Right now, it's simply makes more financial sense as a single parent to collect welfare and not work, than to work for minimum wage for 40 hours a week and pay for childcare 40 hours a week. Staring at those two options, of course they're not going to work.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Feb 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Until the first sob story comes out about emancipated children, no food in house, rats and cockroaches everywhere. It's never the parents fault for spending the money, its the welfare dept's fault for not giving them adequate resources...... :




Can't resist, sorry: I don't think anyone is going to complain because they are free, GAP; however, if they are emaciated ...  :-*


----------



## GAP (7 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Can't resist, sorry: I don't think anyone is going to complain because they are free, GAP; however, if they are emaciated ...  :-*



Yeah, yeah,......so they're free and SKINNY!!  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Feb 2012)

Damme, where d'ye find a good poorhouse when you need it?


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Feb 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Damme, where d'ye find a good poorhouse when you need it?




Indeed!


----------



## dapaterson (7 Feb 2012)

...and all this talk on the bicentennial of Dickens' birth!


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The implications of this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, go far beyond the 2015 Election:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/stephen-harpers-census/article2326375
> 
> ...




More on Ontario, this time in the form of some realistic thinking from Jeffrey Simpson, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/ontario-needs-to-take-its-medicine/article2330034/


> Ontario needs to take its medicine
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...




This is, I suspect, part of an orchestrated lead-in to Don Drummond's report (due next week) which will be painfully prescriptive; McGuinty is no fool; he understands, understood before he asked Drummond to be his stalking horse, what needs to be done but he (and Stephen Harper) need to steer Ontarians away from their blindly, blissful faith in everlasting growth and towards retrenchment.

But I reiterate: Ontario must be "fixed." It is too much to expect BC, AB, SK and MB to carry "old Canada" (QC and the Atlantic provinces) indefinitely.


----------



## CountDC (8 Feb 2012)

But I reiterate: Ontario must be "fixed." It is too much to expect BC, AB, SK and MB to carry "old Canada" (QC and the Atlantic provinces) indefinitely.

soooo...... how many years does "new Canada" owe "old Canada"?    ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Feb 2012)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, could make life even more interesting in 2015 if, big IF, groups like 'Liberals for Life' do manage to take over some riding associations:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-fear-pro-lifers-trying-to-take-over-weakened-federal-party/article2331586/page1/


> Liberals fear pro-lifers trying to take over weakened federal party
> 
> JOAN BRYDEN
> 
> ...




While I don't think the "social conservative" movement is anywhere near as strong in Canada as it is in the USA it exists and it is, probably, strong in some specific ridings; it would be interesting to see a pro-life Liberal square off against a socially conservative Tory in one of those ridings, especially given Prime Minister Harper's very evident lack of patience with the social conservatives.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Feb 2012)

Try the US where one population group has three quarters of the children in one parent homes. Never heard of birth control. Using a condom is not showing respect to their manhood.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Feb 2012)

Fixing Ontario will involve dismantling or cancelling a lot of self destructive policies. Look at what "Green" energy is doing to our cost structure, and ask yourself if ay sensible businessperson who had the means or ability would choose to move to or stay in Ontario:


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Feb 2012)

Interesting interactive graphic here; just click through the 55 years keeping your eye on Québec.


----------



## GAP (10 Feb 2012)

Quebec to blame for its own declining prosperity
Article Link
Lorne Gunter  Feb 8, 2012 – 2:43 PM ET

Quebec’s provincial per capita GDP ($40,270 in 2010) is just 85% of the national average of $47,438. Only three provinces have proportionately smaller economies, New Brunswick ($38,940), Nova Scotia ($38,478) and PEI ($34,723). Even Newfoundland and Labrador, habitually the basket case of Confederation, now has a significantly stronger economy with per capita provincial GDP of $55,186, thanks to its recent natural resource boom.

As recently as 1995, Quebec’s per capita economic strength was over 90% of the national average. So what has happened since?

According to a new study of provincial economies across the country by l’École des Hautes Études Commerciales de Montréal (HEC), the problem is not so much Quebec declining as it is other provinces racing ahead much faster. Still, according to the study’s author, economist Martin Coiteux, if Quebec doesn’t take action to increase the productivity of its labour force and spur development of its natural resources, “it runs the risk of finding itself last among Canadian provinces with respect to income and standard of living.”

This is hardly a new warning. Eight years ago, no less a Quebec icon than former premier Lucien Bouchard called on his province – both the people and the government – to rethink the “Quebec model” of economic development. Mr Bouchard and 11 others, who became known as “Les lucides,” said it was time to “wake up” from the twin notions that the provincial government was better suited than private investors to decide future economic development and that the province’s extensive social safety net could be afforded indefinitely. They recommended free-market reforms to unleash the province’s enormous economic potential and more user-pay social programs to curb government spending and debt.

Of course, Les lucides were met by Les Solidaires, a group of union activists, left-wing intellectuals and special interests that insisted the high-tax, big-spending, centrally planned approach was working just fine.

Unfortunately, Les Solidaires have prevailed. For instance, Quebec sits on one of the continent’s largest shale gas deposits, but thanks to a reluctance on the part of provincial politicians, development is at a standstill.

This inertia – whether from too much faith in the goodness of government or too much easy cash from the federal government to pay for social schemes Quebec cannot afford on its own – is a shame. As Mr. Bouchard pointed out in his manifesto, in the 25 years prior to 2005, Quebecers had pulled level with the rest of Canada in years of education received and francophones were close to income parity with anglophones. The gap in unemployment rates between Quebec and Ontario, too, had closed from over five percentage points to under two.

It’s not too distressing that the Atlantic provinces have caught up to Quebec – or nearly so – in personal income. The four had the farthest to come, so also the most room to grow. But what should disturb Quebecers is that the gap between their province and Ontario is widening again. According to the HEC study, Ontarians enjoy an annual income advantage of nearly $10,000 over Quebecers – and this is at a time when the regulation-heavy, high-taxing McGuinty government is slowing Ontario’s growth. Simply put, even though Ontario’s growth is slipping, Quebec is failing to keep up with its neighbour.

According to the HEC study, over a 31-year period from 1978 to 2009, every region of Canada gained on income against Quebec. Why? Mr. Coiteux explained that “proportionately, fewer Quebecers work [than other Canadians]. They work fewer hours on average. And they earn an hourly pay that’s lower than that of most other Canadians.”

I have always been struck when examining Statistics Canada’s annual labour force participation data by just how few people in have-not provinces, including Quebec, have jobs. In Quebec, the percentage of working-age residents in the labour market is under 65%. In Alberta, it’s nine percentage points higher. And Alberta’s labour market is expanding, while Quebec’s is stagnating.

None of this is to say that Quebecers are lazy or unwilling to take entrepreneurial risks. On the contrary, I think the political culture in Quebec is what is standing in the way. The provincial government can rely on Ottawa shipping in $8 billion to $10 billion a year in equalization payments. Quebec receives half of all the federal top-up funds distributed to have-nots in a year. So the province’s politicians do not have to make rational economic decisions.

Because they know that Ottawa will siphon off gobs of cash from have provinces to pay for cheap day care and low tuition and seniors’ care and prescription drugs and so on, Quebec politicians have the luxury of blocking resource development in the name of the environment or of preserving Quebec’s slower-paced lifestyle.
More on link


----------



## Jed (10 Feb 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Interesting interactive graphic here; just click through the 55 years keeping your eye on Québec.



Click on this and have a look at Sask shrinking during the NDP administration and then expanding quickly once they get turfed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Feb 2012)

If Liberal insider Robert Silver is correct, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, then Thomas Mulcair is the Liberal Party of Canada's worst nightmare (as was Jack Layton):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/silver-powers/what-mandate-is-mulcair-seeking/article2351179/


> What mandate is Mulcair seeking?
> 
> ROBERT SILVER
> 
> ...




If, *big IF* Mulcair wins and if, *bigger IF* he can lead the NDP to the centre then where do the Liberals go?

To be sure some _Dippers_, the ones Mulcair is, currently, alienating, will want nothing to do with the political centre, but where do they go? If they are Québécois (or Québécoise) they will have choices: the BQ and a new Québec _nationalist_ party which _might_ be left of centre; but what about those _lefties_ from the rest of Canada? They can a) form a new party - good luck with that, b) join the Greens who are, currently, economically illiterate, too, c) stay home, or d) hold their noses and vote NDP.

But many in the NDP and some Liberals, too, will like a new, _centrist_ (don't lets "eat the rich" or nationalize the banks) NDP. The Liberals _could_ try to jump left, over the _new_ New Democrats but doing so would lose 2/3 of the party: a) the "blue," right wing Liberals - who would jump into the CPC that Prime MInister Harper is making attractive for them; and b) the _centrist_ Liberals - who would jump to the _new_, centrist NDP.

Like a said, a nightmare; I don't envy Bob Rae.

Jack Layton moved the NDP closer to the centre and that really hurt the Liberals without causing too many _Dippers_ to defect.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Mar 2012)

An interesting perspective from Andrew Coyne, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/14/andrew-coyne-a-budget-a-leadership-race-and-a-nation-split-up-the-middle/


> A budget, a leadership race — and a nation split up the middle
> 
> Andrew Coyne
> 
> ...




I think this is the key _fault line_: _"... this_ [changing demographics]_ is going to lead to demands from the wealthier provinces for a redrafting of the terms of fiscal federalism, including not just health and social transfers, but equalization, employment insurance and much else — with Ontario leading the charge ..."_ I do not believe that Trudeau's _fiscal federalism_ (Established Programs Financing which begat the Canada Health and Social Transfer which begat the Canada Health Transfer and so on) was ever either sustainable or even a good, temporary fix. Ottawa intrudes too deeply into areas which are, Constitutionally, out of bounds ~ it needs to withdraw and do its own, loss popular, jobs better and let the provinces do theirs as best they can.


----------



## larry Strong (15 Mar 2012)

Not only does Quebec have untapped reserves of shale gas, so does Ontario.....with the wealth that can go with it.....however that would require both provinces to buck the Ecco-nuts.


http://www.thestar.com/business/article/782552--alberta-firm-eyes-ontario-s-untapped-shale-gas


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Mar 2012)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Not only does Quebec have untapped reserves of shale gas, so does Ontario.....with the wealth that can go with it.....however that would require both provinces to buck the Ecco-nuts.
> 
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/business/article/782552--alberta-firm-eyes-ontario-s-untapped-shale-gas



It would also mean that McGuinty and Co would have to forsake the drug addled Utopian agenda of wind power and green energy that they're on.

They would have to sacrifice their billion dollar payoffs to offshore conglomorates, FROM the taxpayer, and decimation of the Ontario workforce and infrastructure for real jobs and investment in Ontario FOR the taxpayer.


----------



## GAP (16 Mar 2012)

Thomas Mulcair would bring Harper’s dream of Liberals’ demise closer to reality
Postmedia News  Mar 15, 2012
Article Link

Thomas Mulcair should eat his Wheaties and strap on his body armour. Correct?

The Harper Conservatives are already training their cannons on the New Democrat front-runner, some say, because he is the one they most fear. Mulcair’s combativeness, experience and brains make him a formidable foe. Moreover, he’s the New Democrat best placed to pull a “Tony Blair,” and shift the party further to the centre, where conceivably, it might contend for power.

But there’s another line of thinking, which suggests a Mulcair victory would suit Prime Minister Stephen Harper just fine. It gets back to Harper’s lifelong dream of destroying the Liberal party. Mulcair, it is believed by those who’ve seen him work in Quebec, has the capacity to wipe out or to absorb the Liberals. A Liberal-Democratic Party would necessarily position itself left of where the Liberals stood in their small-c-conservative period in the late 1990s. And that would at last leave the economic centre unobstructed, which is precisely what Harper wants.

Consider first the emerging endgame in the NDP leadership contest. The “anybody but Mulcair” candidate was to have been Brian Topp. Party insiders say that a series of halting debate performances have made that a non-starter. “In terms of being able to capture and continue to grow his (Topp’s) vote, I don’t see it . . . ” said one. “The Brian Topp campaign has no momentum right now. If anything he’s in reverse.”

Three are believed to be nipping at Mulcair’s heels: Peggy Nash, Paul Dewar and, most interestingly, Nathan Cullen. Nash’s solid union support, steady debate performances and the fact she’s the only serious female candidate in the race (Niki Ashton being too young and too wooden) have made her a contender. Dewar, despite his poor French, has benefited from good organization. And Cullen, widely dismissed as an also-ran at the outset, has surged on the strength of his likable onstage persona.

If anyone still has a shot at becoming the “anybody but Mulcair,” compromise candidate, it may be Nash. More likely though, observers say, is that Mulcair wins either on the first or second ballot. Cullen’s supporters are deemed likely to go to Mulcair as a second choice. Martin Singh’s supporters, we now know, have been asked to do likewise. (Keep in mind, much of this will have been decided before the convention March 23-24, since most of the party’s 125,000-plus registered members will have voted in advance.)

But let’s assume, for the sake of discussion, that the smart money is correct, and Mulcair wins. And let’s further assume he names Cullen, a fellow centrist and a popular British Columbia MP, as his deputy in English Canada, perhaps with a strong female Quebec MP — foreign affairs critic and former diplomat Helene Laverdiere has been mentioned — as Quebec deputy. What then?

Mulcair has taken great pains to avoid open comparisons with former British prime minister Tony Blair, who held power in the U.K. from 1997 to 2007, after jettisoning the most impossible of the British Labour Party’s socialist policies. But the parallels are clear. A couple of weeks ago, I asked Mulcair about the NDP’s reputation as a party that doesn’t understand kitchen-table economics. “To concede the point,” he said, “we’ve always been very conscious of the fact that a majority of Canadians share most of our goals and values. It’s been difficult in the past to convince them that we can provide good, competent, confident public administration.”

His solution, he said, would be to demonstrate while in Opposition that “we’re capable of running a G7 country.” Reading between the lines, in my judgment, that means he intends to pull a Blair.
More on link


----------



## larry Strong (16 Mar 2012)

However it might not be clear sailing for Muclair: 

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from CTV:

*Broadbent: Mulcair taking credit for Layton's success*

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120315/Broadbent-Mulcair-taking-credit-for-Layton-success-120315/



> OTTAWA — Former NDP leader Ed Broadbent is accusing the front runner of the current leadership race of taking undue credit for the party's electoral breakthrough in Quebec.
> 
> In the process, Broadbent says Thomas Mulcair has unfairly maligned the team largely responsible for the NDP's success and, by implication, the leader who put that team together -- Jack Layton.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Mar 2012)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, is Michael Den Tandt on why Stephen Harper wants Thomas Mulcair to lead the NDP:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/15/michael-den-tandt-thomas-mulcair-would-bring-harpers-dream-of-liberals-demise-a-closer-to-reality/


> Thomas Mulcair would bring Harper’s dream of Liberals’ demise closer to reality
> 
> Michael Den Tandt, _Postmedia News_
> 
> ...




Den Tandt's caveat, the Conservatives need to avoid becoming the rascals Canadians want to vote out of office in 2015, is important, but, bearing it in mind, I, too, think there is merit in Gerry Nicholls' theory. I believe that centre left and, especially, left of centre parties cannot helped but be dragged father and farther to the left (witness the Democrats in the USA) and so long as the Party leader can keep the Conservatives in the centre right/centre and *avoid the right and far right areas*, (s)he will retain a near stranglehold on power. _Natural governing party_ anyone?


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Mar 2012)

This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, might have gone in the Budget 2012 thread but I think it -balancing the budget - will be a defining issues for the Tories in 2015; it provides some insight into who will decide on how to balance the budget and how they manage the decision making process:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Future+public+service+hands+nine+parliamentarians/6314885/story.html


> Future of public service in hands of nine parliamentarians
> 
> By Jason Fekete, Postmedia News
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Mar 2012)

The attacks, à la those used with such success on Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff, are now aimed at Bob rae according to this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberals-vow-to-return-fire-after-tories-target-rae-with-attack-ad/article2374022/


> Liberals vow to return fire after Tories target Rae with attack ad
> 
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> 
> ...




It's a pretty good ad; many Ontarians have not forgotten Premier Rae and those who remember do so without much affection.

It looks like the Tories have concluded that Mr. Rae is likely to be the leader of the Liberal Party ... something I have suggested, in the past, is a mistake, but as Boneparte said, _"never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."_


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Mar 2012)

It does look good Edward. I see no real attack, like with Ignatieff. Just a simple telling of facts to aquaint those across Canada, not familiar with Boob Rae.


----------



## GAP (19 Mar 2012)

Given how McGuinty is screwing up Ontario, just the vision of his predecessor have control of the GOC should put Ontarians on the Conservative side.....


----------



## Bass ackwards (19 Mar 2012)

On the other hand, Ontarians _reelected_ McGuinty...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Mar 2012)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> On the other hand, _some_ Ontarians _reelected_ McGuinty...



TFTFY


----------



## GAP (19 Mar 2012)

so true......sigh....


----------



## dapaterson (19 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It looks like the Tories have concluded that Mr. Rae is likely to be the leader of the Liberal Party ... something I have suggested, in the past, is a mistake, but as Boneparte said, _"never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."_



In which case, they are prematurely undermining him.  Far more effective to let the Natural Governing Party appoint him in another year or so, then begin the undermining.  If they make him appear weak now, they're risking an unknown factor successsor.  Better the evil you know, after all.


----------



## Kalatzi (19 Mar 2012)

It'll be interesting to see how this skirmish plays out. 

Seems to be a sure win for the CPC, after all it has always worked in the past. Even me, oops. even I bought into their attack ads on Ignatieff. 

To use a hockey analogy the CPC are playing like the NY Rangers and The LPC more like bantam. 

So far with pr editable results. 

To use another analogy, one can but hope that they get really really good with the sling.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In which case, they are prematurely undermining him.  Far more effective to let the Natural Governing Party appoint him in another year or so, then begin the undermining.  If they make him appear weak now, they're risking an unknown factor successsor.  Better the evil you know, after all.



I said, elsewhere:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I suspect that a contender like Dominic LeBlanc might make a spirited run this time, aiming to finish a strong second without running up too much debt, knowing that
> 
> 1. Rae will prevail and will lead the party into the 2015 election;
> 
> ...




I think Rae is, already, past his prime; he is 64 now, he'll be 67 when we go to the polls in 2015, Harper will still be in his 50s. The Liberals have better choices - Dominic LeBlanc would be my choice if I was a Liberal: young, smart, telegenic, quick witted, _Franco_ but not from Québec.


----------



## Old Sweat (20 Mar 2012)

And old Chretien loyalist Warren Kinsella sticks it to Bob Rae in this column from the Sun Papers. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.

 Stick fork in Grits, they’re done   

 By Warren Kinsella ,QMI Agency 

First posted: Monday, March 19, 2012 08:00 PM EDT 
  
Later on Tuesday, you will start seeing Conservative Party ads attacking “interim” Liberal Leader Bob Rae.

The ads are pretty good, as these things go. They cite unhelpful things about Rae’s record as the NDP premier of Ontario, and they end it with the obvious tagline: “He couldn’t run a province. He can’t run Canada.”

That’s the main criticism that can be made of Bob Rae, of course, and you’re going to be hearing a lot of it in the months ahead. Under his watch, Ontario became an economic basket case — unemployment and welfare rates way up, growth and investment way down.

The purpose of attack ads is to surface feelings voters already have about a politician. Rae, Canadians suspect, makes wildly spending drunken sailors look like paragons of fiscal probity.

The Con ads will remind voters about Rae’s record and voters will vote accordingly.

It worked with Stephane Dion and Michael Ignatieff, and it’ll work even better with Rae: He has a record in government that can be attacked. Heck, it deserves to be attacked.

Raelians, in full self-denial, will say they aren’t worried about the spots, of course. They’ll say the ads’ existence demonstrate that it is the Tories who are worried about Rae. Why else run them, they’ll ask.

Because, for starters, Rae has decided to break his promise — he’s after the permanent leadership post.

A few weeks ago, one of his Toronto loyalists summoned some former Michael Ignatieff staffers to a meeting. Rae walked in and said, “I’m running for leader.”

That’s not all. Rae and his apparatchiks are doing their utmost to ensure that no other Liberal gets a fair shot at running for leader.

After the Paul Martin debacle of 2003, you’d think Grits would know by now that coronations are a seriously bad idea. These guys don’t ever learn from history, and so they’re doomed to repeat it.

But the Raelians ask a fair question: Why isn’t Stephen Harper’s evil empire attacking the NDP, too?

Because they don’t have a leader yet, that’s why. In a few days, they will.

Darth Harper and his imperial guard will point their death star at the Dippers and fire away. It won’t be pretty.

Fine, say the Raelians. But why go after the third-place party? It doesn’t make any political sense, they’ll say.

Perhaps. It does, however, if you accept that wars are always easier to fight on one front, not two. It does if you accept that Stephen Harper is in the final phase of doing what he always coveted most: He wants to be remembered by history as the guy who wiped out the Liberal Party of Canada.

Bob Rae is going to help Harper do precisely that. His arrogance and hubris are so immense, he cannot accept — not even for a moment — that his appalling record in Ontario will destroy what little credibility the Liberal Party has left. It’ll slip beneath the waves of history, for good.

Without an arrangement with the NDP, and with Bob Rae as leader, the Liberals are heading towards gritterdamerung. The end times.

The ads that started Tuesday, therefore, aren’t original or even a surprise. They will, however, do what they are intended to do. Kill off the Liberal Party of Canada.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Mar 2012)

I don't often agree with the _Good Grey Globe's_ Lawrence Martin, and I don't agree with all of his comments in those column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, but it is on point:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lawrence-martin/all-parties-have-a-stake-in-the-ndp-leadership-race/article2374012/


> All parties have a stake in the NDP leadership race
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...




I agree with Martin in so far as Mulcair is concerned; I think he's right: both the Conservatives and the Liberals are afraid of Mulcair because he is an effective political performer. The Liberals have an additional reason to fear him: he threatens to push farther into the centre-left and even centre of the Canadian political spectrum to challenge the Liberals directly on their "home field."

I'm not so sure the Conservatives fear Rae as much; he is a good parliamentary (TV) performer but I doubt the Conservatives see a Rae led Liberal Party as a realistic challenge in 2015. Why attack him, then?  In my view the Tories just want to further discomfit the Liberals; the Conservative goal is a long, bloody war between the Liberals and the _Dippers_ ... a war for second place.


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Mar 2012)

And for something completely different, here is a piece by Stephen Marche in Toronto Life on Jack Layton's effect on Canada, as opposed to the New Democratic Party. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act. I admit that this is the first I have heard of the author, and hope it also is the last.

Stephen Marche: an unflinching assessment of Jack Layton’s dubious legacy


The next NDP leader will be obligated to adopt Jack Layton’s Toronto-born brand of socialism—childlike, sentimental, and entirely ineffective

By Stephen Marche 

Jack Layton, posthumously, has more influence over Canadian left-wing politics than any living person. When Nycole Turmel, the NDP’s interim chief, announced the date for the party’s March leadership convention, she said, “We will not replace Jack Layton,” the implication being that Layton is irreplaceable. And yet, the main leadership candidates appear to be trying their hardest to prove they can replace the irreplaceable. Brian Topp, the quintessential backroom operator, recently gained prominence as a member of Layton’s inner circle and the author of How We Almost Gave the Tories the Boot: The Inside Story Behind the Coalition. (Note to file: books with the word “almost” in the title are almost never worth reading.) Thomas Mulcair, the MP from Outremont, promotes himself as the creator of Layton’s strategy for taking Quebec, and therefore the most likely candidate to maintain that legacy-defining victory. Peggy Nash, MP for Parkdale–High Park, is the candidate most similar to Layton personally: an urbanist, supported by artists like Sarah Polley, and inspiring in a safe sort of way. (She wants to make Canada a global leader in innovation. Who doesn’t?)

No matter whom the NDP delegates select to replace Layton, his memory will shape the aims of the party for the foreseeable future. So the time has come to evaluate his legacy clearly, unflinchingly. The popular narrative—certainly the party’s narrative—of his time in federal politics casts the story as an unadulterated victory. And in one sense it was: when Layton took over, the NDP held 14 seats in the House of Commons. Within a year, he had nearly doubled the party’s share of the popular vote. Seven years of steady rises culminated with the NDP winning 103 seats in 2011. The expansion of the party under Layton was much larger than anyone could have imagined. 

And yet despite the marked improvement in the numbers, the left has never been in a worse state by the simplest and most meaningful gauge there is: its effect on the lives of Canadians. In hindsight, the most consequential decision in Jack Layton’s career, perhaps the most important political decision of the past decade, was when he chose to support a Conservative non-confidence motion and end Paul Martin’s minority government in 2005. It was the moment when Layton and the NDP held the most influence over the national agenda, and the Liberals at that time were well on their way to instituting affordable national daycare. That piece of legislation would have done more to help lower- and middle-class families, more to help women and the poor, more to strengthen the social fabric of the country than any other policy. The business case was outstanding: research from a host of economists and community development experts has shown that public investment in early childhood affects subsequent lifetimes of earning ability. Universal daycare would have increased national prosperity in the broadest sense of the term.

Layton, simply by letting things happen, could have helped deliver the policy that offered the single best reason to vote for a socialist government. But instead of taking a solid gain for working families, Layton concentrated on developing the NDP around his own personality. The result? Rather than functional, technocratic socialism, today we have Raffi socialism. Raffi, the ’70s children’s folk musician who fuelled a generation’s road trips with Banana­phone sing­alongs, has recently set some of the lines from Layton’s final letter to Canadians to music—which is exactly what it’s good for. “Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear” were Layton’s parting words, words that sound good but mean exactly nothing, and do nothing to provide the young children of exhausted working families with any benefit from the state.

Raffi socialism is not wrong; it’s much worse. It’s content in its impotence. Its constituent parts are feel-good, conventional, childlike ideas about how the world should work, substituting bike lanes or an empty critique of capitalism for practical policies that would actually improve the lives of Canadians. Today’s left-wing leaders, following in Layton’s footsteps, like to whine—about whether the head of the CRTC is bilingual or not, or about why we don’t have more bike lanes, or about the need for a hockey concussion registry.

Raffi socialism is downtown Toronto’s cheerfully useless contribution to national politics, born from the dysfunction of city hall. To become a councillor or mayor, you have to win a lot of votes, and then when you do, you’re only one decision maker out of 45. The OMB and the province make all the substantial decisions anyway, so it’s quite easy to praise public transit and parks without ever having to go to the trouble of finding the money to build them, and it’s equally easy to shout your respect for taxpayers and commuters while doing nothing to alleviate congestion. Rhetoric, alongside basic constituency business, is the job; the innovators of city hall invent new modes of political symbolism. As a councillor, Layton mastered Raffi socialism. Ford is inventing gridiron conservatism.

The Conservatives loved Layton; they loved his tireless impotence. No doubt Harper would like Layton’s legacy to live forever. The Conservative prime minister, elected with barely 40 per cent of the vote, faces no real Opposition caucus. Instead of national child care, we have the Universal Child Care Benefit, a hundred bucks a month for each kid, which must be a joke or an insult; either way, it manages to be hilariously infuriating every month.

The vague feel-goodery of the left has allowed the Conservative government to carry on unsupervised, free to indulge their love of all things clandestine. They used that freedom to hide the G8 funding details, to launch a misinformation campaign against the Liberal MP Irwin Cotler in which they defended outright lying as an act of freedom of speech, and to establish the ominous, contentless “Office of Religious Freedom.” Against the advice of every business and social welfare group in the country, they abandoned the mandatory long-form census—so we won’t be able to know the results of their policies. The Conservatives of the moment are the party of the closet.

After the NDP convention, there will at least be a leader to rattle the Conservatives’ closet. But 10 years ago, the NDP, even with fewer seats in the House of Commons, had more influence over national policy because it preserved a practical, progressive approach in Canadian politics—and this was at a time when the left in other English-speaking countries simply imploded or ran as fast as possible to the centre-right. While countries that espoused a rampant unchecked capitalism (the U.S.) or an unaffordable socialism (Greece) lie in social and financial ruins, the Canadian model, with its three-party system, is triumphant. The terrible irony of our situation is that, exactly at the moment when our moderate, polite politics has been justified before the world, we are abandoning moderation in favour of empty ideological rhetoric from the left and secrecy from the right.

No doubt the video tributes to Layton are already locked and loaded for the Toronto convention. Hopefully, this last burst of sentiment will assuage the needs of the kitsch left, and the NDP can stop remembering Jack Layton and start remembering whom it’s supposed to serve.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Mar 2012)

Except that he's right when he says:

_"Raffi socialism is downtown Toronto’s cheerfully useless contribution to national politics, born from the dysfunction of city hall. To become a councillor or mayor, you have to win a lot of votes, and then when you do, you’re only one decision maker out of 45. The OMB and the province make all the substantial decisions anyway, so it’s quite easy to praise public transit and parks without ever having to go to the trouble of finding the money to build them, and it’s equally easy to shout your respect for taxpayers and commuters while doing nothing to alleviate congestion. Rhetoric, alongside basic constituency business, is the job; the innovators of city hall invent new modes of political symbolism. As a councillor, Layton mastered Raffi socialism. Ford is inventing gridiron conservatism.

The Conservatives loved Layton; they loved his tireless impotence. No doubt Harper would like Layton’s legacy to live forever. The Conservative prime minister, elected with barely 40 per cent of the vote, faces no real Opposition caucus. Instead of national child care, we have the Universal Child Care Benefit, a hundred bucks a month for each kid, which must be a joke or an insult; either way, it manages to be hilariously infuriating every month."_

You have to give him that.


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Mar 2012)

I do agree with that part. My difficulty is that the author seems to be a minor leftard commentator with an advanced degree and minimal accomplishments.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Mar 2012)

It's interesting that the old _party line_ hard left is so distressed. The left wing of the NDP remain died in the wool, tooth and claw socialists - nationalize the banks and so on; they are not, as Mackenzie-King put it, "Liberals in a hurry." They will be chewing the carpets if Mulcair become NDP leader ~ he's not a true believer.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Mar 2012)

The NDP's moment in the sunshine is chiefly the LPC's achievement (and partly also the BQ's), not Layton's.  The NDP has a bunch of seats because the LPC is in disarray.  Once the Liberals come to their senses, unite behind a leader, and produce a real platform instead of grasping at the ephemeral "natural governing party" straws thinking the CPC will blow away like dust in the wind, the NDP will be restored to its customary rump status.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The NDP's moment in the sunshine is chiefly the LPC's achievement (and partly also the BQ's), not Layton's.  The NDP has a bunch of seats because the LPC is in disarray.  *If* Once the Liberals come to their senses, unite behind a leader, and produce a real platform instead of grasping at the ephemeral "natural governing party" straws thinking the CPC will blow away like dust in the wind, the NDP will be restored to its customary rump status.



TFTFY


----------



## a_majoor (23 Mar 2012)

One thing which has escaped notice is the effect of the new NDP leader on the Green Party. While the sooner their "leader" is sent packing the better; this analysis suggests the Green voters and supporters may decide the NDP is a better fit:

http://russ-campbell.blogspot.ca/2012/03/will-green-party-survive-mulcair.html



> *Will the Green party survive a Mulcair victory?*
> 
> The fed­eral Dip­pers choose a new leader on Sat­ur­day, and should Thomas Mul­cair be cho­sen, that may very well spell the be­gin­ning of the end of the Green Party of Canada as the coun­try’s en­vi­ron­men­tal con­science. Eliz­a­beth May, please take note.
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Mar 2012)

I think Craig's been sipping a little too much of the orange coolaid:

Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/QPeriod/20120323/craigstake-ndp-convention-120323/#ixzz1q03BcyuB



> Craig's Take: This may be NDP's moment in history
> 
> Craig Oliver, CTV Chief Political Correspondent
> 
> ...



I think the reality will be much different than the dream. I foresee a resurgent Block taking many of their previous seats back leaving the NDP with a much reduced caucus. The Liberals will probably rebound a little, and we may even enter minority government territory. To suggest that the NDP will form that government is laughable. The Torries Stand to lose no ground in Quebec where the NDP stands to lose everything. There is no way that the Torries are going to lose 35 seats nationwide while the NDP gain them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Mar 2012)

At the end of the 1st ballot the results in the NDP leadership race are:

Mulcair:  30.4%
Topp:      21.4%
Cullen:    16.4%
Nash:      12.9%
Dewar:    )
Singh:     }  Not on the 2nd ballot
Ashton:   )

This is actually an important election. If Mulcair wins he will be tough on the Conservatives but he will be harder on the Liberals. He's a good, vigorous parliamentarian and he does well on TV. He will, I suspect drag the party towards the centre which is bad for the Liberals but good for the country because IF he ever does become prime minister a Mulcair government will do less damage than, say, a Topp led administration would. If Topp wins he will be easy for the Conservative and the Liberals to attack and he will find it hard to fight back. He will also keep the party in the left of the spectrum which means that Canadians will not elect them to govern. But he will also foil Stephen Harper's goal of destroying the Liberals because the left of centre vote will, once again, be divided.

So: Mulcair is better for the country and better for Harper's "annihilate the Liberals" project, but Mulcair might actually win an election in 2019 or later. Topp is doomed to take the NDP back to third party status - maybe even fourth, thus he presents no threat to Canada.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Mar 2012)

Craig Oliver is great; I love the pinched look of panic/terror/bewilderment/disappointment on his face whenever he has to report on anything favourable to the Conservatives.

"...dedicated to social fairness and economic justice. But Tommy and later leaders could never move it beyond its image as a big-spending socialist-labour coalition."

But "fairness" and "justice" are essentially substitutes for "redistribution".  Realistically, there is no achieving "fairness" and "justice" any other way.  And if you are to redistribute in any meaningful way short of instructing taxpayers to make direct payments to welfare recipients, you must be a "big-spender" (after first being a "big-taxer").  Stop apologizing for what the NDP is or trying to mislead people into believing it is something else and stand up to defend what it is.  Or don't.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Mar 2012)

Fairness and Justice are not the same; "fairness" is quite subjective (just listen in on your children's arguments about something being "fair"; generally if something is "not fair" it is not in the child's favour) wheras Justice, properly concieved and administered, is not.

Sadly, our "Justice" system is badly flawed in the direction of "fairness", the recent Supreme Court decision that sentencing can be adjusted on racist grounds is only the most recent (and dramatic) example.

As for getting Government "fairness", you don't have to think too hard to realize what an NDP government considers "fair" will probably be quite "unfair" for most Canadians footing the bill for the favoured few.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Mar 2012)

The specter of a "coalition of the losers" raises its head again:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/24/chris-selley-the-new-democrats-and-coalition-governance/



> *Chris Selley: The New Democrats and coalition governance*
> Chris Selley  Mar 24, 2012 – 11:54 AM ET | Last Updated: Mar 24, 2012 12:37 PM ET
> 
> Darren Calabrese/National Post
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Mar 2012)

There is nothing unconstitutional or even _wrong_ with a coalition (which, except in times of a dire emergency, will likely always be of "losers") so long as the voters know, before they go to the polls, that is what is on offer. Equally, after a minority government falls a _coalition_ of the official opposition and one (or two) others parties is likewise constitutional, in fact it, at least informally, is probably essential unless we want to go back to the polls.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> At the end of the 1st ballot the results in the NDP leadership race are:
> 
> Mulcair:  30.4%
> Topp:      21.4%
> ...




Results of the second ballot:

Thomas Mulcair - 38.3%  +8%
Brian Topp        -  25%    +4% 
Nathan Cullen  -  19.9%  +3%
Peggy Nash      -  16.8%. +4%     (Nash eliminated)

Edit to add:

Third round results:

Thomas Mulcair  43.8% +5.5%
Brian Topp         31.6%  +6.6%
Nathan Cullen    24.6%. +4.6%  (Cullen is eliminated)

The smart (and gracious) move for Topp, now, is to concede and make the nomination of Muclair unanimous; I'm not sure Topp has that kind of _grace_.

Edited again to add:

Final result:

Mulcair 57+%
Topp    42%

So Cullen's vore split a little better than 50:50 (about 14:11, actually) in favour of Mulcair. Topp's only chance was for a 3:1 split in his favour and, according to the pundits, that was not in the cards.

The NDP have made the best choice for themselves; the Conservatives will like Mulcair less than they would have liked Topp because Mulcair is a seasoned, skilled, combative politician; the Liberals will hate him because he will try very, very hard to eat their lunch.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Mar 2012)

One Blogging Tory on how the new leader of the opposition should operate. I agree with his conclusion; only an effective opposition will keep the current government sharp and on their toes:

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=13421



> *Good Morning, Mister Opposition Leader*
> Posted on 25 March 2012 by PhantomObserver
> 
> Yes, good morning, and congratulations on a well-earned win. I trust you’ve had a good night’s sleep; given that you didn’t exactly set the world on fire with your victory speech, I’m sure everyone thought you needed one.
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Mar 2012)

For all their moaning about the loss of Canadian jobs at the hands of the Conservatives, I can't help but notice they hired a Spanish firm to handle their election.


----------



## Kalatzi (26 Mar 2012)

A link to Mulclair''s victory spech is here  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/video/video-mulcair-wins-heated-ndp-leadership-battle/article2380605/

I wish him, them,  us well.  One may not agree with what is being said. We've been blessed at time with articulate politicians that  on opposite sides of views . 

Laurier/Borden come to mind.  Typical Hyperbole on my part, I know. 

One can but hope.

So much for the wishful thinking,  an effective opposition,  is good for everyone.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Mar 2012)

A pretty fair assessment, I think, of where Thomas Mulcair plans to take the NDP between now and the 2015 general election, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/ndp-sheds-comfy-sweaters-for-battle-gear/article2380920/


> NDP sheds ‘comfy sweaters’ for battle gear
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...




I think Prime Minister Harper, barring some major scandal, has and will have what he needs to secure another majority in 2015 - including a steadily improving economy, a (nearly) balanced budget, and 30 new seats in Conservative friendly suburbs in CB, AB and ON. I also think that Mulcair, at the head of a centre-left (rather than left of centre) party that has displaced the Liberals as the _alternative governing party_ in Canada, has a reasonable shot at power in 2019.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Mar 2012)

More reading of tea leaves. It will be interesting to revisit the post one year from now and see how close or farr off the mark this was:

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2012/03/thomas-mulcairs-ndp/



> *Thomas Mulcairs NDP*
> 
> Seven Months, 131,000 members, 69,000 votes, 4 ballots, Thomas Mulcair: 57%. This past weekend in Toronto, the federal New Democrats elected the next leader of their party and Her Majesty’s Leader of the Loyal Opposition. Riding the so-called Orange Wave to an unprecedented 103 seats in the 41st General Election, NDP spirits were buoyed at convention despite the purpose of their task, to replace the much-beloved Jack Layton, who passed away last year.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kalatzi (28 Mar 2012)

For your enjoyment - the ever entertaining Rick Mercer on attack ads


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/03/28/rick-mercer-rant-attack-ads_n_1384907.html?ref=canada


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Apr 2012)

And the real (Election 2015) games begin, according to this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/marathon-ndp-budget-response-puts-liberal-noses-out-of-joint/article2391097/


> Marathon NDP budget response puts Liberal noses out of joint
> 
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> 
> ...




Now, the _Dippers_ really, really do oppose the Conservatives; the Tories are the real, ancient enemy, they stand against everything the NDSP holds dear and, and, and ... but for now, and through to 2015, the NDP must fight a war on two fronts: against the Conservatives and against the Liberals. And the second front is the big one. If the NDP ever want to take power in Canada they must, first of all, displace the Liberals as the logical _natural_ alternative to the Tories.

Expect more of this sort of thing.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Apr 2012)

And the NDP enjoy privileged access to the Zipless Vote (apologies to Erica Jong).  They can vote with no strings attached.  It just doesn't matter what they say or do.  A situation that is immensely freeing to both the Government and the Official Opposition.  All other parties are there on sufferance.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Apr 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And the real (Election 2015) games begin, according to this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/marathon-ndp-budget-response-puts-liberal-noses-out-of-joint/article2391097/
> 
> ...




And here it is, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/with-ndp-nipping-at-tory-heels-in-poll-rae-lashes-out-at-mini-harper-mulcair/article2392371/]


> With NDP nipping at Tory heels in poll, Rae lashes out at ‘mini-Harper’ Mulcair
> 
> JOAN BRYDEN
> 
> ...




This is tough for the Liberals - they got used to Nycole Turmel and, because she was so weak in the HoC, they got used to stealing the opposition spotlight; but Thomas Mulcair is not a doormat and Rae and the Liberals will have to eat a little more crow.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Apr 2012)

And Thomas Mulcair gets a leg up on the Tories attack ad machine by "going positive" in his own French language ads for Québec. I bet Bob Rae and the Liberals wish they had this kind of moxie, this kind of money and this kind of leader.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Apr 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And Thomas Mulcair gets a leg up on the Tories attack ad machine by "going positive" in his own French language ads for Québec. I bet Bob Rae and the Liberals wish they had this kind of moxie, this kind of money and this kind of leader.



It will be interesting to see if the Tories go the same route. For those who remember, they didn't go negative until the Liberals did. If that's the only change to politics that Mr Muclair completes then that's good enough for me. (but I still won't vote NDP)


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Apr 2012)

The second great fear for all the Trudeau Liberals is expressed in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/will-blue-and-orange-squeeze-out-bob-raes-red/article2393393/


> Will blue and orange squeeze out Bob Rae's red?
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> 
> ...




The greatest fear of the Trudeau Liberals is that their Montreal/Toronto ruling coaliton _axis_ is being displaced by a Western Ontario <-> Alberta _alliance_ of established fiscal conservatives, whi have, in the past, wavered between being Conservatives and/or Liberals, and immigrants who tend to be both socially and fiscally conservatives but who were until this century, reliably Liberal.

I think the John Manley Liberals are already drifting away and into the Conservative camp because Stephen Harper is not scary, and nor is his now revealed _hidden agenda_™ the Trudeau Liberals will be next - drifting towards the NDP when, if it shows itself to be less than scary.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Apr 2012)

Rex Murphy's take on the real political battle leading up to the 2015 election, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/07/rex-murphy-this-is-mulcairs-moment/


> This is Mulcair’s moment
> 
> Rex Murphy
> 
> ...




I agree with Rex Murphy, a too easy opposition has made the Conservatives complacent and lazy. Prime Minister Harper had better get his act (and his cabinet's act) together.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Apr 2012)

It doesn't happen often, but I agree with Lawrence Martin's assessment, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, of the NDP's ongoing drift towards the centre:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lawrence-martin/the-eternal-leavening-of-the-canadian-left/article2396431/


> The eternal leavening of the Canadian left
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...




This is the direction Stephen Harper is reputed to want Canadian politics to follow and, if he's right, it spells the eventual doom of either the Liberals or the NDP.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Apr 2012)

The NDP are hammering the nails to the Liberal coffin. The only thing missing from this analysis is the "what comes next?" part. Having Quebec is all well and good, but the Conservatives have the West and much of Ontario, enough to have a majority government even without Quebec. Will the NDP be able to make enough inroads into Ontario to change the political calculus by 2019? 2023? 

For that matter will the move towards the "Third way" keep enough people in the NDP or will the true believers jump ship? (There will actually be a lot of shuffling around; Blue Liberals going to the CPC, Orange Liberals going NDP, True believers possibly splitting into a new left wing rump party, possible shift of Green voters and a possible resurgent Quebec Nationalist party)

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1159803--hebert-liberals-looking-for-a-saviour-and-a-miracle



> *Hébert: Liberals looking for a saviour and a miracle*
> Published On Wed Apr 11 2012Email Print Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on diggShare on Thomas
> 
> Mulcair is well placed to establish the NDP as the default federalist party in Quebec, writes Chantal Hébert.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 May 2012)

Here are two columns, both reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, that suggest that the _left-right_ split that Prime Minister Harper is thought to desire is on the way but that it might not produce the results for which he hopes:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/no-room-for-centrist-compromise-in-a-left-right-split-canada/article2445923/


> No room for centrist compromise in a left-right split Canada
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...




Now, I will not shed a tear for the Liberal Party of Canada - at least not as it has existed since the mid 1960s when it lurched sharply off the course set by Laurier, King and St Laurent - but, for now at least, Canada remains more _left_ than _right_, more European than American and most Liberals will not migrate to the Conservative Party, they will find a new home in a _centrist_ NDP.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-time-has-come-for-a-progressive-revival/article2445801/


> The time has come for a progressive revival
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...




Let's assume that the national _commentariat_ is correct: Stephen Harper wants to reshape Canada (and Canadian politics) into a left/right model - with both the _left_ and _right_ parties occupying a big share of the centre - so big that there is no room, at all, for a _centrist_ party (something which the Liberals were until 1967).

To do that he must, in my opinion, win the 2015 election. He has one more budget (spring 2013) to make economic reforms - the 2014 and 2015 budgets must:

a. Keep a promise to "balance" the budget (reduce the deficit to near zero); and

b. *Give* Canadians - those on the political fence, those who might lean _right_, some "lolly" to but their votes.

If he can win a majority in 2015 then he has room for one more _tough_ budget (2016) - aimed at drying up the public teat, one more moderate budget (2017) and then he (or his successor) will most likely, try to use the next two (2018 and 19) to buy votes again in order to be competitive in the 2019 election.

He needs to hope that the Liberals will put up one helluva fight in 2015 and 2019, refusing to bow down to defeat without furiously attacking their *real*, deadly enemy: the NDP. If the Liberals fight hard enough they, not Stephen Harper, may be he ones who, unwittingly, undo the legacy of Pierre Trudeau and return us to a country upon which Louis St Laurent might smile.


----------



## Journeyman (29 May 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ....their *real*, deadly enemy: the NDP.


Strange times, indeed.


----------



## Kalatzi (29 May 2012)

'Black Out, Speak Out': Canadian internet campaign targets 'undemocratic' bill

Link here http://www.rt.com/news/canada-internet-black-out-418/

One of the problems of an Ominous Bill such as this is that it is Precisely the sort of thing that allows Pork and other nonsense to be stuffed into it. Very difficult to decipher what is in it.  The way the Republicrats and the Demicans can screw up the country. Now,  its here courtesy CPC , Nice. 

Here's an example "A line buried deep in the document also ominously states, "The Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act is repealed."

The change would eliminate a 1985 law forcing companies bidding on federal contracts to pay “fair wages and overtime.”

Did you know that??? My guess is not. Wonder what other toxic goodies are in there??? Me too. 

The reason that this example is especially important, is that things such as the 35 hour week, overtime etc, came about as  efforts to minimize the effects of depressions, such as the one that we are in now. 

BY now my many detractors must be salivating as they wait their turn. Let me end by noting that the above is not simply my idea. The economist Paul Krugman has devoted a book to it - "End this Depression Now. 

Given the state of jollity in La Belle Province It will be interesting to see how this plays out. 

Any chance of the bill being amended  - We'll have to have a hell freezes over party first


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 May 2012)

More news that should fuel an all out battle to the death between the Liberals and the NDP, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/how-census-figures-cement-harpers-grip-on-power/article2446248/


> How census figures cement Harper’s grip on power
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...




The NDP can beat the Conservatives in 2015 IF they an craft a _narrative_, a _message_ that resonates with all of the young students, working Canadians and seniors. They will not do that by pitting East against West but there are ways, I guess, to square the circle.


----------



## Journeyman (29 May 2012)

Kalatzi said:
			
		

> 'Black Out, Speak Out': Canadian internet campaign targets 'undemocratic' bill



So, did you have any, you know...._thoughts_.....on the topic, or did you just figure the histrionic article from _Russian Times_ (when even the excitable CBC's lead story is on the rising percentage of seniors) says it all?

       :waiting:


----------



## Kalatzi (30 May 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> So, did you have any, you know...._thoughts_.....on the topic, or did you just figure the histrionic article from _Russian Times_ (when even the excitable CBC's lead story is on the rising percentage of seniors) says it all?
> 
> :waiting:



Thank you, Funny uou should ask. 

I could have sworn that II posted this in the budget 2012 forum.  That aside 

What do you think of this?? 

I posted this without really expecting any responses  - if it was in the budget 2012 forum, again I may have screwed up.


----------



## Journeyman (30 May 2012)

Kalatzi said:
			
		

> What do you think of this??
> 
> I posted this without really expecting any responses


Then why post it?

Personally, I think that the site would be a better, more informative, and of higher quality site if posters of information pieces would include their views.....AND reasons why those views are held -- preferably with justification.

We have plenty of people who just cut & paste newspaper articles for little apparent purpose -- some to argue their entrenched left/right political views, some for anything involving ambulances, etc.......

I wasn't trashing-talking you....._this time_   ....... I just wondered if there was anything behind the posting, because you providing nothing to add to a potential discussion.


----------



## Sythen (30 May 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Then why post it?
> 
> Personally, I think that the site would be a better, more informative, and of higher quality site if posters of information pieces would include their views.....AND reasons why those views are held -- preferably with justification.
> 
> ...



Providing links to informative/interesting articles so that others can form their own opinions based on their own thoughts instead of being force fed the opinions of others is a bad thing?


----------



## Journeyman (30 May 2012)

No, it's not a bad thing. It is, however, just a first step. 

Those interested in learning would most likely be reading a variety of articles from different sources. For those being passively fed posted articles however, I'd _personally_ prefer site members provide some extra effort to inform, provide context, possibly include some contrary info. Even those supposedly interested in learning have a tendency to read only from sources with which they agree; conflicting views can be a good thing, and if you believe in something so strongly, convince us.....or at least encourage us to think.

Opinions are easy; informed opinions are valued.

I'm merely encouraging that extra step.


Note that I _do_ try to avoid being this pedantic in Mess Chatter and Recruiting threads.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 May 2012)

> Generally, an older society is a poorer society, because seniors consume more from government than they contribute through taxes, and because the economy is unable to provide the jobs needed to keep young people from leaving town in search of work.



A poorer society it may be. Do not forget seniors still pay municipal/city taxes, school tax and sales taxes at the same rate as younger taxpayers. Sure we may get a age reduction on property taxes at age 65, but it ain't much. Seniors will pay school taxes at the same rate as a 30 YOA person, long after their great grandchildren graduate, if they live long enough. And, they still pay income tax on pension/annuity/etc income, even if the income is not the same as it was when working.

Those seniors who have disposable income spend it and pay the tax. Capital gains tax if lucky at the same rate. Estate tax if they were successful.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 May 2012)

For many (most?) Canadians health care remains a major election issue. We like our "single payer" health care system and we like to believe, against all the evidence, that it is a good system. But most of us understand that it is strapped for cash and we, broadly, want governments to pump more cash into it ... Why? So that we can have more of this?

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _CBC_:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/05/29/nl-tim-hortons-hsc-loss-529.html?cmp=rss


> Tim Hortons at St. John's hospital awash in red ink
> 
> Eastern Health turns over staffing at coffee shop to private sector
> 
> ...




One must ask: who, in their right mind, thought it was a good OK sane idea to pay coffee servers $20.00/hour plus benefits? According to one source the average salary for Tim Horton's servers is in the range of $8.00 to $10.00/hour - less than half what Eastern Health has been paying. It also begs the question: if healh care _administrators_ (please note that health care _professionals_ (doctors, nurses, etc) do *not* manage hospitals or the system, _managing_ is done by bureaucrats and _professional managers_) can "manage" a coffee shop this ineptly, how well are they managing the rest of the system, the parts that cost billions and billions of dollars each year? In fact, it begs the question: why are these _professional managers_ still employed? If you owned a Tim Horton's franchise and decided to pay your staff at twice the going rate you would soon be bankrupt, unemployed and homeless.

This is not, strictly, a federal election issue but it is part of the _narrative_ that Stephen Harper is crafting for 2015: "We are good managers, planning for the country's (your) future; we send money to the provinces for your heath care, but they - often being Liberals and NDP - waste it. We want them to innovate, to find new, more productive ways to use the billions we send each year; they just line up and say 'more! More! MORE! Do you really want us to send more and more money into this rat hole? We are going to 'cap' transfers and equalization and stay out of areas of provincial responsibility; it's up to you to elect provincial governments that will serve your needs. And, if you want your money used effectively - not paying $20.00/hour for serving coffee, it is up to you to support us in 2015."


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 May 2012)

> One must ask: who, in their right mind, thought it was a good OK sane idea to pay coffee servers unionized provincial liquor store shelf stockers/cashiers $20.00/hour plus benefits? According to one source the average salary for Tim Horton's servers is in the range of $8.00 to $10.00/hour - less than half what Eastern Health has been paying. It also begs the question: if health care administrators public service unions (please note that health care professionals (doctors, nurses, etc) do not manage hospitals or the system, managing is done by bureaucrats and professional managers) can "manage" a coffee shop anything using the taxpayer as a bottomless pit this ineptly, how well are they managing the rest of the system, the parts that cost billions and billions of dollars each year?


 Public Service managers are unionized also.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 May 2012)

Jeff Rubin, well known and often contrarian economic prognosticator and author (about the effects of $200/bbl oil) posits some of the changes that will impact our politics in the 2015 election and beyond in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/have+have/6703622/story.html


> To have and have not
> 
> By Jeff Rubin, The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> ...




Although I subscribe to the "old Canada/new Canada" thesis, which says that the main _fault line_ in Canadian society and politics lies along the Ottawa River and that it is based more on _attitudes_ (culture) than on economics or language or anything else, I do agree that Ontario and Quebec share common ground: their manufacturing sectors are hurt because of the _petro-dollar_ effect; Alberta's and Newfoundland's good fortune is bad news for the manufacturing sector in Canada's two largest provinces.

But, I also believe that how these two large provinces react, over the next decade or two, will be different. My guess is that Ontario will, sooner rather than later, try to encourage _re-industrialization_ by "getting government out of the way" while Quebec will try to increase the role of the state by "picking winners" and offering subsidies.

I think that Stephen Harper can, with the aid of 30 new seats in the HoC, win another majority in 2015 *IF*, as I expect, the Liberals and NDP both devote at least as much effort on attacking one another as they do on battling against the Conservatives. He, or his successor, might even get a minority in 2019 ~ by which time Canada, writ large, should be comfortable with a new definition of the _political centre_, one which will be rather farther to the _right_ than is now the case.

I also agree with Rubin that Calgary will challenge Toronto for "head offices" and for the jobs, money, people, spin-offs (culture, for example) that they bring. The consequence will be a _cultural_ shift to the West and to the _political right_.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 May 2012)

The problem of money distribution can be addressed by Ontario and Quebec "going where the money is".

This doesn't mean the provinces or their residents relocating.  It means converting their skills into producing things that other people will buy.

If you can't get poor Americans to buy average quality cars from highly paid Ontarians then maybe you could make a buck by making industrial valves, pumps and controls to a very needy and very rich oil patch in BC, Alberta, Sask, Manitoba, NWT, and Newfoundland.  Or making tanks for storing stuff.  Or making Teflon for lining things.....

We are waiting 6 to 8 weeks out here for simple valves and pumps.

Two to three months for tanks.

Welders and fitters are scarcer than hen's teeth and even good quality junior engineers are hard to come by.

Coincidentally those are the very things in which Northern Europeans excel and export to Southern Europe, along with the very expensive Mercedes which they sell to the very rich living in the South amongst the very poor.

A buddy of mine just came back from Spain which is kind of a second and future home for him.  And we got talking about culture.

He reminded me that the Spaniards still take siestas from approximately 12:00 to 16:00, every day of the week.  They make up for those hours after 16:00 but......

Add to the general European difficulty of many holidays, of general holidays where everything shuts down at the same time (and that includes lunch time), of language difficulties (especially true when everybody tries to communicate in their own brand of English)..... add to all of those the fact that for the entire afternoon Spain is not available to conduct business with anybody.  When they are willing to come to the shop window the only customers available to them are 4 time zones away in Virginia and Newfoundland -  and gawdelp the Spaniard trying to make himself understood in Southdildo.

Quebec.  Meet Spain.
Ontario.  Meet Germany.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 May 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The problem of money distribution can be addressed by Ontario and Quebec "going where the money is".
> 
> This doesn't mean the provinces or their residents relocating.  It means converting their skills into producing things that other people will buy.
> 
> ...



Much of that is already happening. There are a number of tool shops, in this area, that have weaned themselves from the auto maker teet and are doing wellhead parts production for Alberta firms.  We have the facilities, expertise and skilled workforce to do it. That's why it's here. 

It saved them from closing their doors and putting the workers on the streets.

McSquinty just refuses to acknowledge it, publicly, and just wants to blame the oilpatch, instead of his inept, socialist government, for all his (our) heartache.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 May 2012)

> It has only to look to Texas to see the model in action — the absence of a state income tax in Texas has lured more than a few industries from less fortunate states.



Texas is one the nine states without a state income tax. Some are doing well i.e. Texas/Alaska/South Dakota; some like Nevada are not.

The Right to Work states have a big advantage also, although the nominal head of the union, President Obama, has tried in the past (South Carolina comes to mind) to circumvent the law.

Texas and South Dakota are RTW states as is Nevada.

I see the Manitoba (second largest recipient of equalization payments) government is floating increasing provincial sales tax and petroleum taxes to support the NDP's Greek agenda. 

Ontario is in a mess partly because of Liberal spending.

What is the City of Ottawa thinking of blowing $2.1 Billion on?

Give them the authority to take a citizens money and they will spend.


----------



## GAP (31 May 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Much of that is already happening. There are a number of tool shops, in this area, that have weaned themselves from the auto maker teet and are doing wellhead parts production for Alberta firms.  We have the facilities, expertise and skilled workforce to do it. That's why it's here.
> 
> It saved them from closing their doors and putting the workers on the streets.
> 
> McSquinty just refuses to acknowledge it, publicly, and just wants to blame the oilpatch, instead of his inept, socialist government, for all his (our) heartache.



But the auto industry is like welfare money...most businesses would rather wait it out and hope for an increase than retool for the oil patch...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 May 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> But the auto industry is like welfare money...most businesses would rather wait it out and hope for an increase than retool for the oil patch...



Not here. Many of the shops diversified after the last go around. Now they make moulds for Rubbermaid, Fisher Price, etc. The auto companies came back to them and found a significant shift in relationships. The Big Three are no longer in the driver's seat when it comes to negotiating a contract for moulds, tooling and dies. Negotiation terms have changed to the toolmaker's advantage. They'll still do auto jobs, but they are finished being held hostage to them.


----------



## ModlrMike (31 May 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Much of that is already happening. There are a number of tool shops, in this area, that have weaned themselves from the auto maker teet and are doing wellhead parts production for Alberta firms.  We have the facilities, expertise and skilled workforce to do it. That's why it's here.
> 
> It saved them from closing their doors and putting the workers on the streets.
> 
> McSquinty just refuses to acknowledge it, publicly, and just wants to blame the oilpatch, instead of his inept, socialist government, for all his (our) heartache.



An extrapolation of the "Asian Tigers" approach. Korea, Taiwan and even Vietnam make tons of stuff, but they make more parts for other people's stuff. It's the parts end of the equation that's been carrying them along over the years. Parts factories can be more nimble and respond better to changing market forces. Old, staid and entrenched manufacturing can only usually withstand small bumps in the road... unlike the current economic situation. If Ontario (and Quebec) want to renew industry, then making parts for AB, BC, NL is where the money is.


----------



## GAP (31 May 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Not here. Many of the shops diversified after the last go around. Now they make moulds for Rubbermaid, Fisher Price, etc. The auto companies came back to them and found a significant shift in relationships. The Big Three are no longer in the driver's seat when it comes to negotiating a contract for moulds, tooling and dies. Negotiation terms have changed to the toolmaker's advantage. They'll still do auto jobs, but they are finished being held hostage to them.



Good to hear


----------



## GAP (31 May 2012)

hmnmmm......







link http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Malcolm+Mayes+cartoons/1007472/story.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Jun 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> For many (most?) Canadians health care remains a major election issue. We like our "single payer" health care system and we like to believe, against all the evidence, that it is a good system. But most of us understand that it is strapped for cash and we, broadly, want governments to pump more cash into it ... Why? So that we can have more of this?
> 
> Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _CBC_:
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2012/05/29/nl-tim-hortons-hsc-loss-529.html?cmp=rss
> ...




More of he same, this time from Windsor, ON, in this article in he _National Post_. This time the coffee servers are being paid $26.00/hour and the hospital lost $265K on its _Timmies_ franchise. So ... we have a health care system that cannot run a coffee shop and is always short of cash ... maybe the problem is _management_, professional management in the hospitals, bureaucratic management in provincial capitals and political management in cabinet rooms, not physicians' and nurses' salaries.


Edit: typo


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Jun 2012)

It should also be noted that, if you follow Tim Horton's franchising guidelines, it is all but impossible to lose money.  I know this from when the Tim Hortons was first set up in Petawawa and Canex lost money on it- until it stopping thinking that it knew the coffee business better than the pros did and started to follow the manual.

It takes a special brand of creative incompetence to get to a situation where you lose money selling coffee and donuts.  It is interesting the governmental organizations seem to be the SMEs in this particular regard.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jun 2012)

I clearly have to rethink buying shares in Tim Horton's if they sell franchises to incompetents.

Drifting back to the topic, Diane Francis rips Tomas Mulcair a new one in the National Post. If this outline is reflective of him, then Stephen Harper has little to worry about, and the LPC gets another breather as the NDP surge withdraws back towards its historic pool. But an ineffective opposition has its on dangers; the governing party becomes complacent and lazy:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/06/01/why-thomas-mulcair-is-clearly-a-national-problem/



> *Why Thomas Mulcair is clearly a national problem*
> Diane Francis  Jun 1, 2012 – 1:15 PM ET
> 
> Diane Francis: Recent events certainly serve to reveal the character of federal NDP leader Thomas Mulcair, the latest actor on Ottawa’s stage who is in a major supporting role.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jun 2012)

More on the problems of Liberal leadership and renewal. Sadly, many of the proposed policy measures this author wants to adopt are areas of Provincial jurisdiction, and intruding into Provincial jurisdiction, overlap and duplication of effort during the years of Liberal governments are some of the root causes of low productivity (having to deal with duplicate government offices) as well as out of control spending. If the LPC could sit down and craft areas of policy under Federal jurisdiction (and no, child care is not one of those areas), then they might have a chance. As an incidental, I personally see no need for "national strategies" in most of these areas, breaking them down into local units and under local jurisdiction is a far better and more viable solution.

Sadly, it seems down to a corination of Bob Rae or perhaps the Young Dauphin, no policy renewal and a slow, agonizing death. If the NDP wasn't so scary (want national Rae Days? Like how the Greek economy has turned out?) then a two party model might be viable, but not the two remaining parties as they are...

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/10/michael-den-tandt-liberals-must-embrace-the-big-bold-change-its-hardcore-supporters-hate/#more-81307



> *Michael Den Tandt: Liberal party must embrace the big, bold change its hardcore supporters hate*
> Michael Den Tandt, Postmedia News  Jun 10, 2012 – 1:08 PM ET | Last Updated: Jun 11, 2012 9:39 AM ET
> 
> Delegates line up to vote for Liberal Party of Canada executive and commission officers during the Liberal Biennial Convention in Ottawa January 14, 2012
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jun 2012)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and mail_ is a column which deserves a top to bottom read:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/why-trudeau-needs-to-fail-now-to-succeed-in-the-future/article4254496/


> Why Trudeau needs to fail now to succeed in the future
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...




While I agree, broadly, with Ibbitson, he ignores the fact, and it is a fact, that Thomas Mulcair is a formidable, season politician who, like Stephen Harper, is hell bent of seeing Canada become a two party state - and he expects one to be _conservative_ and the other _liberal_; he presumes that the Conservatives will retain heir grip on the _conservative_ end of the spectrum and wants the NDP to hold the _liberal_ end and he assumes that the two will contend for the middle. If Harper and Mulcair are right then it will not matter, much, who leads the Liberal Party in 2019 because he will be leading them into oblivion, as happened to the British Liberal Party in the 1920s.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jun 2012)

This article comes to a similar conclusion; Bob Rae didn't run for the leadership of the LPC because he did not want to end his career as captain of a sinking ship. Regardless of how much (contrived) "star power" the young Dauphin is said to have, the reality is he is prone to some pretty embarrassing gaffes and misstatements, and when you see him up close and personal, he really isn't much of a presence. 

The other problem is the LPC no longer stands for anything, and unless people like Edward were to sieze power from the LPC executive, their attempts at "renewal" will fail. Much of what I have seen coming from the LPC is driven by people who really seem to have no connection with ordinary Canadians who need to make a living and pay bills (yes, I do read their web site and talk to LPC supporters [most of whom have no idea who I am, but think they are talking to a potential recruit]). A leader with contrived star power but no background or platform hardly seems to be the winning combination; especially against formidible opponents like Prime Minister Harper and Thomas Mulcair:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/13/tasha-kheiriddin-bob-rae-didnt-want-to-be-captain-of-a-sinking-ship/



> *Tasha Kheiriddin: Bob Rae didn’t want to be captain of a sinking ship*
> Tasha Kheiriddin  Jun 13, 2012 – 4:55 PM ET | Last Updated: Jun 13, 2012 5:33 PM ET
> 
> If Bob Rae is out, who is in? At first blush, Mr. Rae’s surprise announcement that he is not running changes the Liberal leadership game dramatically. It paves the way for Justin Trudeau (still officially on the fence, but a fence that appears ready to collapse at any moment) and a band of lesser hopefuls, including Dominic Leblanc, Marc Garneau and Martha Hall Findlay, to toss their hats in the ring and have a real contest, as opposed to a Rae coronation.
> ...


----------



## RangerRay (14 Jun 2012)

What I haven't heard much about lately is polls showing the Tories and NDP near tied, or a slight lead by the NDP.

Many of the government's actions lately have left a bad taste in my mouth.  The way the huge omnibus bill, which guts resource conservation enforcement and researce, coast guard operations and food inspections, was brought in; and the lack of meaningful debate makes me shake my head.  These are the kind of actions that drive moderate, non-partisan voters away into the arms of left-wing parties.

While I won't be voting for the NDP or Liberals anytime soon, I'm much less enthusiastic as I used to be with the Tories.  If they continue along this way, I may just stay home on election day.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Jun 2012)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> What I haven't heard much about lately is polls showing the Tories and NDP near tied, or a slight lead by the NDP.
> 
> Many of the government's actions lately have left a bad taste in my mouth.  The way the huge omnibus bill, which guts resource conservation enforcement and researce, coast guard operations and food inspections, was brought in; and the lack of meaningful debate makes me shake my head.  These are the kind of actions that drive moderate, non-partisan voters away into the arms of left-wing parties.
> 
> While I won't be voting for the NDP or Liberals anytime soon, I'm much less enthusiastic as I used to be with the Tories.  If they continue along this way, I may just stay home on election day.



Overlook the opposition hyperbole and read the bill for yourself. Much of it attempts to streamline operations by eliminating duplication at various levels. There are some contentious areas indeed, but nothing like the NDP or the press make them out to be.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jun 2012)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> What I haven't heard much about lately is polls showing the Tories and NDP near tied, or a slight lead by the NDP.
> 
> Many of the government's actions lately have left a bad taste in my mouth.  The way the huge omnibus bill, which guts resource conservation enforcement and researce, coast guard operations and food inspections, was brought in; and the lack of meaningful debate makes me shake my head.  These are the kind of actions that drive moderate, non-partisan voters away into the arms of left-wing parties.
> 
> While I won't be voting for the NDP or Liberals anytime soon, I'm much less enthusiastic as I used to be with the Tories.  If they continue along this way, I may just stay home on election day.




Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is one: 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/where-federal-parties-stand-in-mid-june-2012/article4323529/






I think the Conservatives will have time to recover from some of the damage, the fallout from EI reform, in Atlantic Canada - watch for some targeted goodies in the 2014 and 2015 budgets.

I am less confident about the changes to environmental review process - especially in BC.

Note, however, that when the 30 new seats are added the Tories get 16 of them and the NDP get only 12 - the others go to the Liberals who also appear to pick up two seats from the BQ. For a majority in a 338 seat HoC the Conservatives need to gain 20 seats (from the current _projection_) from the NDP and Liberals - not anything like a very difficult, much less an impossible proposition.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jun 2012)

The Liberals collapse is almost total; this poll should lay the "Philosopher King/Star Candidate" leader myth to rest once and for all:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/18/if-justin-trudeau-were-the-leader-of-the-liberals-the-ndp-would-win-the-next-election-poll/



> *If Justin Trudeau were the leader of the Liberals … the NDP would win the next election: poll*
> National Post Staff  Jun 18, 2012 – 10:42 AM ET | Last Updated: Jun 18, 2012 1:03 PM ET
> 
> Comments Email Twitter A Forum Research poll of Canadians shows that almost four in ten Canadians would vote for the NDP, and that the youngest voters are the least likely to approve of Justin Trudeau as Liberal leader.
> ...




Graphic is too large to attach, go to link for details


----------



## Nemo888 (19 Jun 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I am less confident about the changes to environmental review process - especially in BC.



The destruction of environmental protections will have legs. As well as behaving as if 32% of the popular vote gives them a mandate to govern with such an extreme agenda. I think they will lose the middle in the next election. Only fear mongering will get them reelected and that is not a long term winning strategy. But I think Harper doesn't care about the long term well being of the party. 

The Republican party in the US is facing a rapidly shrinking demographic after a decade on that road. You can use that slice of extreme special interest with it's very large percentage of voter turnout for so long and then the middle deserts you. So big business has been courting the Liberals to become Conservative light. Voters don't buy it. Why get a light beer when I can have the real thing. So NDP is the only alternative to an all  business agenda. God help us.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jun 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Only fear mongering will get them reelected and that is not a long term winning strategy.



Its not a short term strategy either, how'd it work out for the Liberals in the last few elections?

Conservatives don't need to fear monger, they're sheltering us from the failures of the Liberal/NDP policies that are destroying Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy. I can't imagine how screwed we'd be if we had a Liberal, let alone a NDP government during the economic crash and now.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Jun 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> As well as behaving as if 32% of the popular vote gives them a mandate to govern with such an extreme agenda.



It is not extreme. It is rather sensible. part of my education inluded environmental impact assesment. The way the system is setup prtects nothing, is designed to last as long as possible for no real reason.

The conservatives getting 32% of the popular vote means i don't have to put up with tripe like you just spouted.



> But I think Harper doesn't care about the long term well being of the party.



The LPC only cares about being re-ellected. The NDP can't agree on what to care about.


----------



## Nemo888 (19 Jun 2012)

Most Canadians want the arctic monitored, fish stocks protected and clean water to drink. 

The NDP never expected to be relevant again. They are the most surprised at their success. 

Politically thinking John Ralston Saul may be right. The current political models which we use to describe reality are not working as expected. It may be an interregnum period. The old left/right dichotomy makes little sense in a globalized world dominated by economics.

This is a period of mediocrity and stagnation. I wonder what the new paradigm will be. Big changes will come in the next five years I think. Changes that will have little to do with politicians.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Jun 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> The NDP never expected to be relevant again. They are the most surprised at their success.



The NDP is neither relevant, nor successful.

The vote in Quebec was not *for* the NDP. It was a vote against the Bloc.

The NDP will pay next election, for not delivering any major gains for Quebec.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jun 2012)

Oh, someone trotted out the old "32% of the vote" trope again.

So we now have carte blanche to trash everything the LPC did since 1993 since they had similarly deficient mandates as well, right....


----------



## GAP (19 Jun 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The NDP is neither relevant, nor successful.
> 
> The vote in Quebec was not *for* the NDP. It was a vote against the Bloc.
> 
> The NDP will pay next election, for not delivering any major gains for Quebec.



Especially when Harper dissolves the marketing boards to meet the mandate of the TPP.....Quebec dairy/milk producers live high off those....actually most produces do well by them, and why not? We are paying up 2x the market value to support the supplier.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jun 2012)

An interesting conum\ndrum for the NDP; what do they propose to do with the Senate?

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/25/john-ivison-ndp-singing-red-chamber-blues/



> *John Ivison: NDP drafting roadmap to solve party’s Senate conundrum*
> John Ivison  Jun 25, 2012 – 9:11 PM ET | Last Updated: Jun 25, 2012 9:32 PM ET
> 
> The NDP does not have a single caucus member in the Senate and, were the party to win government, it would be hard-pressed to even introduce legislation in the Red Chamber, since each bill requires a sponsor
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jun 2012)

It is more just for a party commanding 32% of the vote to govern Canada 32% of the time, than for the combined remaining 68% to govern Canada 100% of the time.  It is how we avoid tyranny of the majority, and is also the alternative to breaking up the country so that the 32% and 68% can find respective enclaves in which to be content with their desired one-party rule.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Jul 2012)

John Ivison, writing in the National Post, has hit on a defining characteristic of the Canadian government. His column is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

Conservatives may be government but the public service is still in power
John Ivison  Jul 6, 2012 – 5:44 PM ET 

Tony Clement: “This is a subject that often angers Canadians, and with good reason.”

Federal public servants tend to retire four years earlier than their private sector counterparts, at an average age of 58.

But it seems you can only play so much golf. Anecdotal evidence suggests a good number of federal bureaucrats decide to top up their pensions by returning to work for the government as management consultants.

It turns out getting a well paid consultancy gig is not that hard when you know the people awarding the contracts. Your old mates in the bureaucracy can sole-source contracts in your direction and even sub-divide them to ensure you don’t contravene Treasury Board guidelines.

We know this because Ottawa’s Procurement Ombudsman, Frank Brunetta, detailed just such a case in a report this week. The Canada School of Public Service awarded a dozen training contracts, worth $170,000, to one supplier – many of them without a competitive tender. The unidentified recipient was a former public servant who was already receiving a government pension.

The case has been leapt upon by Tony Clement, the Treasury Board minister, who has asked Mr. Brunetta to look into the pervasiveness of the problem.

In a letter to the ombudsman and his Cabinet colleagues, Mr. Clement said he is going to amend government policy, so that contracts with former public servants require ministerial approval before they are signed. He also said all such contracts should be proactively disclosed on departmental websites.

Clement’s austerity message also rings hollow when measured against the 87 funding announcements, worth $2.9-billion, the government has made since the House of Commons rose in June “Favouritism in contracting of the kind you have discovered is wholly unacceptable,” he wrote.

That may seem a bit rich coming from a minister who was, shall we say, a tad partial, when it came to handing out government largesse prior to the G8 meeting in his home riding of Muskoka in 2010.

The austerity message also rings hollow when measured against the 87 funding announcements, worth $2.9-billion, the government has made since the House of Commons rose in June.

But Mr. Clement should be commended for trying to engineer a culture shift in the public service – the reform of which was once compared by Yes Minister’s Sir Humphrey Appleby to “drawing a knife through a bowl of marbles.”

Earlier this year, Mr. Clement sent public servants a letter telling them there would be no “March Madness” – namely that the end of the fiscal calendar year would no longer signal a mad rush to spend departmental operational budgets.

His letter to Mr. Brunetta and his ministerial colleagues will at least signal to the public service that their political masters are watching closely.

But Mr. Clement’s drive to reform this jobs-for-the-boys-and-girls mentality will be hobbled by his own government’s fondness for outsourcing all kinds of functions to private consultants.

The Conservatives have created a shadow public service in recent years, spending over $1-billion a year on outsourcing. A study by Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives economist David Macdonald said the cost of federal outsourcing on temporary help, IT and management consultants ballooned 80% in the five years after 2005/06.

Given around 30,000 federal public servants were eligible to retire last year, the assumption by Mr. Clement is a growing number are taking their pension and then pitching up at their old departments to carry on as if they’d never left. “This is a subject that often angers Canadians, and with good reason,” he said.

Fair enough. But the growing demand for consultants created by the Conservative Party’s own policies means Mr. Clement’s reforms may be in vain.

He may be in government but it is the public service which is in power – and they take care of their own.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jul 2012)

I can vouch, from personal experience, for the truth of John Ivison's column.

I retired from the military and, essentially immediately, took a job in the private sector ~ a job with a conflict of interest _potential_ but one which had been defuzed because my boss had written a letter to the appropriate agency stating that it was in the national interest for me to bring my specialized knowledge to that particular private sector agency (a technical standards board). The conflict agency (I forget what is called and I'm too lazy to look it up) agreed - it ('clearing' a person to work despite an apparent conflict) one of those provisions of the _conflict of interest and post service employment_ regulations that is too little known and too rarely used.

Anyway, almost immediately after I retired I began to receive offers from both DND and another government department (one with which I had many, close dealings) for 'consulting' jobs. Some were *real* requests for _consultations_: would I, please, read this report or examine this project and determine if it is <technically sound> <operationally appropriate> <appropriate use of public money> etc, etc, etc ... but more of them were thinly disguised offers for full or part time employment.

I took three jobs over the next few years, all for fees paid to my new employer, not to me: one to give some 'leadership' advice (a series of 'brown bag,' lunch-time lectures/discussions for new managers), another to organize and manage a major international conference (I damned near bit off more than I could chew on that one) and the third to provide and manage some specialized training for some civil servants from a war torn country that we were trying to help rebuild.

When I retired from my 'second career' the offers kept on coming. Now that I was fully 'retired' I took one *real consulting* job but the frustration level was so high that I submitted a report that said that the job could not be done given that the 'product' was preordained by the contractor (a government department senior manager) and, in my opinion, the preordained 'answer' was wrong.

The problems are:

1. The public service staffing regulations are so hidebound, so complex and so time consuming that they impede good public sector management - all in the name of 'fairness;' and

2. Many managers, including many military managers want "yes men" not expert, independent advisors. Plus, too often, 'senior management' (civilian and military) is dazzled by a fancy consultant's report. (Once, many years ago, my staff wrote a report about a complex and difficult issue; it was a good report done by real experts. I could not get it on the right 'agenda' in order to get the problem solved. I finally handed it and several (two digits) thousands of dollars over to a chum, a well know university professor and consultant, who:

1. Agreed that the work by my staff was first rate and needed nothing but cosmetic changes; and

2. Repackaged my staff's work between his fancy covers and sent me 25 nicely bound copies.

I submitted the package - it got immediate attention and was approved. My 'respect,' such as it was, for the management skills of my superiors sunk to a new low.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Jul 2012)

The Seagull Consultant:
* Flies in
* Makes a lot of noise
* Eats all the food
* Shits all over everything
* Flies out
Then it puts everything the customer was doing on its resume.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2012)

An interesting, from the perspective of 2015 or, maybe 2019, analysis of the _importance_ of Jack Layton in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/can-mulcairs-new-approach-complete-jack-laytons-revolution/article4492580/


> Can Mulcair’s new approach complete Jack Layton’s revolution?
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




Eventually, even the most die-hard Tory supporter (someone like me) will agree with most Canadians that it is time to "throw the rascals out!" Now when, not if, that day comes I hope there is a _centrist_ and _capitalist_ political party ready to take office. It _may_ be that Layton and Mulcair, both of whom, _de facto_, eschewed socialism, will have led the NDP far enough to the political/economic centre to make it an acceptable alternative ... or we need to pray that Conrad Black is right and The Liberals shall rise again.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2012)

Good news ... for the Conservatives ... in this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/commission-proposes-new-federal-ridings-for-suburbs-around-toronto-hamilton/article4500997/


> Commission proposes new federal ridings for suburbs around Toronto, Hamilton
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> Ottawa — The Globe and Mail
> ...




The Federal Election Boundaries Commission report can be found here.

This is how the GTA looked after the 2008 election:






And this is how it looked when the ballts were counted in 2011:





Now many (most?) of the 15 new seats will go into blue areas on the 2011 maps.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2012)

John Ibbittson, in a report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright At from the _Globe and Mail_, puts some meat on the bones of his report on 15 new seats for Ontario:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson-those-who-hold-the-key-to-the-suburbs-hold-the-key-to-canada/article4504198/


> Those who hold the key to the suburbs hold the key to Canada
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




Good news for the Conservatives IF they can retain their hold on suburban, often _minority_ and/or _new Canadian_ voters with a deft mix of 'good fiscal management,' as opposed to fiscal conservatism, and social _moderation_, as opposed to social liberalism.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Aug 2012)

Well the NDP are not off to a good start in the ethics department:

http://www.danieldickin.ca/2012/08/the-largest-case-of-elections-financing.html


> *The largest case of elections financing fraud in Canadian history *
> 
> The largest case of elections financing fraud in Canadian history has just been uncovered.
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (31 Aug 2012)

This seems to me to be a wildly skewed wtf moment. What I think the reporter was trying to point out was the demographics that supported the various federal leaders the most. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act. I cannot believe this piece made it past an editor's desk.

Poll Reveals Typical Stephen Harper Supporter: An Albertan Male 65 Or Older Making Less Than $20,000 


The Huffington Post Canada  |  By Eric Grenier Posted: 08/31/2012 8:57 am Updated: 08/31/2012 8:58 am

Who is the typical supporter of Stephen Harper? What is the profile of a Thomas Mulcair fan? A new poll provides some clues.

The latest survey by Forum Research for the National Post shows a tie in voting intentions between the governing Conservatives and the opposition New Democrats. With few exceptions, the results are generally in line with what Canadians have been telling pollsters for months.

According to the poll, Harper has an approval rating of 36 per cent and a disapproval rating of 57 per cent. This net negative score is in contrast to Mulcair’s numbers. He has an approval rating of 41 per cent, with 31 per cent of Canadians disapproving of how he is doing as leader of the Official Opposition.

But an analysis of the demographic breakdown of these ratings tells us a little about who the typical Harper and Mulcair booster is — as well as who is most likely to oppose them.

Based on the best net ratings, the typical supporter of Harper is a male Albertan aged 65 or older. He makes less than $20,000 per year and votes Conservative. 

His is not a consensus opinion, however: most men and people who make less than $20,000 per year disapprove of the prime minister's performance.

The typical Canadian who is most likely to oppose Harper is a woman between the ages of 18 and 34. She lives in Atlantic Canada, makes between $80,000 and $100,000 per year and votes for the NDP. Whether a lot of young Atlantic Canadians are actually in that income bracket is another question entirely, but Harper’s numbers are worst among younger and richer Canadians. How much those groups overlap is unknown.

The profile of a supporter of Mulcair is, unsurprisingly, similar to the typical opponent of the prime minister: an 18 to 34-year-old female from Quebec who makes between $80,000 and $100,000 per year. The person least likely to approve of the NDP leader is a 55 to 64 year old male from Alberta who makes $20,000 to $40,000 per year and votes Conservative.

What of the Liberals and their interim leader Bob Rae? The profile of the typical Rae booster is a male aged 65 years or older who lives in Atlantic Canada and makes $60,000 to $100,000 per year. Rae’s typical opponent is a 45 to 54 year old woman from Alberta who makes less than $20,000 per year. How that will change after the Liberal leadership convention will be something to watch.

These profiles are an amalgamation of demographic groups that may or may not overlap, but they are nevertheless what you might expect. It comes as no surprise that older men from Alberta tend to vote Conservative while younger women from Quebec support the NDP. It is the swing voter that both Harper and Mulcair are after: the suburbanites who could decide the outcome of the next election.


----------



## Sythen (31 Aug 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Poll Reveals Typical Stephen Harper Supporter: An Albertan Male 65 Or Older Making Less Than $20,000



Just wow..


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Aug 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ...
> ... It is the swing voter that both Harper and Mulcair are after: the suburbanites who could decide the outcome of the next election.




This (colour coded so that red = Liberal, orange = NDP and blue = Conservative) is how the suburbanites decided the outcome in the Greater Toronto Area in 2011:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (31 Aug 2012)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Based on the best net ratings, the typical supporter of Harper is a male Albertan aged 65 or older. He makes less than $20,000 per year and votes Conservative.
> 
> 
> The typical Canadian who is most likely to oppose Harper is a woman between the ages of 18 and 34. She lives in Atlantic Canada, makes between $80,000 and $100,000 per year and votes for the NDP. Whether a lot of young Atlantic Canadians are actually in that income bracket is another question entirely, but Harper’s numbers are worst among younger and richer Canadians. How much those groups overlap is unknown.



How many males in Alberta make under $20,000 per year, and how many women in Atlantic Canada make $80,000 and $100,000? This is the worst article I have ever seen.


----------



## GAP (31 Aug 2012)

Well, the journalist (sic) had to write something......details, details.....sheesh.... :


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Sep 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> How many males in Alberta make under $20,000 per year, and how many women in Atlantic Canada make $80,000 and $100,000? This is the worst article I have ever seen.



There would be about 8 people in each category,  I believe.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Sep 2012)

This "journalist" makes the same erroneous assumption that his colleagues do: namely that the NDP has a national base. I propose that the NDP will suffer a crushing reversal in the next election when Quebec realizes just how little they got for their vote and return the BQ to the house in numbers. The NDP support in Quebec is a mile wide and a 1/4 inch deep.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (1 Sep 2012)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> There would be about 8 people in each category,  I believe.



I guess that the majority of ridings in Ontario, having gone conservative, dont count either since none of them factor into this study... or else we can assume that the majority of the ridings are white, uneducated males earning under $20,000... which sounds about like the normal Toronto area yuppy/lefties view of the rest of Ontario outside of their "fair" city


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2012)

The _Good Grey Globe's_ Lawrence Martin lets his frustrations show in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/harpers-conservatives-are-on-cruise-control/article4534351/


> Harper’s Conservatives are on cruise control
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




At the rate he (and Messers Mulciar and Rae, too) is (are) going, and despite the fact that there are 100 "long times"* until the next election, Prime Minister Harper appears headed towards another victory by the fairly simple expedient of doing a whole bunch of things that:

1. Appeal to very specific "target markets;" but which

2. Do not really annoy most people.

He is, broadly, implementing a _Brampton Billy_ Davis strategy ~ bland (boring) works ~ he is being seen, more and more as a safe, competent national _manager_. My guess is that the "hidden agenda" thing will not work any more: Canadians are, pretty much, persuaded that they "know" Stephen Harper and, while they don't "like" him, he does not frighten them.

Quebec is likely to trip up the NDP over the next two years, despite what I suspect will be a good display of solid political leadership by Mr. Mulcair, and the Liberals are very likely to give Mr. Harper (and Mr. Mulcair) another "freebie" by selecting a charismatic, telegenic, lightweight loser as party leader. Thirty new seats, 27 of them _hors de Québec_ and 20+ of them at least very _competitive_ for the Tories, will make it more and more easy for the Conservatives to "govern without Quebec," leaving, as Lawrence Martin laments, the others (NDP, Liberals and a reborn BQ or something like it) to beat themselves up in _la bell province_.

All in all it is easy to understand why Lawrenece Martin, a certified (or certifiable?) Harper hater, is so despondent.

__________
* "A week is a long time in politics," British Prime Minister Harold Wilson famously noted ~ we've got about 100 weeks until we are in the next election campaign, assuming that, according to the provisions of _Bill C-16, An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act_ (2009), te next election date is 19 Oct 15.


----------



## GAP (11 Sep 2012)

I also see Allan Greg of pollster notoriety is railing against Harper on the weekend. The Libs not being in power must really be hitting his bottom line....


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> I also see Allan Greg of pollster notoriety is railing against Harper on the weekend. The Libs not being in power must really be hitting his bottom line....




I doubt that; Gregg was a Conservative, albeit a Progressive Conservative. His bottom line is, I think, doing quite well as a (well paid) "talking head" on TV. I don't think Gregg likes Harper's Conservatives very much but my guess is that, after the demise of Paul Martin, he likes Liberals even less.  :2c:


----------



## GAP (11 Sep 2012)

Hmmm...I always read him as fairly neutral, with a slightly Lib slant.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2012)

Here, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is another _niche_ for the Tories to 'occupy' just as they have moved into the various ethnic _niches_ with such good effect:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/22/warriors-for-gay-rights-the-conservatives-have-become-unlikely-lgbt-supporters/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


> Warriors for gay rights: The Conservatives have become unlikely LGBT supporters
> 
> Tristin Hopper
> 
> ...




My guess is that homosexuals probably mirror the population at large ~ when they are young, 20s and into their 30s, they have _left wing_ ideas but they don't vote very much; as they enter their 40s they vote, more and more, with their wallets (and brains) and they vote more often; as they enter their 60s they become more and more _conservative_ and they vote regularly. The Conservative goal must be to appeal to the 40+ homosexuals, a group that, previously, probably stuck with the Liberals.

The whole country appears, to me, to be more and more fiscally prudent - and thus favour the Conservatives - but, equally, more and more socially _liberal_ - which means the Conservatives must move in that direction.

Kitchener MP Stephen Woodworth and his pro-life/social conservative allies must be allowed to have their say every year or do (but not in the year leading up to an election!) but the Conservative Party must make it clear that those are _*private*_, religiously based matters which have no role at all in the party's plan for governing.


----------



## Redeye (22 Sep 2012)

They need to market it well. Social conservatives are what drove me to leave the Conservative Party after the merger, and that (along with some other things) make it difficult for me to support them. They have to do more to marginalize the social conservatives like Woodsworth if they want to attract younger voters, I'd think.

I'm pretty sure that the Liberals and the NDP will hammer the CPC on social conservatism at election time, so they do need to formulate a plan to deal with it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> They need to market it well. Social conservatives are what drove me to leave the Conservative Party after the merger, and that (along with some other things) make it difficult for me to support them. They have to do more to marginalize the social conservatives like Woodsworth if they want to attract younger voters, I'd think.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that the Liberals and the NDP will hammer the CPC on social conservatism at election time, so they do need to formulate a plan to deal with it.




Actually, I think the Tories can, very broadly, concede most of _young_ (18-35 year old) vote to the _left_ ~ it's not going Conservative anyway so why waste resources chasing a political mirage?

Social conservatism is an advantage in bigger, more 'electorally lucrative' niches: Asian immigrants, for example, where even 20 somethings are more _conservative_ than their Euro-Canadian confreres. Thus I don't think Prime Minister Harper needs to "ditch" his social conservative members at all - just _direct_ them towards audiences where they can do the most good/least harm. The Liberals are, actively, giving the boot to their social conservatives and I suspect a pro-life or anti-same sex marriage view will get short shrift from Thomas Mulcair, too, so the Tories have that _niche_ to themselves. The best course open is to downplay it in late 2014 and throughout 2015, except in a few ridings, including several in suburban Toronto.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Sep 2012)

I wouldn't concede the young vote. 

In my opinion many of the young are highly conscious of the value of work, their rights to the fruits of their labour (personal property) and are not convinced of the value of big government.  This is particularly true on many young new Canadians.

Many of them, at the same time, are "socially conscious" and want to contribute to the betterment of society and others but don't want to feel coerced or even manipulated into doing so.  

Although they are not all religious many have a strong spiritual/moral/ethical aspect to their lives.

I concede that they are definitely not "socially conservative" and in fact I'm inclined to think that libertines might best describe this aspect of their lives.

Taken together I believe that a strong streak of libertarianism in the Conservative Party of Canada would bring over a useful fraction of the young vote.  Possibly not a majority, or not even a strong minority, but certainly a useful number when elections are decided by a few points either way.

And that libertarianism is not objectionable to many older Conservatives.

I happen to like most of the youngsters I've come across - tattoos, piercings, skin heads and dreadlocks notwithstanding.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2012)

The problem with the youth vote and the reason I want to focus on 35+ years of age is found in these data *estimates* from Elections Canada:

Age Group  Participation Rate   Total Voters
18 - 24             38.8%               1,154,402
25 - 34             45.1%               1,882,577
35 - 44             54.5%               2,320,453
45 - 54             64.5%               3,271,283
55 - 64             71.5%               3,020,012
65 - 74             75.1%               1,912,943
>= 75               60.3%               1,261,737

The numbers are in the 35-74 age group; so is voter reliability.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Sep 2012)

2015 is too far out for this country's voter to even contemplate. Let alone seriously contemplate.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Sep 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> 2015 is too far out for this country's voter to even contemplate. Let alone seriously contemplate.



A large number of Canadians will not start to think about the 2015 election until a month afterwards.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Sep 2012)

Conservatives reach out to the gay community.  John Baird is one of the leads in that effort.


I am shocked.  Shocked!


----------



## JorgSlice (23 Sep 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> A large number of Canadians will not start to think about the 2015 election until a month afterwards.



....in the form incessant whining because they didn't vote and some "tyrant formed a dictatorship"  :


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> 2015 is too far out for this country's voter to even contemplate. Let alone seriously contemplate.





			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> A large number of Canadians will not start to think about the 2015 election until a month afterwards.




Very true, but a small number of Canadians, political _insiders_ and policy wonks for example, are already deeply entrenched in the 2015 campaign: testing the _narratives_, shaping (with senior civil servants) mid-term policies (we do not "do" long term in North America) and searching for weaknesses in their opponents.


----------



## GAP (23 Sep 2012)

> searching for weaknesses in their opponents.



Shoot, that's dead simple.....

Just use Manitoba as a classic example of NDP governance 

And Ontario of Liberal governance.....

thankfully the Greens are not in power anywhere......


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2012)

Attacking the other parties for their provincial performances can be a double edged sword: some NDP governments have been (or are remembered as being) fiscally prudent and some Conservative government shave been second rate, at best.

It is better, I think to get personal and nasty. Thomas Mulcair, for example, is reported to have a bad temper and I suspect the Tories will egg him on, trying to make him do something _unattractive_ on TV.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is better, I think to get personal and nasty. Thomas Mulcair, for example, is reported to have a bad temper and I suspect the Tories will egg him on, trying to make him do something _unattractive_ on TV.



I think they have something of a head start. Not entirely photogenic.


----------



## Redeye (24 Sep 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I wouldn't concede the young vote.
> 
> In my opinion many of the young are highly conscious of the value of work, their rights to the fruits of their labour (personal property) and are not convinced of the value of big government.  This is particularly true on many young new Canadians.
> 
> ...



I largely agree - when I was a university student it it was that sort of thinking that pervaded amongst those of us who identified as conservative. We wanted to have the opportunity to be successful and enjoy the rewards of our efforts, to more or less be left alone otherwise. Of course, that hinges in many ways on governments doing a good job of things they're supposed to do.

The "libertarian" concept, to a certain degree, will also sell well, but it's easily attacked when you look at current government's record. For all their claims of transparency, there doesn't seem to be much. They talked about a triple-E Senate which sounded good (something like Australia's model perhaps), but done nothing but continue to fill it with cronies. I've actually now moved to leaning towards abolishing the Senate altogether. They still have loud social conservatives within their ranks and don't seem to really strongly denounce them to some. Those are things that I'm sure will play into the campaign strategies of the NDP and the Liberals. I can't really anticipate how the NDP will shape up under Mulcair, but the Liberals are impossible to assess until they get themselves a leader.

Mr. Campbell might be right about the younger vote - depending on the other two parties, it's going to be tough to compete, and resources might be applied elsewhere, but at the same time, if a bit of a shift in policy happens, as Mike suggests, then they could actually start picking up some interested young people to vote for them.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Sep 2012)

Redeye said:
			
		

> They talked about a triple-E Senate which sounded good (something like Australia's model perhaps), but done nothing but continue to fill it with cronies. I've actually now moved to leaning towards abolishing the Senate altogether.



Perhaps you missed the part where the provinces were invited to hold senatorial elections? Only Alberta has done so, the remainder refusing. Until the provinces get onside and elect their senators, then little advancement will be done on this front.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Sep 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Perhaps you missed the part where the provinces were invited to hold senatorial elections? Only Alberta has done so, the remainder refusing. Until the provinces get onside and elect their senators, then little advancement will be done on this front.



And the short term limits the PM has new appointees agree to before picking them.

As far as filling it with cronies, he's doing what every other PM has done. Appointing people that will expedite the polices and acts passed by the current government.

That is a no brainer, will never change soon and is an almost invalid point to make any sort of case on.

However, as MM posted, without the involvement of the Provinces, he's doing what he can. Which is more than any other PM prior.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2012)

The Quebec student movement is trying to _morph_ into a broader *anti-Harper* thing according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _[Toronto Sun_:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/09/29/quebec-student-leaders-want-to-spark-national-anti-harper-movement


> Quebec student leaders want to spark national anti-Harper movement
> 
> BY GIUSEPPE VALIANTE, QMI AGENCY
> 
> ...




I do not underestimate the ability of these young people to stir up crowds and noisy demonstrations, but I am not sure that most (even many) Canadians in "new Canada," anyway, are all that interested.


----------



## Redeye (30 Sep 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Quebec student movement is trying to _morph_ into a broader *anti-Harper* thing according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _[Toronto Sun_:
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/2012/09/29/quebec-student-leaders-want-to-spark-national-anti-harper-movement
> 
> I do not underestimate the ability of these young people to stir up crowds and noisy demonstrations, but I am not sure that most (even many) Canadians in "new Canada," anyway, are all that interested.



Neither, particularly, are most Quebeckers. They don't enjoy broad support in Quebec, either.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2012)

This report, from Army.ca member David Akin, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Sun_, could go in other threads, but I think it relates to 2015:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/10/09/imf-gives-tories-enough-to-crow-about-on-economy


> IMF gives Tories enough to crow about on economy
> 
> BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF
> 
> ...




My guess is that the IMF, relying upon Mark Carney for its assessment of Canada, is right ~ we are still in trouble, the _Great Recession_ plods on with no end in sight. It is likely that, by 2014, Europe will have slipped back into a bread and deep recession dragging the US down with it, but not so deeply. Canada _might_ just, barely manage to escape recession, in technical terms, but the ballot question will be:

[size=13pt]Which of these three men do you *trust* to manage Canada in tough, dangerous times?


----------



## Infanteer (10 Oct 2012)

Good article David - just the facts.

Good management and dumb luck, that's what we rely on in the military as well.


----------



## Haletown (10 Oct 2012)

PM Harper and the CPC are probably enjoying the recent plethora of young Trudeau adoration in the press and will do nothing to stop the coronation of  Mr. Trudeau as the next LPC leader.

A revived Liberal party under Trudeau would be a frontal assault on critical NDP supporters.  PM Harper would enjoy Mulcair and Trudeau fighting over and splitting the Progressive/Environmentalist set and Mulcair's base in Quebec.

Who knows, maybe some of the next batch of brown envelopes will be from secret CPC accounts. Anything to help his opponents split the vote.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2012)

According to the fixed election law we go to the polls three years from today: 19 Oct 15.

That gives the Conservatives:

1. One more year (2013) to make deep, even savage cuts to spending - including defence spending;

2. One year (2014) to _relax_, crow about good fiscal management, bask in the glow of a (near) win in the deficit war, and focus on no-cost issues; and

3. One year (2015) to overspend while buying Canadians' votes.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Oct 2012)

NDP starts rolling out some trial balloons for a series of byelections. Hopefully they will use the time to refine and (hopefully) update their themes between now and 2015:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/21/mulcair-says-hes-ready-for-a-2015-warmup-as-harper-calls-three-byelections-for-late-november/



> *Mulcair says he’s ready for a 2015 warmup as Harper calls three byelections for late November*
> 
> Murray Brewster, Canadian Press | Oct 21, 2012 5:31 PM ET
> More from Canadian Press
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Oct 2012)

Some polling on who Canadians who responded to Nanos Research respect on issues (more to come, by the looks of things):


> In a recent Power & Politics/Nanos survey, Canadians had to pick which federal leader they trusted most on a series of issues. In all three cases, no leader was able to receive the trust of a majority of Canadians.
> 
> On negotiation of trade agreements, Stephen Harper was leading with 27.9 percent compared to 18.4 percent for his closest rival, Justin Trudeau.
> 
> ...


A smidge more detail in the attached news release.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Oct 2012)

> Canadians had to pick which federal leader they trusted most on a series of issues.



I wasn't aware that Trudeau was the Liberal leader. Did I sleep through a convention?


----------



## dapaterson (22 Oct 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I wasn't aware that Trudeau was the Liberal leader. Did I sleep through a convention?



Regardless, you know you've got a credibility problem when the NDP is seen is a better steward of the public purse than you are.

The days of Paul Martin in Finance are long gone, apparently...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Oct 2012)

More on the "evolution" of the NDP. At least there is no official support from the party to this wingnut, but imagine the press if this had been an ex Reform Party MP. Thomas Mulcair needs to keep the ship steering in the same direction Jack Layton set, but as noted in the new thread, the CPC seems determined to push the NDP into a three way cage match with the Liberals and the BQ or possible successor party:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/23/matt-gurney-son-of-detained-mp-misses-the-old-always-lose-ndp/



> *Matt Gurney: Son of detained MP misses the old, always-lose NDP*
> 
> Matt Gurney | Oct 23, 2012 11:27 AM ET
> More from Matt Gurney | @mattgurney
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Oct 2012)

Shades of Jean Chrétien's 1993 promise to renegotiate NAFTA! The _Toronto Star_ reports that *"Thomas Mulcair threatens to roll back Canada-China investment protection agreement"*.

The _Star_ quotes Mr. Mulcair as saying, _"You can sign into an agreement and then you can remove yourself from the agreement. That’s what successive governments can do. And what we’re signalling clearly is that we’re not going to be bound for the next 30 years by an agreement that hasn’t even been studied, that would make our court system take the interests of foreign investors and foreign companies pass above the interests of Canadians, the interests of our environment, the interests of our rights.”_ But, the _Star_ notes that he did not explain what legal mechanism he could use to renege on Canada's commitments.

Please remember that Chrétien's promises (renegotiate NAFTA, replace GST, no helicopters) were very popular and contributed (along with the collapse division of the _right_) to his lopsided election win. Canadian tend to remember the short, sweet promise while not worrying about the "legal mechanisms."


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Oct 2012)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, is a downright scary (suitable for Halloween) report on what might happen in 2015, if the results from some polls is a) believable and b) holds:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/10/30/trudeau-effect-with-justin-as-leader-liberals-would-win-majority-government-poll-finds/


> ‘Trudeau Effect’: With Justin as leader Liberals would win majority government, poll finds
> 
> Tristin Hopper
> 
> ...




I guess the CPC attack ad machine is hard at work.


----------



## Remius (31 Oct 2012)

Hmn.  I'm curious as to what the NDP will do...


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Oct 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Hmn.  I'm curious as to what the NDP will do...




My guess: it will follow the CPC with an all out, very negative, attack on M. Trudeau.


----------



## Journeyman (31 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ‘Trudeau Effect’....
> 
> Although Mr. Trudeau has been touted as the man who could mend Liberal relations with the West — due to his brief stint as a Vancouver secondary schoolteacher  —


That's a pretty tenuous straw to clutch, which also ignores BC not being part of "the west" -- lotus land is on a separate planet.


----------



## Remius (31 Oct 2012)

True, but he has already put the issue of the West to rest more or less.  He premptively went out there to make peace.  A peace he really didn't have to make since he's being perceived as his father's son, but nonetheless did it to put that issue down.

In Quebec, where he might make some gains, he's already used the "Harper's Canada" bit which does not seem to have damaged him too much in the rest of Canada, but certainly made him look good in Quebec.  Stealing seats from the NDP will be key since he will need Quebec and Ontario to win his majority or huis minority for that matter.

Ontario will be the real battleground.  Everything will depend on how he is perceived there.  And if Ontario buys into the smear campaign or not.


----------



## Remius (31 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My guess: it will follow the CPC with an all out, very negative, attack on M. Trudeau.



This where it gets interesting because THAT would go against any legacy Jack Layton wanted to impart on his party. It will be interesting to see how a compromise on party values will play out.  I too think it will lead to them to negative ads because desperation can make people do things they wouldn't otherwise do.


----------



## Bass ackwards (31 Oct 2012)

They're only attack ads and smear campaigns when the other side is using them.


----------



## ModlrMike (31 Oct 2012)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> They're only attack ads and smear campaigns when the other side is using them.



There are 150 "long times" yet before the next election. I wouldn't get too excited just yet.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Oct 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> True, but he has already put the issue of the West to rest more or less.  He premptively went out there to make peace.  A peace he really didn't have to make since he's being perceived as his father's son, but nonetheless did it to put that issue down.



Perhaps at rest in his mind, and at his peril. I highly doubt that most westerners actually believed anything he said as any more than some self serving agenda item.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Oct 2012)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> They're only attack ads and smear campaigns when the other side is using them.



ff topic:   but this American TV ad is so *brilliant* that:

1. You need to see it; and

2. I really hope this fellow - and I don't know what part he represents - gets elected.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Oct 2012)

In the _Globe and Mail's_ Economy Lab section regular contributor Mike Moffatt takes a first look at a statement Justin Trudeau made in the _Toronto Star_ and in _La Presse_; Moffatt took a general look at the piece abd derived three _policy_ proposals:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/a-first-peek-at-justin-trudeaus-policy-positions/article4790699/


> A first peek at Justin Trudeau's policy positions
> 
> MIKE MOFFATT
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




But, despite the pretty poor showing on _policy_ it appears that many, many Canadians, a plurality, anyway, of those under 60, are so celebrity obsessed and so devoid of any rational interest in what their vote might mean, that they would be willing to give a Liberal Party led by M. Trudeau a shot at governing. Our national education system is, and has been for a generation, a shocking failure!


----------



## a_majoor (1 Nov 2012)

Rather than attack ads, maybe all that is needed is a constant barrage of "what do you mean by that?" questions. If he is inarticulate and unable to answer (and based on _personal_ observation rather than controlled media hype, I suspect this will be the case), then he will be done like dinner


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And the _Globe and Mail_ reports, with a headline suggesting that the CPC broke an election promise, that _*"New year-end numbers reveal the federal government quietly cut spending by $8-billion after Canadians handed the Conservatives a majority mandate ...*_ [and]_* ... the government’s critics say the latest figures are another example of Parliament being kept in the dark when it comes to Conservative spending cuts."*_
> 
> Good on the government; the _Good Grey Globe's_ reportorial biases are showing again.




More on this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/10/31/john-ivison-conservatives-battle-over-whether-spending-cuts-cost-votes/


> Conservatives battle over whether spending cuts cost votes
> 
> John Ivison
> 
> ...




I can appreciate the PMO's dilemma: I am a pretty much bedrock _small government_ Conservative, so I am, of course, very pleased with what the Harper/Flaherty team has achieved, but I'm part of a small minority and I have no place else to go. Prime Minister Harper and his party need the "undecided" voters who are timid and very, very conscious of their own _entitlements_; they are, very often, not persuaded that spending cuts help them.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2012)

I might suggest: "Better to under promise and over deliver" as a theme.

It might make some folks happy to bellow to the herd that they are being driven.  But often that only results in an unproductive stampede.

Better by far to keep nudging the cattle to water at their own pace and then be able to crow a bit once they are there.

Tell folks that in 4 years time they will have 32 BCAD taken out of their pockets and they will stampede.

Tell folks in 4 years time that they have saved 32 BCAD and they will ask for more of the same management.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Nov 2012)

Trying to explain the 60/40 split in the electorate, the past tem years in Ontario, the US election, the Quebec election and a host of local issues to myself, it occurred to me that the answer had already been discovered in the past:



> In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free.
> 
> -- Edward Gibbon,


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually, I think the Tories can, very broadly, concede most of _young_ (18-35 year old) vote to the _left_ ~ it's not going Conservative anyway so why waste resources chasing a political mirage?
> 
> Social conservatism is an advantage in bigger, more 'electorally lucrative' niches: Asian immigrants, for example, where even 20 somethings are more _conservative_ than their Euro-Canadian confreres. Thus I don't think Prime Minister Harper needs to "ditch" his social conservative members at all - just _direct_ them towards audiences where they can do the most good/least harm. The Liberals are, actively, giving the boot to their social conservatives and I suspect a pro-life or anti-same sex marriage view will get short shrift from Thomas Mulcair, too, so the Tories have that _niche_ to themselves. The best course open is to downplay it in late 2014 and throughout 2015, except in a few ridings, including several in suburban Toronto.




In some immediate post election analyses pundits are suggesting that I'm wrong and that the "youth" vote can be mobilized and can be decisive. If that's the case then I may have to rethink some of my ingrained assumptions.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Nov 2012)

Although this is an American article, I think it outlines one of the fundimental issues Western civilization as a whole is faceing. We are being offered (at best) incrimental changes, but the entire civilizational structure is basically in need of a rebuild from the bottom up. That includes everything from practical changes to institutions to ensure positive outcomes (i.e. schools that actually educate students) to cultural attitudes ("entitled to my entitlements"). While many of the threads where I posted about this topic in the past seem to have gone into limbo; readers who are interested should be looking up Walter Russel Mead's "American Interest" blog, where he has posted many observations about how the "Blue model" (i.e. the Progressive model) is unwinding now that most of the basic assumptions underlying Progressiveism are no longer in play.

Getting to Post Progressive society is going to be a very wrenching process, and the observations about the razor thin electoral victory in the US election also apply to here. Being able to mobilize a few more people to come out on election day is not a mandate by any party for change, and the inverse appears to be true as well; parties and governments who know they have no real mandate for change will not make changes even as they see disaster approaching. (Look at how the EU and PIIG nations and governments are doing, or the US approaching the Fiscal Cliff, or Ontario under the McGuinty government).

http://downgradediary.blogspot.ca/2012/11/waiting-for-return-of-old-gods.html



> *Waiting for the Return of the Old Gods *
> 
> A great article in Der Spiegel, hinging on this prediction for the U.S. of  "the debt drama of the next few months, the showdown and duel between Democrats and Republicans over which party can blame the other one for a national bankruptcy."
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Nov 2012)

I don't put much stock in polls until we are just a few weeks from an election, but the Nanos *leadership* results may tell us something useful according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/opposition-doesnt-get-it-muckraking-only-briefly-sways-voters/article5547376/


> Opposition doesn’t get it: Muckraking only briefly sways voters
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I think there is a lesson for the opposition here: _"they must fundamentally shake voter confidence in the ability of the Conservatives to mind the store, while boosting voter confidence in their own team."_ It is, then, a "two front war," the hardest kind, even harder when, for both the Liberals and NDP, one must fight two enemies, the Conservatives and the other opposition party, on the "second front."


----------



## Journeyman (23 Nov 2012)

In addition to fighting a "two front war," both opposition parties must present discrete store-minding plans and policies that are a) credible to discerning voters and b) at least resonate with the remaining sheeple majority of voters.

So far, both the NDP and Liberals seem a little light on specifics.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Nov 2012)

They also need to provide platforms that are substantially different from one another. Enough so that voters have a clear choice. Currently the NDP and Lib policy books read very much alike. Further, there's a narrow band of voters that move on either side of the center, so the ground actually looks like this:

Liberals need to attract the swing voter, NDP voter and Bloc voter;
NDP needs to attract the swing voter, Liberal voter and Bloc voter; and 
Conservatives need to attract the swing voter. It's unlikely they will gain voters from the Liberal or NDP camps.

The Bloc will likely play a larger role in the next election after buyer remorse kicks in.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Nov 2012)

I think last night's by-election results strengthen Prime Minister Harper's hand: the big win by *moderate* Erin O'Toole (in Durham) and the strong challenge posed to _Wild Rose_ favourite Joan Crockatt by the _"progressives"_ (in Calgary Centre) suggest, to me, that "Stephen Harper's Canada" is more _*C*onservative_, but not in the way that satisfies e.g. the religious right or frightens the _"moderate centre."_ In other words he has dragged his party from the right to the right of centre, centre-right and centre, elbowing the Liberals out of the centre-right area and jamming them against the "right wing" of the NDP. It is not that Canada has changed very much, although it has changed some, it is that the Tories have changed a lot in ways that get approving nods  :nod: from many Canadians.


----------



## GAP (27 Nov 2012)

I agree. The confidence numbers for Harper vs all the others is a telling tale. He is doing a good job and people see it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Nov 2012)

I believe that the _Good Grey Globe's_ John Ibbitson has correctly analyzed the recent Calgary by-election in his column in one sentence:

"Economic conservatives can win elections, but social conservatism is a ticket to defeat."

I believe Stephen Harper has grasped this *vital* truth, but I suspect that a significant minority of CPC members are determined to hand power over to either the Liberals or NDP as soon as possible because they, the Tory _so-cons_, want to impose their fundamentally *illberal* and *anti-democratic* "values" on others.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Dec 2012)

Lord Black lays out a series of areas where our politicians should be focusing on. While you may not agree with all of his proposals (I don't), the fact that he is willing to go and put a lot of sacred cows on the barbeque is a good way to spark discussion. Sadly, I don't see the political establishment or the legacy media really engaging on thee topics, focusing on "gotchas" or otherwise trying to ignore the problems and hope they go away:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/12/01/conrad-black-of-warplanes-the-homeless-teachers-unions-oil-drugs-immigration-and-monetary-policy/



> *Conrad Black: Of warplanes, the homeless, teachers’ unions, oil, drugs, immigration and monetary policy*
> 
> Conrad Black | Dec 1, 2012 12:01 AM ET | Last Updated: Dec 1, 2012 12:02 AM ET
> More from Conrad Black
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Dec 2012)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Sun_, is an interesting and sobering, for Conservatives, assessment of Justin Trudeau's threat to the current governing party by occasional Army.ca contributor David Akin:

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/12/01/justin-trudeau-could-win-on-popularity-and-political-street-smarts


> Justin Trudeau could win on popularity and political street smarts
> 
> BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF
> 
> ...




David Akin is neither the first nor the only observer to suggest that M. Trudeau is, for Totes, truly a "wolf in sheep's clothing" capable of outflanking the CPC.

I think Stephen Harper is one of the smartest politicians to have sat in Canada's house of commons for a half century ~ smarter, I *hope* than the "eye on the prize" teams surrounding both Tom Mulcair and Justin Trudeau. So, with about 33 months left until Canadians really pay attention to politics and policy what does a rally smart guy do about the _potential_ opposing candidates?

First: get rid of "losers." It's an old card playing strategy. "Losers" for a prime minister consist of both people and policies, and policies involve projects. A 'loser' might be someone like Rob Anders who is popular in his own riding (Calgary West) but who is "offside" on the various directions the PM appears to want to take. Another 'loser' might be a controversial major capital project, like the F-35;

Second: emphasize "proven leadership." Prime Minister Harper has one HUGE strength: Canadians, who don't much "like" him, understand that he is a good manager and that counts for a lot. (Nearly) balancing the budget by 2015 will emphasize that advantage - and we can expect DND to "pay" part of the price ; and

Third: campaign, Campaign, CAMPAIGN! Conservatives appear to understand the madness of the media - its insatiable "need" for _something_ with which to fill the belly of the 24/7 TV news beast. It is better to feed the media monster than to allow it to prowl and eat what it finds. The entire government has to have been in campaign mode ever since 3 May 2011 and the campaign will have to be accelerated in 2013, 2014 and, especially in 2015. Campaigning need not be terribly subtle, the Tories need to focus on defined _slices_ of voters, often in specific regions, who can be pried away from both the Liberals and the NDP on very specific issues.

That's what M. Trudeau is doing TO the Conservatives by supporting the CNOOC/_Nexen_ deal, agreeing on the long gun registry and opposing the _Norther Gateway_ pipeline: all are problematic for specific groups of the Conservative and NDP supporters.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Dec 2012)

This could also go into the Liberal leadership campaign thread, but it is a useful reminder that the CPC (and to a lesser extent the NDP) have all kinds of ammunition at hand to remind voters why voting Liberal isn't a great choice for taxpayers. Deborah Coyne has got that "natural ruling party" thing down to a tee...

http://paulsrants-paulsstuff.blogspot.ca/2012/12/former-liberal-government-hid-more-than.html



> " The former Liberal government hid more than $60 million in unexpected costs from Parliament
> left no written record of important decisions taken by officials, and may have broken numerous contracting rules in its handling of the controversial gun registry, Auditor General Sheila Fraser has found"
> 
> And despite a scathing 2008 REPORT from former AG Sheila Fraser, Liberal leadership candidate Deborah Coyne says no Liberal has to “apologize” for the federal long-gun registry, a political quagmire for the party for more than a decade. Justin Trudeau was right, it was a "failure" Where Trudeau looks the fool is his easily found comments supporting the long-gun registry.
> ...



It would appear the LPC needs another drubbing in 2015 in order to finally learn that they need to have actual policies and offer real reasons for Canadians to vote "for" them. Apologies for misspent monies would also be nice to see as well.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Dec 2012)

In the "Never Saw This One Coming" department, apparently at least two senators who are long-time residents of Ottawa have now declared second residences as their primary residences.  Oddly enough, their newfound primary residences are more than 100km from Ottawa, meaning they can now receive thousands of dollars in living expenses for staying in their own homes.

Fortunately, their peers on the Senate board of internal economy have approved this.  As well, it's a good sign of bi-partisan activity, as well-known Liberal Mac Harb and notable Tory Mike Duffy are both now claiming their primary residences are in Pembroke and Charlottetown, respectively.

I'm certain that both a registered to vote at their declared primary residences, and that Senator Duffy has declared PEI as his primary residence for the purposes of income tax.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Senator+Mike+Duffy+claims+living+allowances+despite+being+Ottawa+resident+since+1970s/7648888/story.html

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Senator+Harb+claims+additional+living+expenses+despite+living/7650984/story.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Dec 2012)

Following on from this rosy prediction about the USA we have more good news for Stephen Harper from an article in the _National Post_ which reports on RBC's view of 2013 and 2014:

"The Royal Bank’s latest quarterly outlook predicts growth will accelerate to 2.4% next year and continue to expand to 2.8% in 2014, following a year that saw the weakest growth since the recession and a virtual stall in the third quarter."

Assuming that Prime Minister Harper can _contain_ the fallout from the F-35 - and see David Bercuson's comment about Canadians not caring about defence spening (beyond, generally, opposing it) - and avoid any real scandals, then a growing economy is the best news he can possibly have.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Dec 2012)

The upside to the F35 issue is that the Torries never actually spent any money on it, so there's little to beat them over the head with when it's done and gone.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Dec 2012)

But the media loves the F-35. It represents a crack in the Conservative veneer of good management. Even the broadly pro Tory media like the _National Post_ take some delight in watching the government twist in the wind on the F-35 issue. The very small handful of journalists - opinion *makers* in Canada - who don't actively dislike Stephen Harper are focused on Peter MacKay or Chris Alexander, both of whom are thought to be too "moderate" for the tooth and claw _conservative right_, whatever that is.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Dec 2012)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from his _Blog_, is uber-Liberal Warren Kinsella's prediction for 2015:

http://warrenkinsella.com/2012/12/harper-will-win-in-2015/


> HARPER WILL WIN IN 2015
> 
> December 17th, 2012
> 
> ...



The Graves would be pollster Frank Graves and the highlighted bit was from an _iPolitics_ article he wrote. Darrell Bricker is CEO of _Ipsos Reid_ Public Affairs.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Dec 2012)

Won't stop the NDP from trying, however. I doubt most people will believe that Thomas Mulcair or the NDP will change their spots, but this sort of talk could alienate hard core Dippers while attracting some more support from Liberal voters:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/16/mulcair-using-conservative-language-as-he-attempts-to-sell-ndps-economic-credentials/



> *Mulcair using conservative language as he attempts to sell NDP’s economic credentials*
> 
> Joan Bryden, Canadian Press | Dec 16, 2012 1:05 PM ET
> More from Canadian Press
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Dec 2012)

It is a strange conceit Kinsella has that all Liberals are automatically "progressives", or that it is not possible for any Conservative to be "progressive".  There is nothing more conservative I have observed in the last few years than a progressive who finally gets his way: "the debate is over".


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jan 2013)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an insightful column by Lawrence Martin:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/will-harper-join-the-elite-club-of-long-serving-pms/article7340001/


> Will Harper join the elite club of long-serving PMs?
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




This is, of course, a thinly veiled call to "unite the left," but I think, as Lawrence Martin suggests, that's a pipe dream, for now anyway, and Prime Minister Harper counts on the poorly named _progressives_* to battle, tooth and claw, in 2015 and again in 2019, for the right to sit across the aisle from the Conservative government benches.


-----
* They are, actually, a sort of _conservative_ movement - they want anything but real progress, they want to turn the clocks back to a time when it appeared that we could afford an ever expanding welfare state.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Jan 2013)

I think Mr Martin also over estimates the strength of NDP support in Quebec. I predict that there will be significant buyer's remorse and we'll see the BQ return more members to the house. Will this mean the NDP is no longer the opposition? Perhaps, perhaps not. As many of us have said, the task for the Liberals should be to first gain Stornoway, and then 24 Sussex. That being said, they have developed a knack for shooting themselves in the foot in recent campaigns.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jan 2013)

It seems to me that the opposition parties have a common problem: opposing Prime Minister Harper's every move while, simultaneously, differentiating themselves, each from the other three. This will be easiest for the Greens and the (resurrected) BQ because:

     1. They are near single issue _movements_, rather than being credible national parties; and 

     2. They have no hope of governing so they have real need to make sense.

But life is much, much harder for the Liberals and NDP. Each is a national party and each does have a legitimate shot at running the country. But: before either can form a government it must unseat the other. Mr. Mulcair must oppose Stephen Harper and his Conservatives and, equally, oppose the next Liberal leader and his party, on every issue, and vice versa for the Liberals.

Quebec and Ontario will be the main battlegrounds. My guess, and that's all it is, is that the BQ will benefit most of the Liberal vs NDP battles in Quebec and the Conservatives will be able to exploit Liberal vs NDP fights in Ontario. We could see In a 338 seat HoC) something like this

BQ                 -   25
Conservatives - 175
Greens           -     3
Liberals          -    66
NDP               -    66
Others           -      3


----------



## Ra (15 Jan 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think Mr Martin also over estimates the strength of NDP support in Quebec. I predict that there will be significant buyer's remorse and we'll see the BQ return more members to the house. Will this mean the NDP is no longer the opposition? Perhaps, perhaps not. As many of us have said, the task for the Liberals should be to first gain Stornoway, and then 24 Sussex. That being said, they have developed a knack for shooting themselves in the foot in recent campaigns.



Muclair is not popular like Layton was but he's still well liked here (at least by the medias). The Bloc doesn't have a strong leadership and I don't see who could lead them to a "win". Plus I've heard that the NPD has been doing a good job locally. Trudeau is the real treat for them so far, but he's still green, so like you said he's mistakes prone.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jan 2013)

More prognostications, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, on the shape of (political) things come:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/22/michael-den-tandt-the-trend-is-the-friend-for-conservative-fortunes/


> The trend is the friend for Conservative fortunes
> 
> Michael Den Tandt
> 
> ...





But: there is no room for complacency on Prime Minister Harper's part. Thomas Mulcair is a formidable opponent and Justin Trudeau displays a knack for connecting with people ... and a week is a long time in politics and we have 135 or so "long times" before the 2015 election.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jan 2013)

The NDP is maturing as a political party, but it remains to be seen if this translates into votes (NDP supporters must be getting a knot in their shorts as Thomas Mulcair quietly ignores their pet causes):

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/25/chris-selley-from-attawapiskat-to-mali-an-ndp-identity-crisis-on-display/



> *Chris Selley: From Attawapiskat to Mali, an NDP identity crisis on display*
> 
> Chris Selley | Jan 25, 2013 12:01 AM ET | Last Updated: Jan 24, 2013 5:46 PM ET
> More from Chris Selley | @cselley
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jan 2013)

Thomas Mulcair expounds on his version of Federalism. There are enough hints here that the NDP strategy for the 2015 election is to pander as much as possible to Quebec to hold its base, suggesting that the election really will be a cage match between the Liberals and the NDP (with a currently unknown amount of spoilage by the BQ). I have yet to see the party attempting to "push" beyond its Quebec bastion (although I might not be paying enough attention), while it may be possible that the gradual move towards the "center" could alienate enough true believers outside of Quebec for the NDP to end up with a wash:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/01/26/conrad-black-thomas-mulcair-promotes-an-odious-species-of-federalism/



> *Conrad Black: Thomas Mulcair promotes an odious species of ‘federalism’*
> Conrad Black | Jan 26, 2013 12:01 AM ET | Last Updated: Jan 26, 2013 10:34 AM ET
> More from Conrad Black
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Feb 2013)

And more on _Mulcair versus the real NDP_ in this *commentary* which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/oh-those-poor-lost-ndp-sheep/article8158602/


> Oh, those poor lost NDP sheep
> 
> CLIVE COCKING
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




The problem for the NDP is that not enough Canadians share the _ideals_ of J.S. Woodsworth, M.J. Coldwell, Tommy Douglas and David Lewis ~ some (not me) may have greatly admired their values and integrity (like putting pacifism ahead of the clearly obvious societal need to defeat Hitler's NAZIs) but not many shared their economic views: never enough to rise above third party status status ~ until now. When the NDP governed provinces they did so like Liberals (Rae in Ontario) or even Conservatives (Douglas in Saskatchewan), not like Woodsworth and Coldwell might have wished. Mulcair, like Jack Layton, may put politics ahead of principle, but it works for the Conservatives and Liberals, why not for the NDP?


----------



## foresterab (5 Feb 2013)

While this is a heavily slanted article (anti-fracking and wanting more marine parks) it does bring up some potential liabilities for Canada.   Especially in the fallout not so recently of the Gulf of Mexico BP oil spill and increased offshore drilling on Canada's Eastern and Northern Coast...

http://gold.globeinvestor.com/servlet/ArticleNews/story/GI/20130205/escenic_8248464/stocks/news/&back_url=yes

Environmental protections failing during resource boom, audits find
SHAWN McCARTHY
10:13 EST Tuesday, Feb 05, 2013
  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


OTTAWA — Canada’s resource boom is outpacing Ottawa’s ability to safeguard important ecosystems from dangerous levels of pollution, the federal environment commissioner reported Tuesday.

In a series of audits, commissioner Scott Vaughan revealed a litany of shortcomings, including the failure to regulate toxic chemicals used by the oil industry and a lack of preparedness for major accidents, particularly off Canada’s East Coast.

Mr. Vaughan detailed Ottawa’s hands-off approach to hydraulic fracturing – a rapidly-growing and controversial oil industry practice in which companies inject chemically-laced water deep underground to extract natural gas and oil.

His report noted the resource boom brings risks as well as opportunities.

“Given the central role of natural resources in the Canadian economy, it is critical that environmental protection keeps pace with economic development, Mr. Vaughan said in a statement Tuesday.

“I am concerned by the gaps we found in the way federal programs related to natural resources are managed.”

At the same time, Ottawa continues to subsidize the oil industry, though the level of support is declining, the auditor reported.

Over the past four years, the government has spent more than $500-million in direct subsidies, primarily for research and development. It has also given $1.47-billion in tax breaks, mainly in the form of accelerated write-offs for oil sands producers – though that program is being phased out.

Mr. Vaughan criticized Ottawa’s failure to establish more marine protected areas even as offshore resource development proceeds, including proposals for a massive expansion of oil tanker traffic in Canadian coastal waters.

The auditors found serious shortcomings in the preparedness of the federal government and the federal-provincial regulator for a major spill off Newfoundland and Labrador, where companies are drilling to depths several kilometres beneath the ocean floor.

Last week, Newfoundland’s provincial energy company, Nalcor, identified four new sedimentary basins in the ice-infested waters of the Labrador Sea as prime spots for further exploratory drilling.

But Mr. Vaughan said regulators are unprepared for a spill like the one that blackened the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, killing marine life and contaminating habitat.

While the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board has done a good job managing day-to-day environmental concerns, it and the federal government “need to do more to prepare for a major oil spill,” the report said.

The auditors said the board’s emergency response plan is “missing some key elements” – including lack of formal arrangements for spill response equipment – and suffers from poor co-ordination with federal departments.

At the same time, the report warned of serious shortcomings in Ottawa’s liability regime for offshore oil exploration, maritime tanker traffic and nuclear plants. In most cases, the liability limits faced by operators have not been raised in decades, leaving taxpayers’ on the hook in the event of a major accident.

In the offshore, for example, companies enjoy a cap on their liability of $40-million in the North and $30-million off the East Coast unless negligence is proven.

Critics argue the liability limits represent a de facto subsidy for energy companies. Ottawa is currently reviewing that system and plans to introduce higher caps – in the “billions of dollars” according to industry sources – this spring.

Mr. Vaughan also reviewed Environment Canada’s response to concerns that the oil industry’s growing reliance on hydraulic fracturing – or fracking as it’s called in the industry – poses a threat to Canadians’ health.

Oil companies are relying on fracking to unlock shale gas deposits in northeastern British Columbia and Alberta, and are eyeing both Quebec and New Brunswick as promising locations for shale gas development. As well, drillers are now using hydraulic fracturing to unlock “tight” oil deposits in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

But while Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers has published voluntary guidelines on identifying chemicals used, Ottawa does not require the release of the information. The commissioner noted that the oil and gas companies are exempted from reporting under the National Pollutant Release Inventory on the precise chemicals they use in fracking.

“A complete list of substances used in Canada is not known,” the report said.

Environment Canada has undertaken a voluntary survey of companies engaged in hydraulic fracturing, asking them what substances they use. But officials told the auditors that the government is studying the potential health and environmental impacts of fracking and will determine a course of action based on that work.




While I work in the Forest industry a large part of my job is ensuring regulations are followed...and when things boom good luck finding staff.  Alberta currently does not graduate enough forestry students to replace the vacancies in the provincial government let alone forest industry/consultants/utility company/oil and gas company employees...and also has to compete against the surrounding provinces/territories for the people.  And when the private sector is offering significant (currently ~4x the annual salary) pay raises for staff in boom areas like Fort MacMurray it is easy to see why the monitoring does not get done.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Feb 2013)

Lord Black raises more issues which _should_ be part of the public debate and perhaps election issues in 2015. Sadly, the CPC will probably downplay many of these issues; the Young Dauphin could not speak coherently on these issues and the NDP will be far too busy pandering to the new Quebec base to effectively engage:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/09/conrad-black-a-foreign-policy-for-an-ascendant-canada/



> *Conrad Black: A foreign policy for an ascendant Canada*
> 
> Conrad Black | Feb 9, 2013 12:01 AM ET | Last Updated: Feb 8, 2013 6:50 PM ET
> More from Conrad Black
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Feb 2013)

The _National Post_ is reporting on a poll that predicts a Liberal majority in a 308 seat HoC if an election were held today and if Justin Trudeau were leading the LPC.

The poll results are:

BQ:                      6%           
Conservatives:   30%
Greens:               2%
Liberals:            41%
NDP:                 20%

But when names, especially the Trudeau name, are taken away the results are that the Conservatives and Liberals are in a statistical tie with 32% and 30% respectively. Still, that represents a dip for the Conservatives and a real, measurable surge for the Liberals.

It is likely that, in 2015:

1. Justin Trudeau will lead the Liberals and the party will get a _celebrity bump_ at the polls from that;

2. There will be a 338 seat HoC ~ advantage to the Conservatives; and

3. There will have been expensive, aggressive and nasty advertising campaigns between now and then ~ advantage Conservatives because they have, by far and away, the most money to spend on advertising.

Consequently: another Conservative majority government seems likely.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Feb 2013)

Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, is an article from _MacLeans_ that outlines the main Conservative priorities for the next year or so and, one presumes, towards the 2015 election:

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/02/08/the-power-of-symbols/


> PM Stephen Harper — a.k.a. Mr. Canada — and the power of symbols
> *Behind the PM’s new focus on history and heritage*
> 
> by Nick Taylor-Vaisey on Friday, February 8, 2013
> ...




I expect that the late winter/early spring 2015 budget wil be the mainstay of the Conservative campaign; expect it to be full of goodies ~ low cost goodies if the budget is not balanced ~ and promises for the future. But I also expect Prime Minister Harper to have a) demonized both Muclair and Trudeau and b) reinforced his evident "love of country" in a crass appeal to Canada's own somewhat embarrassing _exceptionalism_.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Feb 2013)

Remember, though, a week is a long time in politics.  And a smart opposition will link Harper to his senate appointees: Brazeau and Duffy.  They are both damaging to his brand - and they're both safe in a cozy sinecure that's almost impossible to revoke, so they'll still be lingering like dead fish two years from now.

"Mr Harper, do you accept responsibility for the unfit men you named to the Senate?" can be a powerful message.  It draws into question Harper's judgement.

A smart Liberal would toss Mac Harb overboard now to clear the decks for an all-out attack on the Tories in '15.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Feb 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Remember, though, a week is a long time in politics.  And a smart opposition will link Harper to his senate appointees: Brazeau and Duffy.  They are both damaging to his brand - and they're both safe in a cozy sinecure that's almost impossible to revoke, so they'll still be lingering like dead fish two years from now.
> 
> "Mr Harper, do you accept responsibility for the unfit men you named to the Senate?" can be a powerful message.  It draws into question Harper's judgement.
> 
> A smart Liberal would toss Mac Harb overboard now to clear the decks for an all-out attack on the Tories in '15.



Agreed, just as a smart Tory will toss aside Brazeau and Duffy, after taking credit for trying to give a First nations person a leg up and, also, explaining why elected senators are better _quality_ people and can be turfed out at the next election.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Feb 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Agreed, just as a smart Tory will toss aside Brazeau and Duffy, after taking credit for trying to give a First nations person a leg up and, also, explaining why elected senators are better _quality_ people and can be turfed out at the next election.



Harper doesn't toss people overboard willingly, and keeps them on too long.  Bev Oda comes to mind as someone kept on well past her best before date.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Feb 2013)

Duffy needs to go sooner rather than later, but I agree with DAP that the Tories tend to give people too much of a benefit of the doubt. Duffy is abusing the system (and stupidly using an Ontario health card while claiming PEI residency) so he needs to be made an example of.


----------



## GAP (9 Feb 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Duffy needs to go sooner rather than later, but I agree with DAP that the Tories tend to give people too much of a benefit of the doubt. Duffy is abusing the system (and stupidly using an Ontario health card while claiming PEI residency) so he needs to be made an example of.



Duffy will probably skate by due to actually having a cottage (home) In PEI....lotsa "I didn't knows, mea culpa's , etc"....


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Feb 2013)

It *appears* that no one, possibly - actually probably - including the Speaker of the Senate, actually knows what "resident" means. Senator Duffy's cottage may be all that's required under the letter of whatever the law is, eventually, determined to be. Senator Pamela Wallin may be on thinner ice.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Feb 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> Duffy will probably skate by due to actually having a cottage (home) In PEI....lotsa "I didn't knows, mea culpa's , etc"....


If the media got it right, he seems to have known enough to apply for a health card for the province where he is "resident" after having "lived" there since 2008 - this from this past Monday .....


> Caught up by questions about his residency, Mike Duffy is applying for a health card from Prince Edward Island, the province he represents in the Senate.
> 
> Duffy applied for the card just before Christmas, and someone phoned P.E.I.’s health minister seeking to speed up that process, the minister told the CBC Monday ....





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It *appears* that no one, possibly - actually probably - including the Speaker of the Senate, actually knows what "resident" means ....


While it may be obscure, I would find it _very_ hard to believe _nobody_ knows the answer to "what does resident mean when it comes to senators?" - unless the right person hasn't been asked yet, lest we hear an answer someone doesn't want spoken out loud.


			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Harper doesn't toss people overboard willingly, and keeps them on too long.  Bev Oda comes to mind as someone kept on well past her best before date.


 :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Feb 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> .....While it may be obscure, I would find it _very_ hard to believe _nobody_ knows the answer to "what does resident mean when it comes to senators?" - unless the right person hasn't been asked yet, lest we hear an answer someone doesn't want spoken out loud. :nod:




I read today, maybe yesterday, somewhere, that they - the Speaker of the Senate and staff, I guess - have called two lawyers and are now in receipt of three different opinions.


----------



## kratz (9 Feb 2013)

Unless further embarrassing facts are dragged into the light, I am way out of my lane here, 
but I suspect the Senate will allow Mr Duffy's example to 'skate' past the smell test
in order to uphold the honour of the Senate.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Feb 2013)

I note that on the blogosphere there are some spirtited discussions on why the two Conservative Senators are getting such front page coverage, while Liberal Senator Marc Harb's 2 year long breach of trust investigation by the RCMP is passed over with nary a whisper.

I did a quick Google search under Senator Marc Harb, and only one hit for the investigation; Sun News from 2011, natch. Otherwise, nothing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Feb 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Harper doesn't toss people overboard willingly, and keeps them on too long.  Bev Oda comes to mind as someone kept on well past her best before date.




I agree, but in 2013, in the preparatory phase for the 2015 election he should do so: both for a handful of senators and, equally, for a couple of MPs, too.

He should compare Sen Brazeau to former Sen Lavigne and Sen Duffy to Sen Harb and say, "See, folks: this is why we should ALL elect our senators; you, the good, sensible people of Canada, are far less likely to elect bad people than we _political professionals_ are to appoint them."

He should read the riot act to the religious conservatives and tell them that while it's OK to promote their pet causes they must, in every speech, confirm that their opinion are not the Conservative Party position and the Prime Minister is firm in his resolve to treat those issues as settled. Those who cannot manage that will not get their nomination papers signed. (That is the _nuclear_ option open to every party leader.)


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Feb 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I read today, maybe yesterday, somewhere, that they - the Speaker of the Senate and staff, I guess - have called two lawyers and are now in receipt of three different opinions.


Ok, THAT doesn't really surprise me, either .... :



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree, but in 2013, in the preparatory phase for the 2015 election he should do so: both for a handful of senators and, equally, for a couple of MPs, too.
> 
> He should compare Sen Brazeau to former Sen Lavigne and Sen Duffy to Sen Harb and say, "See, folks: this is why we should ALL elect our senators; you, the good, sensible people of Canada, are far less likely to elect bad people than we _political professionals_ are to appoint them."


Mind you, some of those the people have elected have been far from perfect, too.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> He should read the riot act to the religious conservatives and tell them that while it's OK to promote their pet causes they must, in every speech, confirm that their opinion are not the Conservative Party position and the Prime Minister is firm in his resolve to treat those issues as settled. Those who cannot manage that will not get their nomination papers signed. (That is the _nuclear_ option open to every party leader.)


 :nod:  Sounds like a variation this episode of "Yes Prime Minister".


----------



## dapaterson (21 Feb 2013)

Intersting.  A well-connected Tory from the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities is fighting the proposed new boundareis in the province.  Apparently, having urban ridings runs counter to Saskatchewan's ideals.

Or maybe it's just gerrymandering...

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/01/30/the-scheer-madness-of-saskatchewans-boundary-battle/

http://www.redecoupage-federal-redistribution.ca/content.asp?section=sk&dir=now/proposals&document=index&lang=e


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Feb 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Intersting.  A well-connected Tory from the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities is fighting the proposed new boundareis in the province.  Apparently, having urban ridings runs counter to Saskatchewan's ideals.
> 
> Or maybe it's just gerrymandering...
> 
> ...




Your second thought is correct. But it is suburbs, not rural areas or inner cities, that are growing and they are also fertile territory for Conservatives.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Feb 2013)

The shift in demographics and economic power starting in the 1980's has (according to the authors of this book) resulted in a permanent change to Canada's political map. While nothing is permanent, demographic change takes a long time, so the CPC is relatively safe until the population crash and die off of the "Boomers" in the 2030-2060 time period:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/22/the-big-shift-canadas-conservatives-poised-for-decades-of-power-in-ottawa/



> *The Big Shift: Conservatives poised for decades of power in Ottawa, pollster’s book says*
> 
> Mark Kennedy, Postmedia News | Feb 22, 2013 10:46 PM ET | Last Updated: Feb 23, 2013 1:51 PM ET
> More from Postmedia News
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Mar 2013)

Interestoing blog post looking at the "Big Shift", and demonstrating that the CPC and NDP should be considered post "Big Shift" parties. How much you agree probably depends on how you interpret the evidence. I'm not as convinced that the NDP is the party of "suburban" Canada (living in the suburbs myself gives me a bit of perspective  ;D), but I will agree the CPC needs to work much harder to make inroads in the Urban areas of Canada. 

http://princearthurherald.com/news/detail/?id=c8430332-b5bf-4dd2-a806-fe152f2dd01a



> *Fears Abound as Canada’s “Big Shift” Continues to Unfold*
> BY BRUCE A. STEWART
> 18 March 2013
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Mar 2013)

Well it looks like the "Three Amigos" proposal to combined forces riding by riding has failed its first live fire test. Despite this, I expect to see continuing calls for this sort of "cooperation" probably until after the 2019 election. Some people will never learn....

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/25/kelly-mcparland-three-party-co-operation-against-tories-runs-aground-in-snows-of-labrador/



> *Kelly McParland: Three-party co-operation against Tories hits a skid in Labrador*
> 
> Kelly McParland | 13/03/25 | Last Updated: 13/03/25 1:01 PM ET
> More from Kelly McParland | @KellyMcParland
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Mar 2013)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is an interesting bit of speculation or prognostication, if you will:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/why-stephen-harper-may-call-an-election-earlier-than-planned/article10337226/


> Why Stephen Harper may call an election earlier than planned
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I agree with Ibbitson's rationale for changing from fall to spring. Campaigns are, at a lawful minimum (and recent traditional maximum), 36 days in length, so an election on, say, 12 May 15 would require the campaign to begin on (or before) 6 Apr 15.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Apr 2013)

Edward Greenspon, an experienced commentator and a senior executive with the _Toronto Star_, offers an opinion on Harper Vs. Trudeau in this piece which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Star_:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2013/04/02/stephen_harpers_new_coalition_will_be_tested_by_happy_warrior_justin_trudeau_greenspon.html


> Stephen Harper’s new coalition will be tested by happy warrior Justin Trudeau: Greenspon
> *Next federal election will test book’s thesis that Canada has fundamentally changed.*
> 
> By: Edward Greenspon Columnist,
> ...




Edward Greenspon is oversimplifying: it is a mistake to not consider the influences of both Thomas Mulcair's NDP and a reinvigorated Bloc Québécois. Both will provide both opportunities and obstacles for both Prime Minister Harper and M. Trudeau.

But, I think Greenspon is right when he says, _"In a campaign, a potentially decisive pool of voters can move suddenly on superficial input. Blink — you’re elected! Trudeau’s weapons of choice are style and personality. There’s no shame in this: more voters are swayed by sentiment than analysis. Coolness and authenticity, if they stand up to public scrutiny, are not bad positioning."_ Providing the "public scrutiny" is, in part, the job of the media but, based on the evidence to date it is more enthralled with M. Trudeau's 'cool charisma' than is the general public. Thus it will be left to the other major political parties to _scrutinize_ M. Trudeau and we can be sure that they will examine and expose every inch of the man. It will not be pretty but it may be instructive.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Apr 2013)

Before ceding the next election to M. Trudeau and his "cool charisma," we should, perhaps, consider this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/why-its-too-soon-to-write-the-obituary-for-stephen-harpers-government/article10660563/?cmpid=rss1&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


> Why it’s too soon to write the obituary for Stephen Harper’s government
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




There is still plenty of time - two years until a potential spring 2015 election, two and a half until the scheduled fall election - for Prime Minister to:

     1. Shape the key issue: economic management;

     2. Refine his team and its messages; and

     3. Coax one small slice of Canadians after another towards his views.

It is on policy that M. Trudeau is weakest: against both Prime Minister Harper and M. Mulcair, both of whom are appealing to the _mushy middle_. Prime Minister Harper is alienating his base, right now, on issues like "free speech" and on the _social conservative_ issues, too - but he is, equally or even more important, making it abundantly clear to all Canadians, even the most obtuse, that he cannot be attacked on abortion rights or gay marriage - that mud will not stick. He can still walk the fine line between saying "this is settled law," and "even if I, personally, disagree." And, in any event, the _social conservatives_ have no place (at least no *harmful* place) to go.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Apr 2013)

Speaking of "shaping the message," the NDP is out in fron according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/ndp-to-propose-toning-down-socialism-in-its-constitution/article10730194/
My _*emphasis*_ added


> NDP to propose toning down socialism in its constitution
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




Even if the party rejects all or part of this proposal the act of making the proposal goes some way to shifting the NDP into the political centre-left ~ right where the Liberals want and need to be.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Apr 2013)

The NDP is free to tone away; it's "priors" (beliefs) will still not be in any doubt.  I haven't noticed any tendency among politicians to bind themselves to printed words.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Apr 2013)

There are two interesting articles in the _Globe and Mail_. Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, is the first:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/community/editors-letter/editors-letter-how-justin-trudeau-plans-to-oust-stephen-harper/article11141800/


> How Justin Trudeau plans to oust Stephen Harper
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Apr 2013)

And here is the second, also reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/how-justin-trudeau-plans-to-beat-stephen-harper/article11181561/?page=all


> How Justin Trudeau plans to beat Stephen Harper
> 
> DANIEL LEBLANC
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Apr 2013)

I find the Liberal Plan, in the first article realistic and possible. The all important AIM ~ displace the NDP ans the official opposition ~ is certainly doable. Holding Prime Minister Harper to a minority will be tougher.

But we can be sure that Thomas Mulcair will not go down without one helluva fight.

The _Globe and Mail's_ eight point prescription in the second article is also both plausible and possible, albeit not as easy as it looks. Number 4 is especially important. M. Trudeau must displace Thomas Mulcair and the NDP in QC. The NDP will certainly lose some seats to a revitalized BQ or another QC nationalist party; but the Liberals need to take away NDP seats, too and a platform that works in left leaning QC will not work very well in most of the 30 new seats in suburban ridings. See, then, Number 5: how to develop a platform that works across Canada ~ something neither the Conservatives nor the NDP need to worry about, the NDP can remain left of centre and the Conservatives will aim to win without QC but those luxuries are denied the Liberals.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Apr 2013)

The crux of the issue is that the Liberals can not win 24 Sussex without Quebec, while the Conservatives can. Displacing the NDP and holding off a resurgent Bloc is a tall order.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Apr 2013)

The NDP plan is to win through Ontario, attempting to woo urban and suburban vvoters to join with Quebec to subsidize "their" jobs, protect the environment from those dirty, oil grubbing Albertans and make the West pay for Confederation.

How well this will work is interesting to contemplate; the book "The Big Shift" suggests that the new axis of power is through Ontario going West (an idea that has been around a long time; Preston Manning articulated a version of this in "The New Canada" many years ago), and Ontarians may feel that hitching the wagon to the economic and political powerhouse of the West is a better choice.

The "New Canada" coalition of Voters is still fragile, it will take a while to forge really tight links and create explicit interest groups like a large manufacturing base in Ontario eager to service the needs of the West (one exists, but perhaps not large enough to be a deciding factor yet), and extranious shocks like a collapse of oil prices making the oil sands non competative may also derail the coalition, the Canadian economy and the CPC.

Time will tell


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Apr 2013)

I think everyone is getting too far ahead of themselves.

You can't make plans. Plans only last as long as the MSM is interested,

What someone says today only lasts until the polls say it's wrong.

Polls are wrong, the vast majority of the time.

Polls are paid for by the parties to reflect what they want you to believe.

Politicians are by nature, liars and connivers, you believe them at your peril.

2015 is a long, long way off in political time.

Only one party in Canada wants to see the liberals survive, and they just elected Trudeau.

Carry on with the hand wringing. Luckily, ulcers develop and show symptoms withing a couple of months.

You have time before the libs hit their stride to stock up on Zantac.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Apr 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I think everyone is getting too far ahead of themselves.
> 
> You can't make plans. Plans only last as long as the MSM is interested,
> 
> ...




I disagree, RG; we should all be aware that political parties need to be refreshed and renewed. Maybe many Canadians are happy with Prime Minister Harper's Conservative government, but what we learned from experience (1935 to 1957) is that no party, no even with a good, new leader, can stay "fresh" for long. We should all want a fiscally responsible alternative, a "government in waiting," ready to govern when the party we support runs out of ideas and falls prey, as it will, to sloth and corruption. So Conservatives ought to wish the Liberals well, and _vice versa_, because both should know that they will - for the good of the country - be the alternative to the other.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Apr 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Only one party in Canada wants to see the liberals survive, and they just elected Trudeau.


I too want to disagree.   :nod:

As a small-c conservative, I see the _current_ benefit in having the 'left' voters split to give the Conservatives one more term.  If either NDP or Lib form the next government, even with the best of intentions, they will most assuredly devolve to "it's our time at the trough now, so we're going to spend like idiots to pander to _our_ people/causes."

I don't think the economy needs that just now.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Apr 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I too want to disagree.   :nod:
> 
> As a small-c conservative, I see the _current_ benefit in having the 'left' voters split to give the Conservatives one more term.  If either NDP or Lib form the next government, even with the best of intentions, they will most assuredly devolve to "it's our time at the trough now, so we're going to spend like idiots to pander to _our_ people/causes."
> 
> I don't think the economy needs that just now.





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I disagree, RG; we should all be aware that political parties need to be refreshed and renewed. Maybe many Canadians are happy with Prime Minister Harper's Conservative government, but what we learned from experience (1935 to 1957) is that no party, no even with a good, new leader, can stay "fresh" for long. We should all want a fiscally responsible alternative, a "government in waiting," ready to govern when the party we support runs out of ideas and falls prey, as it will, to sloth and corruption. So Conservatives ought to wish the Liberals well, and _vice versa_, because both should know that they will - for the good of the country - be the alternative to the other.



This is true. I misspoke on this point.

I must have been in fickle voter mode when I wrote that  8)


----------



## a_majoor (14 Apr 2013)

The trick is to have renewal in a peaceful and orderly fashion, rather than seeing leaders suddenly knifed by party insiders, bakbenchers or even outside influences (looking at the vast array of "causes" funded by the American Tides foundation here in Canada, is anyone _really_ willing to bet they are not also in our political process at the party level as well?).

Canadians can point to the abrupt exit of leadrs like John Diefenbaker or Jean Chrétien as examples of how it should not be done. Maybe we should revisit "The Next Conservative Leader" thread, and also read the tea leaves WRT how the Prime Minister may choose to manage his own exit.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Apr 2013)

It should be no secret to anyone who has seen my postings that I would preferentially vote Conservative given the choice. That being said, I too believe that we need the Liberals to keep the political landscape relatively centrist. I also believe that the Liberals, and more specifically Mr Trudeau needs to lose the next election; and he needs to be allowed to lose. The Liberal party can not continue to flit like moths from bright light to bright light, because as we all know these moths die in the process. Having Mr Trudeau lose on his first, and succeed on his second attempt will result in a better overall outcome for Canada and the Liberals.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Apr 2013)

Given the current state of the LPC, if they don't displace the NDP as the opposition party in 2015, the Young Dauphin may be (metaphorically) sent into a room by himself with a loaded pistol...


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Apr 2013)

Liberal insider Warren Kinsella gives a timely warning to _Team Trudeau_, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Winnipeg Sub_: negative, attack ads still work; that's why the Conservatives use them; expect more; fight back:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/04/19/negative-ads-that-doomed-dion-ignatieff-could-sink-trudeau


> Negative ads that doomed Dion, Ignatieff could sink Trudeau 2
> 
> BY WARREN KINSELLA, QMI AGENCY
> 
> ...




Mr. Kinsella is right, even though the _commentariat_ and _punditry_ don't like them, attack ads are here to stay because they don't backfire and sensible people do heed them, even if they don't care for them.

Look for more and more, even better focused attack ads from both the CPC and the NDP over the next two years.

It's hard to fight back: Prime Minister Harper is, actually, benefiting from his cold, still persona: he looks serious and businesslike, maybe not a "nice guy" or even a "good neighbour," but a serious, solid, manager who might just have the right answers to serious questions about our economic future.


----------



## GAP (21 Apr 2013)

The latest  online poll....intereesting...
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2013/04/20/20757396.html

Which federal leader is the most likable?
Daniel Paille       1%
Thomas Mulcair  4%
Elizabeth May     9%
Justin Trudeau    34%
Stephen Harper  53%

Total Votes for this Question: 1793


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Apr 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> The latest  online poll....intereesting...
> http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2013/04/20/20757396.html
> 
> Which federal leader is the most likable?
> ...



Hmmm. Daniel Paille. Had to scratch my head for a minute and remember who he is. I'd forgotten about him and the Bloc still being participants in our government.

And E. May beat out T. Mulcair? The NDP needs to do some work, methinks.

Shiny pony's numbers must have the libs in spin dry mode right now.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Apr 2013)

Ah, a world without attack ads, in which the candidates forthrightly reveal all their weaknesses and crazy-uncle principles to the voters.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Apr 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree, but in 2013, in the preparatory phase for the 2015 election he should do so: both for a handful of senators and, equally, for a couple of MPs, too.
> 
> He should compare Sen Brazeau to former Sen Lavigne and Sen Duffy to Sen Harb and say, "See, folks: this is why we should ALL elect our senators; you, the good, sensible people of Canada, are far less likely to elect bad people than we _political professionals_ are to appoint them."
> 
> He should read the riot act to the religious conservatives and tell them that while it's OK to promote their pet causes they must, in every speech, confirm that their opinion are not the Conservative Party position and the Prime Minister is firm in his resolve to treat those issues as settled. Those who cannot manage that will not get their nomination papers signed. (That is the _nuclear_ option open to every party leader.)





Speaker Andrew Scheer has ruled that his “authority to decide who is recognized to speak is indisputable and has not been trumped by the use of lists," which is, or ought to be obvious. The question of list is a little more complex than that, however, and the ruling may fundamentally alter "members' statements" and, maybe, even question period.

Now it is time for Prime Minister Harper to insist that government members raising issues state, clearly, how their issue relates to government policy.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Apr 2013)

A key plank of Prime Minister Harper's 2015 campaign platform _might_ be easier to put in place if the (acting) Parliamentary Budget Officer is correct, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Wall Street Journal_:

http://blogs.wsj.com/canadarealtime/2013/04/29/canada-budget-watchdog-says-flaherty-on-track-to-balance-books/


> Canada Budget Watchdog Says Flaherty on Track to Balance Books
> 
> By Paul Vieira
> 
> ...




Paul Martin (and Jean Chrétien0, building on a deep fear instilled in Canadians by Brian Mulroney, took balanced budgets from being a political _nice to have_ and turned them into a _must have_. A balanced budget in 2015, something to which DND will make a disproportionately large contribution, is a key point in the Conservatives' message that Stephen Harper can manage the economy and Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau cannot.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2013)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is some insight into why the governing Conservatives are willing to risk civil service strikes in 2015 ~ they think understand that most Canadians think most (just many, or only some?) civil servants are overpaid and under-worked:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/why-tories-would-be-willing-to-fight-election-over-civil-service-showdown/article11674672/#dashboard/follows/


> Why Tories would be willing to fight election over civil service showdown
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




John Ibbitson should also have mentioned that Canadians will not see any distinction between the regular civil service and the employees of crown corporations and _independent_ agencies like Canada Post, the CBC and Via Rail. The Conservatives will highlight salaries, especially executive salaries, in the agencies - which, by the way, should be fully, 100% privatized and allowed to sink or swim, see: Andrew Coyne's good question in the _National Post_: *"The question many people would ask nowadays about VIA, Canada Post and the CBC is not “why isn’t the government sitting in on their labour negotiations,” but why do these three organizations exist in their present form?"* - with the salaries of "ordinary Canadians" in the private sector and suggest that all public servants are overpaid.

Unionized public servants here on Army.ca will disagree with how the prime minister and most Canadians see them, but we all need to recognize that "organized labour" in Canada is, in the 21st century, mainly a public sector phenomenon: unions like the CAW have shrunk, massively, over the past 50 years while public sector unions have ballooned; most Canadians are not unionized and they *envy* those who are. Envy is a powerful political tool, along with fear and greed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 May 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Well, he's spoken up now, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndps-mulcair-takes-aim-at-senate-abolition/article12058932/#dashboard/follows/
> 
> For reasons I have explained more than once here on Army.ca, the NDP is wrong on this: a federal state needs a bicameral legislature. Not for "sober second thought" which is an even more offensive notion today than it was in 1867, but because a federal state is a _bargain_ between (previously) sovereign political actors - the provinces in our case - and they need representation in that national parliament, something that the provincial premiers' _Council of the Federation_ cannot provide.




John Ibbitson looks at Senate reform as wedge issue for 2015 in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/how-mulcair-could-help-harper-turn-the-senate-crisis-into-an-opportunity/article12088224/#dashboard/follows/
My *emphasis* added


> How Mulcair could help Harper turn the Senate crisis into an opportunity
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I can understand why the NDP would adopt a _Constitutionally nonsensical_ position but it is more difficult to understand the Liberals' deafening silence.


----------



## GAP (23 May 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I can understand why the NDP would adopt a _Constitutionally nonsensical_ position but it is more difficult to understand the Liberals' deafening silence.



Really? Where oh where have all the Liberal party hacks/failures/reward challenged gone?  The Senate?  :nod:


----------



## ModlrMike (23 May 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...it is more difficult to understand the Liberals' deafening silence.



John 8:7 perhaps?


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 May 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> John 8:7 perhaps?




Maybe, they are certainly not without sin; but, as I have explained elsewhere they have an important interest in a reformed Senate ~ an elected Senate, elected in the way I have proposed (by province) will, for now, anyway, guarantee them parity in the Senate with the Conservatives.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 May 2013)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say that.  Christy Clark won in BC with nothing more than a mega-watt smile, lies about the state of the provincial economy and fear-mongering of the NDP.  Now she will try to get Trudeau elected PM with the same formula.




An interesting, albeit not entirely persuasive analysis of the polling from recent elections, especially in BC, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _CBC_:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/25/pol-vp-weiers-bc-election-polls.html


> B.C. election proved campaigns matter more than ever
> *While pollsters were talking to voters who didn't vote, Christy Clark stayed on message*
> 
> By Bob Weiers, CBC News
> ...




First: to RangerRay's opening comment. Bob Weiers says "Christy Clark won the campaign, she won the debate, she was the better communicator and she became the leader voters "liked" the best." We can be very sure that Justin Trudeau will campaign on the fact - and I think it is a fact - that he is the "nicest," most "likable" of the three main party leaders. It can be an effective campaign tool; *but*

Second: consider the other reasons Bob Weiers gives for Christy Clark's success:

     1. "Christy Clark in particular, ran a great campaign. A simple, straight-forward message, repeated daily. Hard-hitting and effective attack ads that changed the ballot box question from the NDP's
         "time for a change" to "do you want to trust the B.C. economy to the NDP with a weak leader?" and

     2. "Pollsters are counting votes from voters who don't end up voting. And, these voters are more generally the ones who are telling the pollsters they intend to vote for a party that is not the government...
          In B.C., those people were NDP supporters. These voters who don't vote, are also most likely to be people under 35 years old."

Those two facts will work very much to Stephen Harper's advantage; he will stress, over and over and over again that neither Thomas Mulcair nor Justin Trudeau can be trusted to manage the economy and the Conservatives will count on the fact that their strongest supporters are about 50 years of age and older, and are reliable voters, while both the Liberals and NDP are appealing to the under 35 crowd who are not reliable voters.


----------



## Jacky Tar (27 May 2013)

Basically it came down to "hold your nose and vote Liberal - they smell bad but not as bad as the others" or "vote against the Liberals because you shoud change rascals regularly."


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _National Post_ is reporting on a poll that predicts a Liberal majority in a 308 seat HoC if an election were held today and if Justin Trudeau were leading the LPC.
> 
> The poll results are:
> 
> ...




Liberal insider Warren Kinsella explains the real situation ~ _"another Conservative majority government seems likely"_ ~ in this column which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Winnipeg Sun_:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/06/07/why-harper-isnt-losing-any-sleep-over-grim-polls


> Why Harper isn’t losing any sleep over grim polls
> 
> BY WARREN KINSELLA, ,QMI AGENCY
> 
> ...




Mr. Kinsella offers some hope for a Conservative minority but I believe that the 30 new seats will, most likely, split 2:1 in favour of the Conservatives  see why here. The old _Laurentian consensus_ which kept the Liberals in power and the NDP in perpetual support is shifting towards something new, something that unites BC and Ontario suburbanites - many of them "new Canadians" - with Western Canadians (outside of urban Victoria and Vancouver).


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Jun 2013)

Mr Kinsella hints at something many other pundits miss: the Liberals can not win the next election without Quebec, where the Conservatives can. My own prediction, FWTW, sees the Torries with a majority, the Liberals displace the NDP as opposition, and the Bloc return in numbers to parliament, perhaps even relegating the NDP to fourth place.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jun 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Liberal insider Warren Kinsella explains the real situation ~ _"another Conservative majority government seems likely"_ ~ in this column which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Winnipeg Sun_:
> 
> http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/06/07/why-harper-isnt-losing-any-sleep-over-grim-polls
> 
> Mr. Kinsella offers some hope for a Conservative minority but I believe that the 30 new seats will, most likely, split 2:1 in favour of the Conservatives  see why here. The old _Laurentian consensus_ which kept the Liberals in power and the NDP in perpetual support is shifting towards something new, something that unites BC and Ontario suburbanites - many of them "new Canadians" - with Western Canadians (outside of urban Victoria and Vancouver).




More on this topic in this article, which is part of a _Globe and Mail_ series on the _nature_ of Brampton. The article says, in part, "Immigrants are making up a larger share of the country’s population, particularly in suburban cities like Brampton, which now has more than half a million residents. They’re valued for their votes, but also for their disposable incomes – they’ve become prime targets of fundraising campaigns. And so politicians are reaching them where they congregate: their places of worship ... political observers say Brampton is where the Conservatives won their majority in the last federal election. Locals took notice when Prime Minister Stephen Harper, after launching the 2011 election campaign in Quebec City, was in Brampton the next day. He made another appearance in town less than two weeks later. Mr. Kenney was even more of a regular fixture at gurdwaras and local functions in the region and notably attended more than a dozen chai (tea) parties in one day ... Those efforts (along with the rise of the NDP) paid off. The Conservatives won all four federal ridings in Brampton in 2011, unseating two long-time Liberal incumbents and challenging the widely held belief that newcomers will blindly support the Liberals – the party of immigration reformer Pierre Trudeau – or their own."

My _sense_ is that this is the "new religious right:" visible minorities who are not Christians and whose support cannot be taken for granted by any party. While I think the CPC can continue to win Brampton and other suburbs, it is not guaranteed, and the right Liberal leader - which might be Justin Trudeau - can turn the tables on Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney. As the article points out, _new Canadians_ do have some issues, especially changes to the immigration rules that have made it more difficult to e.g. bring parents from overseas.


----------



## Remius (20 Jun 2013)

The only thing that could put a wrinkle in things is a Conservative split.  And while it may be easily dismissed, there are cracks showing, and water is starting to come through the cracks.  We've seen the quelling of a small backbencher revolt (revolt is too big a word, let's call them grumblings), but with the much publicised departure of one back bencher we could see more if things don't change within the party.  Peter McKay has already threatened to walk as he has before if certain policies are put in place and it is likely he will bring a few with him.  And the grass roots are not pleased with the handling of the senate issue.  It will be interesting to see what comes of what promises to be a interesting policy convention.

The worst thing is going into an election split like that and ending up defeating yourself.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jun 2013)

Once more, I believe you're making more of this than there really is. These are minor blips, easily weathered.


----------



## Remius (20 Jun 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Once more, I believe you're making more of this than there really is. These are minor blips, easily weathered.



Maybe I am.  But I highly doubt they are considered minor blibs.  The CPC just had the worst month of it's governing term.  I'd hardly call having your chief of staff resign in a scandal now being investigated by the RCMP minor.  And I'm sure the PM and other party faithful have not found it easily weathered either.  Luckily the summer is here.  They are at a critical half way mark.  contrary to what some people think, the whole senate issue, MPs, ethics etc is something that Canadians are watching.  Unlike minor things like proroguation or omnibus bills that most people aren't too concerned about.

But you make a good point.  If they can keep the economy on track then I believe that come election time Canadians will have forgotten or won't care unless it's still current at that time.  But they need to come out of this policy convention intact (and you know the media will be looking for those cracks).


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jun 2013)

As mentioned in the other threads, the other question on people's minds is "who is qualified/competent to replace the current government?"

Perhaps the 2015 election may be a question of holding your nose for the least worst choice. My own suspicion is after the smoke clears, we will see a reduced majority government, and Prime Minister Harper will make plans to retire prior to the following 2019 election, giving the CPC a chance to do a managed and planned succession (there is a thread about possible Conservative leaders where this is discussed).

Strategically, the Liberals are fighting an uphill battle on all fronts; Quebec will be a cage match with the NDP and Bloc, the NDP and Greens will be fighting hard for the urban ridings and the CPC will be literally fighting house to house in the suburbs. And this is before we talk about policy and leadership....


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jul 2013)

Jeffrey Simpson offers Justin Trudeau some good advice, while highlighting a glaring Liberal weakness, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/when-things-get-serious-trudeau-will-need-some-firepower/article13316854/#dashboard/follows/


> When things get serious, Trudeau will need some firepower
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Deserved or not, Prime Minister Harper has the trust of Canadians on "pocket book" issues and, broadly and generally, Canadian "vote their pocketbooks."


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jul 2013)

The Ottawa Press Gallery bemoans their increasing irrelevance in the NP. I think this blogger's commentary gets it right, and also highlights some of what was alluded to in "The Big Shift"; the Ottawa Press Gallery represents the old Laurentian consensus, while the CPC speaks to the coalition of people's and regions making up the New Canada:

http://canadiancincinnatus.typepad.com/my_weblog/2013/07/kelly-mcparlands-maudlin-article-about-stephen-harper-is-right-on-the-money-and-thank-god-for-that.html



> *Kelly McParland’s maudlin article about Stephen Harper is right on the money, and thank God for that!*
> 
> The self-pitying National Post columnist titled his piece, “Stephen Harper won’t read this, and doesn’t care what it says.” In it, he makes some interesting points:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jul 2013)

And a bit of a counterpoint as to why polls have become unreliable, and why despite everything *we* are not getting the changes that *we* claim we want:

http://princearthurherald.com/news/detail/?id=0278af66-ca8c-4c5f-9bb0-80938b9ad709



> *The disheartened state of voters*
> BY BRUCE A. STEWART
> 19 July 2013
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jul 2013)

I agree with John Ibbitson's thesis in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/infrastructure-now-solidly-on-voters-minds/article13475150/#dashboard/follows/


> Infrastructure now solidly on voters’ minds
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...



Four points:

     First: anything Canada does unilaterally ~ anything Canada can afford to do ~ about _climate change_ will be meaningless: China, India, Europe and America (including Canada at about a 10% rate) must,
     first, agree on what, if anything should and can be done.

     Second: this is the key point - *"... taxpayers will demand the money be spent* [on adapting infrastucture]*, because nothing matters more than preserving the safety of your family and the value of your home."*

     Third: this can, and in my opinion should be done on the same basis that the federal government has proposed for job training grants - the Government of Canada will pay a full, fair share only if municipal and
     provincial governments agree to contribute, too.

     Fourth: this will have an impact of defence spending because I'm guessing that the federal government will start talking about it in 2013, make concrete proposals in 2013/14 and start spending in summer 2015, in
     time to trumpet it on the campaign trail. Money being spent on infrastructure adaptation ) which is, in economic  term *productive* spending) is money that cannot be spent on defence (because the
     government will still be in the process of "zeroing" the deficit by 2015 and the government will not raise taxes in an election year and because defence spending is (in economic terms) *unproductive* and
     because, primarily, defence spending is unpopular.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Aug 2013)

>The Federation of Canadian Municipalities believes that “extreme weather is the single greatest threat to Canada’s infrastructure and transportation system,”

BS. The biggest threat is the lack of willingness of jurisdictions to do proper and timely maintenance on what they have, and to follow a schedule of staggered replacement (eg. the "replace 2% of sewer/water each year" idea).  Put any required maintenance and replacement off long enough and the costs are bound to be high.

>The problem goes far beyond people living on once-dry land that turned out to be floodplain.

Oh yes, that's always a surprise.  Not a clue in sight.

>“The climate has changed, it is changing, it will continue to change,” Prof. Feltmate says. “Extreme weather events are going to be the norm going forward. And we’re going to have to adapt.”

Feltmate must be new.  30+ years ago I was reading articles postulating that the relatively benign weather of the mid-20th century in the post-Depression era was anomalous.  He is correct that the norm going forward may be different; he is wrong that it is "extreme".  What went before was an "extreme" ("extremely benign").


----------



## a_majoor (1 Aug 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> BS. The biggest threat is the lack of willingness of jurisdictions to do proper and timely maintenance on what they have, and to follow a schedule of staggered replacement (eg. the "replace 2% of sewer/water each year" idea).  Put any required maintenance and replacement off long enough and the costs are bound to be high.



Exactly so. Since @ 2000 London has preferentially spent taxpayer dollars on "investments" like a convention center, downtown arena and "downtown renewal" at the expense of infrastructure and public works. The City Engineer once complained that while he estimated it took $30 million/year to maintain the existing infrastructure, the City Council only budgeted $8 million/year. Even if the City Engineer was padding his estimates 100%, that is still a huge shortfall. (and the "investments", rather than paying for themselves, are an ongoing drag on the taxpayer, siphoning monies that should go to other things, or ideally remaining in the taxpayer's own pocket).

Rinse and repeat for virtually every city and town in Canada, and there should be no surprise as to why simple weather events are suddenly so costly and damaging. Weather events that were no worse than we had in the 1970's, BTW.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Aug 2013)

As far as I can see, the key to a successful Conservative campaign in 2015 is based on showing Canadians that they, the CPC candidates, are the best choice for Canadians' financial security. This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Financial Post_ explains why that's not a sure thing:

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/08/03/flahertys-unfinished-business-slaying-the-deficit-biggest-and-most-elusive-check-left-on-to-do-list/


> Flaherty’s unfinished business: Slaying the deficit biggest and most elusive check left on to-do-list
> 
> Gordon Isfeld
> 
> ...




I agree with Prof Mike Moffatt of Western: no really deep cuts to national defence, but no growth, either, and no new taxes. That doesn't leave an awful lot of room to manoeuvre.

(On a personal note: I favour one new tax: an end user pay (à la the HST/GST) carbon tax that aims to address climate/environmental concerns by _helping_    Canadians to change their behavior. A new carbon tax should be accompanied by reductions in the income tax rates applicable to the bottom 20% of federal income tax payers and by cuts to corporate taxes which are investment and job killers.)


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Aug 2013)

As with everything else in this world the problem invariably resolves itself into a lack of income.

Time for a pipe, dear boys.

To be precise Christy's pipelines.

My prediction:  Christy will approve BC pipelines.

The scenario will run this way.

1.  The Dog and Pony Circus has wrapped up.

2.  The report highlighting concerns and deficiencies will be made public no later than Dec 2013.

3.  Christy will squawk - not too loudly

4.  Harper will recognize her "legitimate" concerns

5.  Allison will sit on her hands, and her royalties and leave the discussions to Harper.

6.Harper will promise to beef up the West Coast coast guard with a fleet of Norwegian style vessels all built in Vancouver and Victoria 

7. Harper will agree to match any play Christy makes to protect the BC rights of way.

8. Harper will ensure that the native vigorish is suitably improved - jobs will be offered to natives in both the onshore and offshore environmental protection services

9. Christy will beef up onshore environmental protection 

10.  Problem resolution just in time for the 2015 election

Where will all the money come from to pay for this?  The current $30 to $60 discount per barrel the Market/Obama/Environmentalists are imposing on Alberta oil



> Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) competes with Canadian heavy oil producers in the Gulf of Mexico, and its heavy Mayan crude is currently priced at $96 (U.S.) a barrel, $5 more than the trendsetting light crude, West Texas Intermediate, and nearly $30 more than Canadian heavy crude was fetching in the North American futures market.
> 
> But it’s not only in North America where heavy crude is being valued highly. Prices for Saudi Arabian heavy crude delivered in China in the first quarter average $106 a barrel, just $6 below the average price for North Sea Brent, the leading international light crude.




Problem resolved in time for re-election.

Bonus points:

Books balanced

Obama sidelined

Yanks sidelined 

Nation building project that ties Kitimat to St John, all financed by Alberta.  

Harper recreactes MacDonald's National Dream with TCPL as CPR.

2 More Terms.

 >   Feeling adventuresome this morning. Must go buy a lottery ticket.


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Aug 2013)

> Where will all the money come from to pay for this?  The current $30 to $60 discount per barrel the Market/Obama/Environmentalists are imposing on Alberta oil



The average last year was $23 per barrel. A lot of people have no idea that our oil is sold at less than world market price.

13 Dec 12 CBC report (figures at time of the report):



> The wide gap between oil’s global benchmark price and what Canadian producers can get for their oil is costing Canada $2.5 billion a month, according to new research that sees the spread remaining for years even if new pipelines are built.
> 
> Normally, the price gap between Brent North Sea oil and Western Canada Select oil is $10 to $15 a barrel, says Charles St-Arnaud, an analyst at Nomura Securities. But currently, that spread is a near-record $50 a barrel.



Someone will have to explain to me why our gasoline prices, especially in Western Canada which doesn't import oil, are based on the world oil price not the discount Cdn price.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Aug 2013)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Someone will have to explain to me why our gasoline prices, especially in Western Canada which doesn't import oil, are based on the world oil price not the discount Cdn price.



Because gasoline is traded as a commodity by itself, therefore the price is unrelated to the price of oil.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Aug 2013)

John Ibbitson weighs in on the importance of Toronto to the next general election in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/toronto-still-a-political-barometer/article13605665/#dashboard/follows/


> Why Toronto is still a political barometer
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I agree that:

     _"How much of suburban Toronto stays blue, and how much of it turns red, will tell us a lot about who forms the next government,"_ although I would say GTA, rather than just suburban Toronto; and

     _"For the Liberals, winning back Toronto is essential to the party’s revival_ [and] _"if Justin Trudeau wants to become prime minister, he will have to win the vote in suburban Toronto – Rob Ford country, even to this day."  
_


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Aug 2013)

Two points from a story in the _National Post_, posted elsewhere on Army.ca, in which Sen Duffy's lawyers threaten to call Prime Minister Harper to testify, should it come to a criminal trial, and John Ivison predicts Prime Minister Harper will campaign on _abolition_ rather than reform:

     1. The first point ~ threatening to try to embarrass the PM ~ suggests that Sen Duffy's lawyers believe that *a)* he is guilty of willful, criminal fraud, and *b)* there is a good chance he might go to jail; and

     2. On the second point, John Ivison is probably right _abolition_ is easier to explain (on the campaign trail) than reform, Canadians are more likely to want _abolition_, but the _Supremes_ will not allow it and reform will be the order of the day, post 2015.

I have suggested, elsewhere again, a way to achieve meaningful senate reform without reopening the Constitution. My plan requires the national political _centre_ to bully the provinces, perhaps too much, but it would produce an elected, effective Senate that fills the proper role of the "second chambre" in a bicameral legislature ~ which I believe is required in a federal state.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Two points from a story in the _National Post_, posted elsewhere on Army.ca, in which Sen Duffy's lawyers threaten to call Prime Minister Harper to testify, should it come to a criminal trial, and John Ivison predicts Prime Minister Harper will campaign on _abolition_ rather than reform:
> 
> 1. The first point ~ threatening to try to embarrass the PM ~ suggests that Sen Duffy's lawyers believe that *a)* he is guilty of willful, criminal fraud, and *b)* there is a good chance he might go to jail; and
> 
> ...




Minister (and likely leadership candidate) Jason Kenney suggested Friday that outright abolition is unlikely. "Whether people agree with it or not, the Fathers of Confederation decided that Canada, like every other democratic federation, would have an upper house that in principle could represent the interests of the regions," Kenney said ... "That is our constitutional structure, but we want to ensure that it is a modern and accountable Senate. That's why we want a democratic Senate with term limits and accountability to the public."

But that doesn't mean that the CPC wil not or cannot *campaign* on _abolition_, it just means they understand the limits of the Constitution and they understand that the SCC understands that, too.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Aug 2013)

And Brian Gable, the _Globe and Mail's_ editorial cartoonist, explains *why* promoting _abolition_ is good politics:






Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/damage-claim/article13538502/#dashboard/alerts
Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... John Ivison is probably right _abolition_ is easier to explain (on the campaign trail) than reform, Canadians are more likely to want _abolition_, but the _Supremes_ will not allow it and reform will be the order of the day, post 2015.


Agreed that in campaign mode "get rid of" is easier to explain/message than "change it".



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But that doesn't mean that the CPC wil not or cannot *campaign* on _abolition_, it just means they understand the limits of the Constitution and they understand that the SCC understands that, too.


Just like they say "never give an order you can't enforce", wouldn't campaigning on abolition (knowing the Constitutional hurdles) taint the platform, then?


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Aug 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Agreed that in campaign mode "get rid of" is easier to explain/message than "change it".
> Just like they say "never give an order you can't enforce", wouldn't campaigning on abolition (knowing the Constitutional hurdles) taint the platform, then?




Sure, it will ... but will Canadians either notice or care?


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Aug 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Sure, it will ... but will Canadians either notice or care?


True dat .....


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Aug 2013)

They can deflect blame (unfairly) onto the SCC and subsequently champion reform.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Aug 2013)

John Ibbitson wonders if the Senate scandal could derail Prime Minister Harper's plans for 2015 in this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/senate-could-derail-harpers-best-laid-plans/article13835602/#dashboard/alerts


> Senate could derail Harper’s best laid plans
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




The solution, I think, might be:

     1. Continue, as he is doing now, to hammer his core mesage ~ Conservatives are the only ones who can be rtusted with the country.  The NDP is full of "dangerous ideas"
         and all the Liberals have is "vacuous thinking;" and

     2. At the same time campaign on _abolition_ of the Senate, until such time as the _Supremes_ say "No!" then move on to a plan for reform ~ challenge and bully both the provinces and the opposition parties.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Aug 2013)

The Senate expense scandal definitely seems to be a boon to the Conservatives in almost a tin-foil hat kind of way.  They campaigned hard on Senate reform and found tires spinning in the mud - the scandal may be the winch that pulls them forward to their original objective.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Aug 2013)

The first "promise made, promise kept" announcement (didn't appear on the PM's or DND/CF's web pages), from the stephenharper.ca page (what appears to be a party-hosted page):


> This year’s operation NANOOK 13 marked a special milestone for our government: the expansion of the Canadian Rangers.
> 
> In 2007, PM Harper committed to expanding the Canadian Rangers from 4,000 Rangers in 165 patrols to 5,000. As of August 2013, there are more than 5,000 Rangers in 178 patrols – a 25 percent increase since 2007. In addition to the 5,000 rangers, there are also close to 4,200 Junior Canadian Rangers in 135 patrols across Canada. Much like their senior counterparts, the Junior Rangers Program helps to achieve nation-building goals and improves the quality of life of young people.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Aug 2013)

Michael Adams of _Environics_  suggests that the "youth vote" is essential for Justin Trudeau's Liberals but not as reliable as they hope in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-youth-vote-is-key-for-todays-trudeaus/article13937370/#dashboard/follows/


> The youth vote is key for today’s Trudeaus
> 
> MICHAEL ADAMS
> Contributed to The Globe and Mail
> ...




The poling data I have seen suggests that younger voters dislike Prime Minister Harper and they like Justin Trudeau ~ bad news for Thomas Mulcair, but in some contests (and we must remember there will be 338 individual contests) some of Mr Mulcair's young candidates will be attractive to young voters. But other data suggests, as Michael Adams verifies, that "getting young people to the polls" is easier said than done. My peers, senior citizens, are both reliable voters and, generally, not attracted to M. Trudeau's (few) positions on issues. The _potential_ voters M. Trudeau wants and needs are almost the reverse of seniors when it comes to likely-hood to vote, and I _*suspect*_ that when you talk about the issues that Mr. Adams says matter to them ~ "the environment, justice, inequality, defence and foreign policy," they will be equally or even more attracted to the NDP than to the Liberals.

M. Trudeau is, certainly, more _attractive_ to young Canadians but Mr. Mulcair has a platform that is, likely, more attractive to them; the result: Conservatives "up through the middle."


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2013)

I agree with John Ibbitson's column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, that this fictional memo is the "master plan" for the new look PMO and Conservative Central Office:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/if-harper-sent-a-memo-to-his-new-staff-it-could-be-like-this/article13994161/#dashboard/follows/


> If Harper sent a memo to his new staff, it could be like this\
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




Well, as it happens, I do have a few suggestions. Prime Minister Harper should say, at his first staff meeting:

     First: we are no longer "outsiders–rooted in Western conservative values and Western alienation, sustained by Tim Horton suburbanites," we are Tim Horton suburbanites sustained by Western conservatives;

     Second: each of "Senate embarrassments, rebellious backbenchers, robocalls and bungled files – yes, I do mean the F-35 contract" are each separate and distinct problems which require separate and distinct solutions -

          a. The Senate cannot be abolished, the _Supremes_ are not going to allow that, but we can talk it up even as we draft a comprehensive, even radical _reform_ proposal that will leave the Liberals and _Dippers_ in our dust,

          b. I'm going to try to meet our backbenchers half way. The Throne Speech in October will lay out a handful of promises that will be matters of confidence - every Conservative MP will vote for them,
              regardless of what his constituents or his conscience tells him or I will drum them out of the party. But most items, including ALL _social_ items will not be confidence issues and I will allows members to
              speak against the government, all the time reaffirming that the views they are expressing are their own, or those of some voters in Wildflower-Dung Hill, and *not* the views of the government or the CPC,

          c. we will continue to stonewall on the _robocalls_ issue until we cannot - then we will elect a scapegoat and toss him (or her) to the wolves, and

          d. we will deal with bungled files in two ways ~

               (1) we will punt the F-35 decision farther and farther down the road ~ special committees are wonderful things, aren't they? ~ and

               (2) we will reip big ticket procurement, almost all of which is military or coast guard ships, and put it into a new department which is beholden to neither DND, nor PWGSC nor Industry Canada; and

     Third: to get those trade deals signed and pipelines built I am going to bully the hell out of the provinces. If they try to play ball with me I will ram the fiscal bat up their arses and I, not they, have the _constitutional_ power to do it!


----------



## Rifleman62 (29 Aug 2013)

Isn't this the same, except you state the method and the instrument?

ERC:  





> Third: to get those trade deals signed and pipelines built I am going to bully the hell out of the provinces. If they try to play ball with me I will ram the fiscal bat up their arses and I, not they, have the constitutional power to do it!



Rifleman62: 


> Canadian Politics / Re: Canada's New (Conservative) Foreign Policy
> « on: August 27, 2013, 17:39:50 »
> We know which way President Obama will go, especially but very unlikely the Dems hold the Senate and gain the Congress: NO Keystone.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Sep 2013)

An oil plan like that might be a good issue if framed properly. Current estimates are that our inability to sell "at market" costs the Canadian economy something like $2 billion/day. That amount of revenue is enough to pay off the national debt in one year (and the federal unfunded iabilities the next year), if the monies were collected directly by the Federal government.

More realistically, every billion in new private investment should result in 20,000 new full time jobs, so finding ways to bring in billions in new revenues will result in lots of money being available for private investment and job creation. This will take a lot of the wind from the sails of the NDP (job creation) and the Liberals (blathering about "middle class values" without proposing any program to actually do anything for the middle class).


----------



## ballz (2 Sep 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> An oil plan like that might be a good issue if framed properly. Current estimates are that our inability to sell "at market" costs the Canadian economy something like $2 billion/day. That amount of revenue is enough to pay off the national debt in one year (and the federal unfunded iabilities the next year), if the monies were collected directly by the Federal government.



I believe the figure you are trying to quote is $2 billion per MONTH, which at $24 billion per year is not enough to cover the deficit. When those numbers are quoted as "costing Canadians," what it really means is it is costing Canadian *companies.* How much of that would eventually become tax revenue, I'm not sure, but certainly not enough from $24 billion to cover the forecasted $17 billion federal deficit this year.

Interestingly enough, I wanted to Google the estimates just to make sure we were talking about the same thing and whatnot. Anyway, I came across this article which says this claim is *bogus* and makes a decent argument to support it http://business.financialpost.com/2013/06/03/canada-oil-price-discount/?__lsa=42fb-cd39

The undisputable quote in the article, however, is not really about the discounted price of Canadian oil:



> B.C. Energy economist Robyn Allan, who recently wrote a report on the pricing of Canadian oil, said “the discount has been used by the federal and provincial governments to shadow out the fact that by shipping raw bitumen to U.S. refineries, Canada is also shipping jobs.”



I think this is pure gold. In Canada, we extract resources from our lands and send the jobs elsewhere for a small price (the price of the resource). Why do we not do the "add value" part here, at home, and then sell it elsewhere for a premium?


----------



## a_majoor (2 Sep 2013)

I'll have to go back to the clippings file, but I'm fairly sure the figure was per day.  Even if I'm wrong and it was per month, that is still a large amount of revenue to be foregone. The arguments for that amount of money powering private investment and creating new jobs still stands.

I do agree that *we* should be moving higher up the value added food chain, but there are many reasons that we are not. The tax and regulatory environment that discourages new investment is probably the number one reason for not building new anything, but there are also second and third order effects of other boneheaded ideas our political class come up with. How many new industries will come to Ontario when the cost of electricity is skyrocketing due to "green" energy policies, for example?


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Sep 2013)

We must also recognize that external forces are actively working against the extraction and export of Canadian oil. Instead of wringing our hands, we need to sort out other options and get on with it.


----------



## ballz (2 Sep 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Even if I'm wrong and it was per month, that is still a large amount of revenue to be foregone. The arguments for that amount of money powering private investment and creating new jobs still stands.



Agreed, just wanted to be accurate with the number. The federal corporate tax alone on that $24 billion dollars per year would be 3.6 billion collected in federal tax revenue. That's 21% of the federal deficit right there. Then, of course, we agree on the spin-offs that would be a result of the oil companies taking that remaining 21.4 billion and trying to invest/expand, a lot of that would end up being tax revenue as well. Hard for a laymen like myself to calculate, but I'm sure it would be lucrative.

However, if the article is correct... we could both be in dreamland


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2013)

It is interesting that, just moments ago, Jason Kenny _tweeted_ his congratulations to Brian Loughnane, Federal Director of the Liberal Party of Australia, for a well planned and executed campaign. Kenny _tweets_, and the link suggests, that Mr Loughnane is a "great friend" of the Conservative Party of Canada.

I wonder: will we see him in Canada in 2014/15 to help plan the 2015 campaign?


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Don't underestimate the LPC's capacity to reinvent itself in whatever part of the political spectrum it can find room to grow. Stephen Harper has made the CPC a _centrist_ party ...




Two articles in today's papers bear on this:

     1. In the _Ottawa Citizen_ Andrew Cohen asks "Is Canada creating a new political realignment, which looks an awful lot like the old one? Is it returning to a three-party system in which the Conservatives and the Liberals hold power, alternating with
         each other, while the New Democrats languish on the margins?"

     2. In the _National Post_ John Ivison speculates on the Throne Speech and suggests that it "will contain details of a “consumers first” agenda," taking, in my _opinion_, direct aim at the middle class ground that Justin Trudeau is trying to plow.

Andrew Cohen doubts that M. Trudeau can unseat Prime Minister Harper in 2015 but he is fairly certain that he will reduce the NDP to third party status. But, as I have said before supplanting the NDP is not simple; it all depends on QC and it will be difficult to craft a _national_ campaign that must, first and foremost, appeal to French speaking Quebecers while still holding on to Liberal strongholds in multi-ethnic Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.


Edit: format


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2013)

On _Twitter_, journalist Andrew Coyne, commenting on the John Ivison article re: the Throne Speech, says, "God what populist bilge: the NDP could write this Throne Speech. This is what's wrong with the Tories in a nutshell."

If John Ivison is correct in his speculation, it is, indeed, "populist bilge;" but this, a Throne Speech, is about _politics_ not _policy_; it is about winning elections and this is Canada and "populist bilge" works. I didn't hear similar comments when Justin Trudeau or Thomas Mulcair spouted "populist bilge."


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Oct 2013)

And here is a report that says, "The parliamentary budget office says economic growth will remain sluggish over the next couple of years, but that won't keep the federal government from hitting its balanced budget target in 2015." That's a crucial target for the Conservatives.

============================================​
More of this in this report which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Financial Post_:

http://business.financialpost.com/2013/10/28/sluggish-growth-wont-keep-ottawa-from-balancing-budget-by-2015-budget-office/


> Jim Flaherty: Expect a balanced budget with a big surplus in 2015
> 
> Canadian Press
> 
> ...




I understand that this is "good news" and, given the media attention is focused on the _Senate Scandal_ ® the government wants to trumpet this very loudly but I think it is a mistake to forecast a substantial surplus. It is fine to say, "We will keep our promise. We will manage your money effectively," and so on, but it is always best to keep expectations low and then crow when you do better than promised.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Nov 2013)

This news, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is both good news and bad news for the Conservative Party of Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/by-2015-harper-will-have-shrunk-government-to-smallest-size-in-50-years/article15485546/#dashboard/follows/


> By 2015, Harper will have shrunk government to smallest size in 50 years
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




Now those who know me will understand that this is very, very good news and, _l'affaire Duffy_ notwithstanding, confirms, for me, that Prime Minister Harper is the right man for Canada.

Those however, who, as Mr. Curry puts it, "see a broader role for government in the lives of Canadians" will find this very bad news indeed and it will convince them to vote ABC: Anybody But Conservative.

Here's the problem for the Conservatives: their base is about 20% - that's how many will vote Conservative no matter what. (That's slightly higher than the 16% that the Progressive Conservatives earned during the 1993 rout, but it's about right for the firm base because Reform took away a slice of the conservative base that year.) The Liberals have about the same level of support - they got 18.91 in their worst ever performance in 2011 and that is higher than the solid NDP base which I guesstimate at 15%. The other 45% of voters are up for grabs ... except they aren't. Why not? To begin: 45% of Canadians will never vote Conservative, they didn't in 1958 when only 53% voted for Diefenbaker's Progressive Conservatives giving them the biggest election victory in Canadian history and that being the second last time any Canadian political party achieved an absolute majority in a federal general election (Mulroney did it last, with 50.02% in 1984; Pierre Trudeau never got more that 45.4% of the popular vote.) So the CPC has a firm base of 20% and it must compete for a share of the 35% (not 45%) which is really up for grabs. Recent experience suggests that 40% gives a safe, solid majority in a five party system. So the Tories need to keep their base and win nearly 60% of the _undecided_ - remember that 45% will not vote for the CPC, no matter what. That _undecided_ group - about 35% of the electorate, probably includes many, many, many people who do "see a broader role for government in the lives of Canadians." That, government works and we need more government, is part of the _Laurentian consensus_ and, _Big Shift_ being acknowledged, it is still a very popular view.

Conservative firm base:      20%
Liberal firm base:                20%
NDP firm base:                    15%
BQ firm base:                      <5%
Green firm base:                 <5%
Undecided:                          35%   
Needed to form a majority: 40%
Share of undecided          )
needed for either             )  60% (20/35 = .571)
CPC or LPC majority         )


----------



## a_majoor (18 Nov 2013)

Since there are three or in Quebec four parties scrambling for that 45% of the vote, the best solution for the CPC will be to toss a few grenades and get the others to fight amongst themselves.

This works, in London North Center (my home riding), the CPC candidate in the 2011 election received the same percentage of the vote as the (much stronger) CPC candidate in the previous election. He lost to Liberal Glen Pearson, but she won because the Left vote split three ways between Pearson and the NDP and Green candidates (mostly the NDP due to the "Orange Crush"). While it is hard to imagine another "Orange Crush", the LPC will be very weak going in (small war chest and *still* no actual Liberal philosophy besides _win at all costs_), and I doubt the Young Dauphin will come out looking very good against the likes of Thomas Mulcair in any debate, while the PM simply needs to point to a solid economic record and ask the Young Dauphin "so, how would you have done that?". The Greens will be supercharged over oil pipelines (another good reason to make oil an election issue), and chewing on the LPC from that direction.

Prediction, more vote splitting, the CPC comes up the middle with a reduced majority and PM Harper can plan his retirement with another Liberal leader's scalp on his belt.


----------



## DBA (19 Nov 2013)

> In that entire period, the most recent year is the lowest level ever recorded for government revenue at 14.1 per cent of GDP. It was 16 per cent in 2006-07, the first full year under Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Total expenses hit a record low of 14.8 per cent in 2008-09 as the recession hit. Spending spiked to 17.7 per cent of GDP the next year because of stimulus, but the recent economic update forecasts a new record low of 14.3 per cent in 2015-16.



Saying the government grew or shrunk based on % of GDP is misleading as most would assume such a statement would be in reference to absolute inflation adjusted dollars.  Harping on a "shrinking" government while leaving those figures out shows the article to be biased, deceptive and uninformative.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Nov 2013)

The speculation about possible cuts in CF strength is, at least for now, a political issue according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Calgary Herald_:



> Cutting size of military could be on the table for Harper government
> 
> BY MURRAY BREWSTER, THE CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> ...




LGen (ret'd) Leslie has some credibility on this issue; his report did recommend cutting some of the bloated C2 _superstructure_. Prime Minister Harper did ask for cuts to the _overhead_ but former MND Peter MacKay, held in a magic spell by his admirals and generals, chose to ignore that _guidance_ and Prime Minister Harper did not and does not, I think, care enough about defence to have made an issue of it. But if it looks like Andrew Leslie can do real political damage then the PM may direct Minister Nicholson to cut admirals and administrators, not troops and trucks.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Nov 2013)

>Saying the government grew or shrunk based on % of GDP is misleading

Proponents of spending prefer to phrase it that way because it tends to guarantee a continually increasing amount of per capita spending.  (Per capita GDP in constant dollars generally increases year-by-year.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jan 2014)

I never though I would say this, but: I agree, generally, with Ricard Gwyn (who I regard as a silly, immature, insufferable twit of the worst sort) in this article (and only this article, I hasten to add) which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _The Walrus_:

http://thewalrus.ca/the-contender/


> THE CONTENDER
> *The appeal of Justin Trudeau’s emotional intelligence*
> 
> BY RICHARD GWYN
> ...




I think Mr Gwyn, a deeply embedded Liberal insider, has it about right. The Liberals will run on M. Trudeau's _emotional intelligence_ which allows him to parlay his undoubted _charisma_ and genuine "niceness" into popular support for his non-policies.

It might just work in 2015.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jan 2014)

IOW, Trudeau is more like his mother than his father.  Strong recommendation, that.

No wonder there has been discussion lately about empowering caucus to "retire" PMs.  Undoubtedly the LPC would like to ride Trudeau to election and then put him out to pasture as soon as decency allows.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Jan 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> IOW, Trudeau is more like his mother than his father.  Strong recommendation, that.



Or, as my wife, a lifelong French-Canadian Liberal put it:  Justin inherited his mother's looks and her brains.


----------



## Ostrozac (2 Jan 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> No wonder there has been discussion lately about empowering caucus to "retire" PMs.  Undoubtedly the LPC would like to ride Trudeau to election and then put him out to pasture as soon as decency allows.



"A Very Canadian Coup"?

But has a sitting Canadian party leader every actually been forced out by their own party, like Margaret Thatcher was in 1990? (Joe Clark actually called the leadership convention that led to his ouster, hoping for a solid mandate that he didn't get.) Isn't more the style of our party leaders  just to resign in shame once they've worn out their welcome?

I see a few scenarios for the next election:

- Harper scrapes out a win (minority or majority), and calls it a day. States that being elected PM 4 times in a row is good enough. Conservative leadership convention in 2016, and the new leader has three years to establish him/herself.
- Trudeau wins a minority. Conservative leadership convention in 2016, and the new leader gets to watch the inexperienced PM and cabinet run the country with a minority -- when the Liberals appear weak, force an election through the magic of minority parliaments.
- Trudeau wins a majority. Conservative leadership convention in 2016, and they watch to see if Trudeau actually can run the country. If yes, then you're looking at a couple terms of Conservative opposition. If no, then he will be one and done and you'll have a Conservative PM in 2019.

All of these scenarios are bad news for the Liberal Party unless two things happen -- can Justin Trudeau win a majority in 2015 AND does he have the intellect and experience to run a majority government without massively screwing up. I think the odds of both of those things happening simultaneously are pretty slim. But the possibility is there.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Jan 2014)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> ...can Justin Trudeau win a majority in 2015...



This is the elephant in the room for the Liberals. Anything less than a majority will be seen as a failure to meet expectations, and the Liberal party has more than shown us how well they tolerate leaders who fail.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jan 2014)

In this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Sun_, Maddie Di Muccio takes a look at how politics in ON and QC might impact the Conservatives in the 2015:

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/01/04/election-mania


> Election mania!
> *Ontario, Quebec votes could impact Harper Tories*
> 
> Maddie Di Muccio
> ...




I'm not so sure that I agreed that a Liberal win is ON is bad news for Prime Minister Harper. Historically federal Conservatives have fared well when the Liberals own Queen's Park and the federal Liberals do better when the ON PCs are in power in Toronto. It's not a perfect "track" but it is generally true.

As to losing one or two ministers, even strong ones: that isn't so bad, either ~ it makes room for rising stars like Chris Alexander.

I agree with Ms Di Muccio that the CPC would be happy to see the BQ take seats away from the NDP and, thereby, deny them to the Liberals.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jan 2014)

Jeffrey Simpson laments, as a charter member of the _Laurentian Elites_ would, the rise of "small ball" politics - a form in which he suggests the NDP has now joined the CPC, certainly after considerable polling and focus groups and so on, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-rise-of-small-ball-politics/article16566918/#dashboard/follows/


> The rise of ‘small ball’ politics
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I recommend reading _Shopping for Votes_ by Canadian journalist Susan Delacourt in which she explains why and how the CPC and now the NDP "slice and dice" the Canadian electorate in order to focus their campaign promises (and subsequent policies) where they will do the most partisan political good. 

As Mr Simpson points out, the Liberals cannot join the CPC and NDP in this "small ball" game because they don't have any balls policies to throw out towards Canadians, except for blowing marijuana smoke at us.


----------



## DBA (29 Jan 2014)

I could do without grand schemes that never actually accomplish anything but deceive voters.

Liberal red book promise to abolish the GST - ignored as soon as they got elected, result nothing
Conservative promise to reduce the GST - acted on in stages as conditions permitted, result GST lowered by 2% from 7% to 5%.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jan 2014)

> And there seems, judging by these two parties’ assessment of the electorate’s anxieties, little appetite to address issues of longer-term importance, such as the aging of the population for which the country is ill-prepared, the inadequacies of the health-care system that yet another report from the Health Council of Canada has underscored, the distressing amount of poverty,



In the spirit of Jonathan Swift I suggest that Mr. Simpson's problems will solve themselves.   A poor healthcare system will result in fewer elderly.  Fewer elderly will both reduce health costs and poverty.  I perceive no reason for concern.  >


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jan 2014)

In this video, which is 90% about foreign affairs, John Ibbitson gives, I think, a good overview of the 2015 Election at 1:09:30 to 1:17:50. "They must, *must* win in the 905," he says, and I agree.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jan 2014)

According to this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, Elections Canada has "mapped' the redistributed ridings against the 2011 poll-by-poll results to show how the parties would fare _if_ we all vote the same way in 2015:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-will-benefit-big-from-2015s-new-electoral-map-elections-canada-data-shows/article16630731/#dashboard/follows/


> Tories stand to benefit from 2015’s new electoral map, Elections Canada data show
> 
> CHRIS HANNAY
> Ottawa — The Globe and Mail
> ...




Now, if, and it is a huge IF, we all vote in 2015 as we did in 2011 then Elections Canada suggests we would have another solid (188 seat) Conservative majority. I doubt it.

Back in August of 2011, just a few months after the last general election and long before the _Senate Scandal_ I predicted this:

Conservatives – 163 seats
Liberals –            60 seats
NDP –                 60 seats
BQ (revived) –     20 seats
New QC Party –   20 seats
Greens –              5 seats
TOTAL              *328 seats*  (ten seats are "up for grabs")

I'll still stick with something like that. I'm still guessing that there may be two QC _nationalist_ parties ... one centre left and one well left of centre. I think the NDP will see their seat count fall to nearly half of what they won in 2011 and I cannot imagine the Liberals doing anything less than 100% better than they did in the last election.

The CPC will, I think, lose a dozen or more of their current seats and pick up 20 to 25 of the new ones for a net gain of 5 to 10 seats, giving them a slim (slimmer than now) majority.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Jan 2014)

I wonder if the Americanization (Obama-ization?) of the NDP is a plus or a minus in the calculus?

Will the NDP attack the CPC for Americanizing Canadian politics?  How about the Liberals?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Jan 2014)

I've voted in every election since I was able and I'm 60 now. I have voted nothing but Conservative.

I'm disappointed on how they are handling the firearms file.

I'm infuriated how they are treating veterans.

I will be voting again this time. However, my ballot will be a write in for Libertarian, Rhino or 'None of the above'. Depending how I feel that day.

They have a little over a year to sort themselves out and get me back on board.

I'm not holding my breath on this last option.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jan 2014)

America bashing works pretty well amongst the group (urban Vancouver, Edmonton, Hamilton and Toronto, greater Montreal) that John Ibbitson suggests agree to the _Laurentian Consensus_. It will not go down as well with the BC and Ontario suburbanites and prairie populists who make up the new _Conservative Coalition_ (Ibbitson's phrase, again).

But the focus on the Arctic and President Obama, himself, do provide opportunities for some, limited, America bashing by the CPC.

Deep in the darker corners of his partisan, tactical, political heart, I'll bet Prime Minister Harper almost hopes that President Obama rejects the Keystone Pipeline ... such an act could be, will be seen by many Canadian _opinion leaders_ as a slap in the face and it would play into the Conservatives' hands much more, I think, than into those of the Liberals and NDP.


----------



## 211RadOp (31 Jan 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I've voted in every election since I was able and I'm 60 now. I have voted nothing but Conservative.
> 
> I'm disappointed on how they are handling the firearms file.
> 
> ...



One year I put a big X through the whole ballot.  Just because I could.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Jan 2014)

Then don't ever bitch about whatever party becomes the government.


----------



## Jed (1 Feb 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I've voted in every election since I was able and I'm 60 now. I have voted nothing but Conservative.
> 
> I'm disappointed on how they are handling the firearms file.
> 
> ...



Ditto for me. I might have voted for Otto Lang once decades ago.


----------



## Remius (1 Feb 2014)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Then don't ever ***** about whatever party becomes the government.



You see, I don't have an issue with spoiled ballots.  It is still an active participation in the process. Not the same as apathy or laziness.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Feb 2014)

I agree, an intentionally spooled ballot is a protest, _a pox on all their houses_ sort of protest ~ ineffectual, to be sure, but a protest vote, all the same; *but* when you spoil your ballot you are, as Rifleman62 suggests, putting _your_ choice in the hands of others and your _right_ to complain about the ones who got elected is, shall we say, diminished.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Feb 2014)

I'd say the alternative is to vote how the system is intended to work - look at all the candidates and decide which one has impressed you the most.  At least you can feel comfortable of having voted for a good candidate, if not a good political party.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Feb 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'd say the alternative is to vote how the system is intended to work - look at all the candidates and decide which one has impressed you the most.  At least you can feel comfortable of having voted for a good candidate, if not a good political party.



The one time I spoiled a ballot it was after going to an all candidates meeting.  I still stand by that decision as the best of a bad lot...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Feb 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'd say the alternative is to vote how the system is intended to work - look at all the candidates and decide which one has impressed you the most.  At least you can feel comfortable of having voted for a good candidate, if not a good political party.



Unfortunately, at this time, there is neither a good candidate in some ridings, or a good political party.


----------



## Remius (2 Feb 2014)

Last election I was disallusioned with all parties in my riding. So I voted for who I thought would at least be the best MP in my mind.  Regardless of their political stripe.  I may do the same this time.

Provincially though, I feel the current government needs replacing.  I'll be voting with an anybody but them mentality.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Feb 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, at this time, there is neither a good candidate in some ridings, or a good political party.



Well, if you want to find and support a good candidate (or be one yourself, for that matter), then you should follow this advice. Since it is early in 2014, you have the better part of a year to make this happen (I suspect that the PM may call a spring election in 2015, on the grounds that several Provincial elections are due that fall. Even if he does not, if you think and act as if it is true, then you will be ready before your potential opponents). Substitute CPC and Liberal Party (or NDP and Green, if you like) for Democrat and Republican, the advice and action plan remains the same:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/182380/



> FROM THE COMMENTS TO A POST LAST NIGHT, ADVICE TO UNHAPPY REPUBLICANS:
> 
> I suggest you actually attend your state’s Republican and Democrat party conventions (Bing is your friend). Attend every day and stay at the convention hotel, don’t be a day tripper. Mingle. Listen in the hallways and listen in the hospitality suites. And learn.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Feb 2014)

I would never waste an opportunity to vote.

I work a full week, and I have to compete for my interests against factions of people who understand mobilization and organization well enough and whose full-time occupation is to agitate for a slice of my interests instead of creating their own.  They vote too.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Feb 2014)

:goodpost:

Milpoints inbound, Brad.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Feb 2014)

I am not talking about not voting. I am talking about a write in vote for someone not on the ballot who, in my mind, fits closer to my idea of policy than the parties listed. 

I am not a single issue voter, or party supporter. My vote goes to the party who's policy and programs more align with my own.

To this point, that has been the Conservatives. However, I believe they have lost their way and the other parties have nothing to offer me.

I cannot, in my heart vote, for the best of the worst to maintain the status quo. Nor will I be shamed by being told I am not worthy to say my piece because I refused to voice my opinion for not voting to replace one bunch of inept morons for another. 

As long as I enter that voting booth, no one has the right judge me.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Feb 2014)

I find none of the parties listed ever reliably approaches my preferred policy vector.  Nonetheless, I see an advantage in voting for the nearest one.  The voting process is an equalizer - no matter how much time any one person has available to seek rents from others, it is still one person, one vote.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Feb 2014)

Remaining on this sidetrack ...

     [o] I cannot vote for the BQ because I don't live in QC ~ and I would not, on principle, if I could/did;
     [o] I will not vote for the Greens because I do not believe they offer anything to the national political process;
     [o] I will not, ever, vote for the NDP because I believe know their economic policy proposals are ruinously stupid;
     [o] I have voted Liberal in the past ~ but not since Lester Pearson brought Marchand, Pelletier and Trudeau into the party in the 1960s. I remain opposed to Liberal principles which I find to be _statist_, which
I regard as dangerous, and _socialistic_, which I regard as stupid;;
     [o] I did not vote for the Reform Party because I found their populism distasteful and I judged them to be in the hands of the "religious right" which I regard as a dangerously uninformed _movement_;
     [o] I have, pretty consistently since 1965, voted Conservative ~ PC and now CPC. I cannot think of a single CPC policy with which I am in complete agreement; I do not agree, at all, with many CPC policy positions, I oppose a few CPC policies with loud vehemence. But the Conservatives, in *my opinion* are the only party with several policies with which I find favour. The tiny handful (three, four, maybe five) of issues on which I am likely to favour Liberals over Conservatives are insufficient in either number or importance to shift my party allegiance. There  are fairly large chunks of each party's platform about which I care nothing ~ I oppose all of them equally. There are other elements wherein I find they all offer bits to support and other bits to oppose, but nothing to make me choose one over the other. A small handful of issues _inform_ my vote and on all those issues the Conservatives are closer to my position than are the Liberals.

Could the Liberals earn my vote again? Yes, all they need do is:

     1. Promise a much smaller, less intrusive (into the individual rights) of Canadians, government;

     2. Promise balanced budgets with lower taxes ~ especially lower taxes on businesses;

     3. Promise a _principled_ foreign policy that puts Canada's national interests first and backs it up with useful armed forces;

     4. Promise to deal honestly and fairly with _First Nations_ in an effort to empower individuals in _First Nations_ to decide their own fates according to their own needs; and

     5. Promise to vacate areas on Constitutionally defined provincial responsibility, including renouncing several existing federal-provincial agreements.

Do I think I'm likely to vote Liberal any time soon? No.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Feb 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Could the Libertarians earn my vote again? Yes, all they need do is:
> 
> 1. Promise a much smaller, less intrusive (into the individual rights) of Canadians, government;
> 
> ...



Sadly, while Libertarians have the intellectual rigour and understanding to create and offer a "Classical Liberal" platform, they are entirely deficient in terms of organization, fundraising, media awareness and all the other things which make a political party a contender. The primary difference between Edward's ideal list and the Libertarians is they see the "Swiss" model of a citizen militia which is designed to defend hearth and home, but not to project power. (This is one of my key objections to the Libertarian party platform BTW, since we have not been living in King's "Fireproof house" for more than half a century, and arguably much longer).

Still on the principle of half a loaf, I compare my "ideal" platform to what is on offer, then look at who has the ability to actually deliver a portion of what I want to see as Government policy before deciding on who to vote for.

WRT to spoiling ballots or refusing to vote, that is indeed your right, but consider that there are large and well funded forces (like the Union front group "Working Families") who are able to push their agenda because people refuse to take a stand in the ballot box. Modern elections are no longer contests between political parties, but between predatory groups seeking to feed off the taxpayer.

I will refer you to a previous post upthread for anyone interested in taking up arms and doing battle in the political arena:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/101972/post-1287033.html#msg1287033


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Feb 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Sadly, while Libertarians have the intellectual rigour and understanding to create and offer a "Classical Liberal" platform, they are entirely deficient in terms of organization, fundraising, media awareness and all the other things which make a political party a contender. The primary difference between Edward's ideal list and the Libertarians is they see the "Swiss" model of a citizen militia which is designed to defend hearth and home, but not to project power. (This is one of my key objections to the Libertarian party platform BTW, since we have not been living in King's "Fireproof house" for more than half a century, and arguably much longer).
> 
> Still on the principle of half a loaf, I compare my "ideal" platform to what is on offer, then look at who has the ability to actually deliver a portion of what I want to see as Government policy before deciding on who to vote for.
> 
> ...




Catherine Swift, retired CEO but still the Chair of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, has started a (still restricted to Ontario) counter to the unions, especially public sector unions, (and the "Working Families" campaign) called: "Working Canadians."


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Feb 2014)

And _Gable_, in the _Globe and Mail_ provides this excellent summary of the Liberal campaign:






Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_
Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/are-you-csis-csec-or-rcmp/article16655155/#dashboard/follows/


----------



## ballz (22 Feb 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 5. Promise to vacate areas on Constitutionally defined provincial responsibility, including renouncing several existing federal-provincial agreements.



Could you give a couple of examples, please?


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Feb 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> Could you give a couple of examples, please?




My first would be the Canada Health Act which I _believe_ intrudes improperly and counter-productively into an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. I emphasize counter-productive because provisions of the Canada Health Act can be, and have been, used to stifle innovation in health care financing.

My second is _income taxes_, specifically _income_ taxes imposed on corporations. I think corporate taxes should be matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Such a change would, I think:

     1. Deprive the national government of a source of income, thus restraining the unchecked growth of unnecessary government; and

     2. Drive those taxes down as provinces would compete for business.


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Feb 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My first would be the Canada Health Act which I _believe_ intrudes improperly and counter-productively into an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. I emphasize counter-productive because provisions of the Canada Health Act can be, and have been, used to stifle innovation in health care financing.
> 
> My second is _income taxes_, specifically _income_ taxes imposed on corporations. I think corporate taxes should be matters of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Such a change would, I think:
> 
> ...



At the risk of engaging in ill-informed speculation aka punditry, I suggest that if the feds withdrew from corporate taxation, the provinces would not see this as as a way to compete for business, but rather as an unforeseen gift and raise their own rates to milk the corporate cow.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Feb 2014)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> At the risk of engaging in ill-informed speculation aka punditry, I suggest that if the feds withdrew from corporate taxation, the provinces would not see this as as a way to compete for business, but rather as an unforeseen gift and raise their own rates to milk the corporate cow.




Initially, that's probably true for many, maybe even most of them ... but one or two wouldn't and the migration of _service_ industries would be quick and massive. See California today.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Feb 2014)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting rant column by Lysiane Gagnon in which she decries the lack of French in the recent Liberal Party of Canada convention:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/did-liberals-forget-quebec/article17097813/#dashboard/follows/


> Did the Liberals forget Quebec?
> 
> LYSIANE GAGNON
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




I have, pretty consistently, argued that M. Trudeau's road to power begins in and must go through Québec. I wonder if M. Trudeau agrees ... perhaps he thinks, as I do, that governing Canada, all of Canada, means governing without Québec, not against it, just without paying too much attention to its incessant whining.

My guess is that M. Trudeau was/is (at the convention and right now) _campaigning_, hard, in suburban Ontario and BC. I _suspect_ that he aims to field a suite of policies and candidates that will get him 25+ seats in QC, many at the expense of the NDP. He will also look to grow his Atlantic Canada seat count from 12 to at least 16 of the of the 32 seats available there. He can hope for small gains is the Prairies, from 2 to, say, 6 seats. That gives him 48 seats, including one in the Territories. He needs 170 for a slim majority; that means he has to 'grow' from 13 to 122 seats in BC and ON.

Compare that to Stephen Harper's task which is _only_ to hold on to most of the 165_ish_ seats he currently holds and gain say ⅓ of the 30 new seats.

Québec matters, it will account for 23% of the seats in the next HoC. But that's a far cry from the 28% of seats that Québec held when _Trudeau père_ held power, and it's share will fall, again, in the next redistribution and in the one after that. I am certain M. Trudeau will fight hard in Québec, unveiling policies that will appeal to the _statist_ and _socialistic_ voters there; but while he needs to go 'through' Québec he *must* win and win BIG, in BC and ON.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Feb 2014)

I've moved this over from here, a gun-control thread -- "Swiss Arms Classic Green reclassified - now Prohibited."



			
				dangerboy said:
			
		

> I don't think this will factor at all in the elections, most people could not care at all about a weapon becoming reclassified.


Speaking only for myself but I suspect there are several of us out here, this isn't _the_ issue but it's certainly _an_ issue -- one in a growing series.

I've had a strong tendency to vote conservative (lower-case intentional) rather than adamantly for any particular party.  The Conservatives appear to be losing what appealed to me in recent elections, in that they're increasingly building bigger government and legislating things that don't require it, and the gap between what they say and do is becoming greater.

So while this isn't my tipping point, the space available to forgive poor CPC decisions is diminishing.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Feb 2014)

How much more to the tipping point?

I'm still stuck with the lack of credible alternatives.


----------



## Journeyman (27 Feb 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I'm still stuck with the lack of credible alternatives.


Absolutely!


----------



## Loachman (27 Feb 2014)

Libertarian?

They have as many seats as Reform had, once.


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Mar 2014)

National Newswatch is reporting Jim Flaherty has resigned.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Mar 2014)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> National Newswatch is reporting Jim Flaherty has resigned.




Indeed! It _appears_, from some _Twitter_ feeds, that he will (may?) stay on as an MP for a while.

I think this _may_ have an impact on some CPC leadership candidates.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Mar 2014)

I think _Sun Media's_ David Akin is on to something with this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Sun News_:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/03/20140328-152221.html


> Harper's history key to a Conservative future
> 
> David Akin, National Bureau Chief
> 
> ...




The speech (John Baird's speech) to which David Akin referred is: here.

I don't think you'll see these ideas in specific platform proposals ~ those will be more prosaic, aimed at our pocketbooks, at the pocketbooks of those who are not, already, fully committed to the _progressive_ parties, in any event. But it will _colour_ the whole campaign, and the 18 months leading up to it.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Mar 2014)

Took them long enough to figure that out. The defining speech was excerpted for an election ad in the 2011 general election. While the longer speech it is part of is unapologetically partisan, the piece played daily on the radio and TV was a brilliant distillation of the Conservative vision of Canada:



> Canada is - and always has been - our country
> And we want Canada to be a true north that is as strong and as free as it can be, in every way that matters, the best country in the world!
> That’s why we’re here. That’s why we strive. That’s why we serve
> 
> ...



And look at that message! It speaks of inclusion (Canada is _our_ country), tells Canadians that our values and character are those of the best of people (honourable, faithful, loyal, courageous and compassionate), and that our national purpose is to be a nation of hope and an example to the world. I sure want to live in *that* country, and I hope all my neighbours are *those* people.

Naturally we all know this isn't true, but it appeals to our higher nature, and promises that this is a goal that we can strive for and achieve. Probably the most "positive" political message I have ever seen in my own lifetime.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Mar 2014)

This ~ "*Two public sector unions working to defeat Harper government*" ~ is totally inappropriate and plays, directly, into the CPC's hands.

     “It is obvious that we have to get rid of this government and what is clear is that we can’t wait until spring or October 2015.”
      (Denis Lemelin, president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.)

Tony Clement _et al_ will have a field day with this.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Mar 2014)

And the Tories have just pushed one of their key players under the bus.

CBC reports that Dimitri Soudas, former director of communications for the party and current executive director, has been fired for interfering in the nomination battle of his fiancee.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/dimitri-soudas-fired-as-conservative-party-executive-director-1.2592198


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Mar 2014)

To be accurate, he pretty much lay down in front of it on his own accord.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2014)

I'm going to put this here because this *should* be an election issue. With the average Canadian family spending 44% of their income on taxation (more than food, transportation or shelter), there is a considerable drag on the productive economy, and of course an inability for families to save, invest or pass on wealth to the next generation. 

Of course the real issue is government spending, the Duncan report put it in perspective when it identified the need to cut by 17% simply to balance the budget (this does nothing about the $100 billion new debt the McGuinty government racked up in less than a decade). You can look at your own jurisdiction and probably see the same thing.

So how about asking our elected officials how they can cut our tax bill by 10% (so the average family spends 34% of their income on taxation, still far too high but profoundly better than 44%). If the Young Dauphin is really interested in "helping the Middle Class" (despite being unable to define it) then he should have some concrete answers to this question, and if any politician has the answer and th will to carry out massive spending and tax cuts, then this is an election winning platform. Who is going to say no to an effective 10% pay raise?

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/04/08/were-undertaxed-governments-in-canada-hardly-starved-for-resources/



> *We’re undertaxed? Governments in Canada hardly starved for resources*
> Philip Cross, Special to Financial Post | April 8, 2014 7:00 PM ET
> 
> Progressives are pushing the view that Canadians need to be taxed more highly
> ...



and from the comments:



> Gardiner Westbound •10 hours ago
> 
> Economists say 42% is the taxation tipping point. Exceed that confiscatory percentage and taxpayers actively look for ways to evade them. The Fraser Institute reports in 2012 the average Canadian family paid 44.2% in taxes for federal and provincial income taxes, EI, CPP, municipal and school taxes, gasoline, heating fuel, electricity, water and sewer taxes, and sales, sin and eco-taxes - more than for food, clothing and shelter combined!
> 
> Canadians are tax poor. Estimates are up to 30% of government revenues are misspent or just plain wasted. Look for tax fraud and the underground economy to grow regardless tax collectors' threats.


----------



## Remius (10 Apr 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'm going to put this here because this *should* be an election issue. With the average Canadian family spending 44% of their income on taxation (more than food, transportation or shelter), there is a considerable drag on the productive economy, and of course an inability for families to save, invest or pass on wealth to the next generation.
> 
> Of course the real issue is government spending, the Duncan report put it in perspective when it identified the need to cut by 17% simply to balance the budget (this does nothing about the $100 billion new debt the McGuinty government racked up in less than a decade). You can look at your own jurisdiction and probably see the same thing.
> 
> ...



I tend to agree.  But I'm not an economist so my view may be naive or ill-infomed.  And I guess it would depend on where you would cut the tax from.  At the federal level you could cut income tax and raise or create consumption taxes to offset.  So I would save 10% on my income tax and pay 1% more on the HST.  So while I have more spending power, it is tempered by the consumption tax and might be encouraged to save as well.

I would not however want to see corporate taxes raised to compensate.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Apr 2014)

The problem is spending. Governments, federal, provincial and local, all spend too much on projects and programmes that are at least one (often more than one) of unnecessary, unproductive or even downright harmful.

But, and it is a HUGE BUT, every harmful, unproductive and unnecessary programme and project has a political "cheering section" and they are damned hard to cut.

It isn't that governments want to be wasteful, not even NDP governments (some of which have been at least as fiscally responsible as their Conservative and Liberal confrères), they want to be productive and to do the right things but it is so very, very difficult to say "No!" to any constituency.

I don't know to what extent we are overtaxed, but I'm happy to concede that it is in the 3 to 5% range. By that I mean that I am 99.99% certain that we could cut enough harmful, unproductive and unnecessary project and programmes at all levels of government to cut taxes by, let's just say, 4% and actually make things better: better for taxpayers and better for governments, too.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Apr 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is an interesting graphic, which come from EKOS Research via _iPolitics.ca_:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




But, according to an article in the _Globe and Mail_, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair is suggesting that an "Ethics & accountability" issue, the _Fair Elections Act_ will, somehow, be more important than pocketbook issues or healthcare ... I don't think so.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Apr 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ....NDP leader Thomas Mulcair is suggesting that an "Ethics & accountability" issue, the _Fair Elections Act_ will, somehow, be more important than pocketbook issues or healthcare ...


Perhaps he's channelling a recently deposed Quebec politician who believed that "people will vote on issues that *I personally* want to talk about."


However, he is competing for the left/center vote against someone deemed more popular despite a complete absence of policies or useful personal experience.  :dunno:


----------



## Crispy Bacon (13 Apr 2014)

Ezra Levant nails it again. Does anyone outside the Ottawa bubble really care about the mostly administrative minutae the_ Fair Elections Act _proposes to update?

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/04/20140413-074546.html



> EZRA LEVANT | QMI AGENCY
> 
> According to the database Infomart, in the last 30 days, the Ottawa press gallery wrote 267 news stories about Conservative Party staffer Dimitri Soudas and his fiancée, Eve Adams, an Ontario MP. Soudas was fired by the Conservative Party for allegedly interfering in her nomination race.
> 
> ...


----------



## legalrec (13 Apr 2014)

Crispy Bacon said:
			
		

> Ezra Levant nails it again. Does anyone outside the Ottawa bubble really care about the mostly administrative minutae the_ Fair Elections Act _proposes to update?
> 
> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/04/20140413-074546.html



100% accurate.  The same thing happens in Washington with administrative issues.  The journalists in the political centres are too insulated to know what anyone outside of those areas cares about.  The news cycle feeds their need to make scandals out of nothing.  When it comes to the election, none of this will matter.  Frankly, if they wanted people to care about these issues, they would write about them less frequently.  Politico-fatigue with the populous means that by 2015 no one will know or care about this issue.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Apr 2014)

Health care as an issue. This is another example of an innovation which the Canada Heath Act makes illegal, yet if implemented could save billions of dollars in heath budgets, cut wait times and improve the quality of heath care for Canadians. Another potential "winning" policy plank, if anyone is bright enough to seize it:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/04/12/aca-threatens-promise-of-concierge-medicine/



> *ACA Threatens Promise of Concierge Medicine*
> 
> Doctors in Texas are showing us what a medical system without comprehensive insurance might look like. The NYT profiles the rise of Texan “direct primary care” practices that don’t accept insurance. Instead, patients pay flat fees out-of-pocket. In return, doctors save both time and money that they can then pass on to patients. By not having to process reimbursements through third party payers, fill out convoluted forms, or hire administrative staff, they can charge their patients less and spend more time with them. Here’s some examples of how different practices are implementing this approach:
> In Austin, Drs. William and Mason Jones — a father-son team — practice “concierge medicine,” treating patients under a membership model in which patients pay annual fees for access to a variety of services, including unlimited office visits, routine vaccinations and round-the-clock medical assistance by phone.
> ...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (13 Apr 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, according to an article in the _Globe and Mail_, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair is suggesting that an "Ethics & accountability" issue, the _Fair Elections Act_ will, somehow, be more important than pocketbook issues or healthcare ... I don't think so.



I can't understand the "outrage" about the vouching clause for voting.  If any random 16 year old goes into a liquor store with their father/mother the parent can't vouch for their age (or to buy cigarettes). Why would voting have a lower standard than buying a can of beer? Would anyone argue that I should be able to vouch for the 16 year old? What about underage sex?  


the conservatives should relate the vouching thing to the beer example though... that would, in my humble estimation, pretty much kill any chance of Mr. Trudeau or Mr. Mulclair being able to feign outrage


----------



## Crispy Bacon (13 Apr 2014)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I can't understand the "outrage" about the vouching clause for voting.  If any random 16 year old goes into a liquor store with their father/mother the parent can't vouch for their age (or to buy cigarettes). Why would voting have a lower standard than buying a can of beer? Would anyone argue that I should be able to vouch for the 16 year old? What about underage sex?
> 
> 
> the conservatives should relate the vouching thing to the beer example though... that would, in my humble estimation, pretty much kill any chance of Mr. Trudeau or Mr. Mulclair being able to feign outrage



Actually, new minister Ed Holder brought up exactly that point:

"Two guys walk into a bar and order a beer. The bartender asks for ID from one of them. The other guy chimes in and says “it’s okay; he’s legal, I will vouch for him.” Later two young women go into a convenience store to each buy a pack of cigarettes. The store owner asks one for an age of majority card, so the other intervenes and says “don’t worry, she’s of age, I can vouch for her.” So should that be good enough? Tell me then why vouching is acceptable to vote in a federal election?"


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Apr 2014)

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, John Ibbitson explains why trade might be an important _wedge_ issue in the 2015 election and why this poses a problem for M. Trudeau, especially:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/why-the-next-election-could-be-fought-on-trade/article18091996/#dashboard/follows/


> Why the next election could be fought on trade
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




Canada "is seeking to preserve the supply management system that protects the dairy and poultry industry," for purely partisan, political reasons ~ both the Conservatives and the Liberals fear the dairy farmers, especially the Quebec dairy farmers who have promised violence if their "iron rice bowl" is removed - and based on past performance we should believe them. But 'supply management' is incredibly bloody stupid policy and it cannot be ended too soon for the sake of 99% of Canadians ... but our 'leaders' are afraid of the 1%.

I agree with Mr Ibbitson that fighting an election in vote rich suburban Ontario on trade, and lower milk and egg prices, "is not the worst scenario for a governing party seeking a fourth mandate and trailing in the polls," and it might be poison for the Liberals in those same, *vital* Ontario ridings ... the Conservatives have, I hope, learned to govern without Quebec. Now the question is: can they fight an election against rural Quebec?


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Apr 2014)

And another _element_ which works for the Conservatives in 2015 is discussed in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/just-how-well-canadas-middle-class-is-doing-is-a-matter-of-perspective/article18121218/#dashboard/follows/


> Just how well Canada’s middle class is doing is a matter of perspective
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




As several Liberal friendly commentators have noted we would be, should be shocked if Canada had not done better than the USA in 2008-2010 - the _great recession_ hit the US harder than anyone else. The _structural_ flaws in Canada's economy - the ones which makes us less _productive_ than the USA - are not going away; the US can and will catch up and pass us again in this metric.

But, for now, for the moment, which may last long enough, this is good news for the Conservatives.


Edit to add:

This graph, from _Economics for public policy_ shows what I mean about the _relative_ effects of the _Great Recession_ on the US vs Canada:





The _evolution_ of employment in Canada vs the USA. 2006=100)
Canadian data is from _Statistics Canada_
US data is from the _US Bureau of Labor Statistics_
Source: http://milescorak.com/2012/05/04/the-gap-between-us-and-canadian-unemployment-rates-is-bigger-than-it-appears/


----------



## GAP (26 Apr 2014)

Did Harper lose, or is it a win in disguise?
By: Dan Lett 04/26/2014
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/did-harper-lose-or-is-it-a-win-in-disguise-256803641.html

When is a loss not a loss?

On Friday, to virtually no one's surprise, the Supreme Court of Canada opined fundamental changes to the way we select senators or limit their terms cannot be affected without the support of seven provinces totalling at least 50 per cent of our population. Further, abolishing the Senate would require support from all provinces.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who asked the Supreme Court for its opinion on the matter, sounded unusually resigned about the top court's decision.

"I think given the Supreme Court has said we're essentially stuck with the status quo for the time being, and that significant reform and abolition are off the table, I think it's a decision that I'm disappointed with but I think it's a decision that the vast majority of Canadians will be very disappointed with," Harper said.

Of course, that's not what the Supreme Court said in its decision. It only reminded the prime minister that fundamentally changing our system of government by eliminating the upper chamber is something that requires strong provincial direction and, ultimately, approval. And perhaps that a change like this shouldn't be easy.

Senate reform could be one of Harper's hallmark accomplishments if he wanted to bring the first ministers together and talk. But he won't, because it's just too much work.

At first blush, it appeared just another crushing blow for a government that is consistently wiffed when it comes to recent decisions from the top court.

On the one hand, it's not hard to imagine the Tories fuming at the insolence of the courts for repeatedly derailing their legislative agenda. It's entirely possible, however, Harper not only didn't expect to win this Senate challenge, but didn't want to.

Reforming or abolishing the Senate is so much work, and virtually no one with a modicum of knowledge about the Constitution thought Harper was going to get a green light to expunge the Senate with a bill and a majority mandate in the House of Commons.

So, perhaps the prime minister expected to lose.

This is, after all, a man who leads a party and government that has a lot to gain by fencing with the Supreme Court. Core Tory supporters hate the courts in general and the Supreme Court in particular. Defeat has only solidified his credentials as a martyr to the populist cause.

If the Tories have calculated that, even in defeat, they can be winners in the hearts and minds of their fiercest supporters, then the past two months have been quite the success story. The Conservative government has now been turned back five consecutive times by the top court on a variety of different legislative or administrative matters.

In March alone, the Supreme Court upheld challenges to legislation that attempted to limit early access to parole for non-violent offenders and to force convicts to go through a laborious Federal Court process to challenge prison transfers. The court also rejected the appointment of Justice Marc Nadon to its bench, determining he was ineligible under current rules.

The hits kept coming in April when, in another unanimous decision, the court rejected a bid by the Tories to curb the judicial practice of awarding 1.5 days' credit for time served in custody prior to sentencing.

Two months, five rejections by the Supreme Court. It's enough to make you wonder if the Conservatives have grown tired of the rule of law.

Governments regularly vet draft legislation to ensure, in the interests of all citizens and the traditions of democracy, it does not violate any aspect of the Constitution or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Sometimes, the vetting process involves getting a Supreme Court opinion, especially when particularly muddy issues are at stake. However, this is not the track record of a government using the courts for guidance on legislative matters. The Tories keep throwing their best pitches at the top court, and the justices keep fouling them off.

There is no doubt this government would prefer to eliminate all pre-sentencing credit for convicts, take away their rights to oppose prison transfers, or possibly eliminate parole altogether. As for appointments to the top court, it's hard not to conclude Harper would dearly like to see men and women with a much more liberal (pun intended) interpretation of what the Constitution allows and doesn't allow.

Even so, this record seems like a no-lose proposition for Harper. In fact, Harper looks and sounds like a man who has already calculated the political benefits of losing to the courts as we head toward a 2015 fall election.

When is a loss not a loss? When you can bundle together a bunch of small setbacks and mould them into a potent political strategy. And that's a win.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Apr 2014)

I agree with the _Winnipeg Free Press_ analysis but I think it also goes a level deeper.

I think Prime Minister Harper understands the country: he understands that it is, broadly, fiscally cautious but socially 'middle of the road.' He knows that support for things like the _Law & Order_ agenda and for _Senate Reform_ is narrowly based. He is, I suspect, happy to have lost the sentencing, transfer and pre-trial cases and even the Senate case because he understands that the Canadians whose votes he needs to shake loose (the votes of the 40±% of Canadian who are not already committed to one of the five major parties) would be less likely to vote Conservative if they thought that the _social conservative_ agenda was gaining strength. The _Supremes_, by denying the government's new rules remind Canadians that they, the Conservatives, cannot impose their social will on the country.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Apr 2014)

Another point might be that while the Conservatives have questioned the limits of what the law allows - they have always acceded to the rule of law.

They may not like the ref's rulings but they have yet to be red-carded.

I think that that demonstrated willingness to play by the rules, a hallmark of "conservatism" with a small c, is a very appealing and marketable commodity in "middle-of-the-road" Canada.  

The Conservatives are likely to be seen as:

Effective Managers

Inclined to the socially conservative but not radicallly

Happy to play by the rules 

Consistent

Disinclined to major projects and shifts in attitudes.

In a word - Steady.

Or, in another word - Unexciting.

While that doesn't play to the Gallery or the Fringes, it does play to the Centre.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Apr 2014)

>He is, I suspect, happy...because he understands that the Canadians whose votes he needs to shake loose (the votes of the 40±% of Canadian who are not already committed to one of the five major parties) would be less likely to vote Conservative if they thought that the social conservative agenda was gaining strength.

And as the article noted, he is also happy to deflect the frustration of the 30+% of Canadians whose votes he needs to keep (the "base") toward the SC.  Straightforward political strategic principle: any issue the "base" wants that is too politically costly is best handled by manoeuvring someone else into playing the Grinch.

Requiring "strong provincial direction" and "stuck with the status quo" are in practical political terms equivalent.

"Senate reform could be one of Harper's hallmark accomplishments if he wanted to bring the first ministers together and talk. But he won't, because it's just too much work."

Is that supposed to goad Harper into a futile waste of opportunity costs?

I sense frustration among those who want to see Harper bang his head against a wall and who don't like to see Harper neatly shelve a contentious issue without unduly antagonizing either the people on the right or the people in the middle.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Apr 2014)

In a column in the _Ottawa Citizen_, about *"Taking out the trash,"* Michael den Tandt asks "Could this be what the federal Conservatives had in mind last week, as they sustained one crushing blow after another on key policy files, tossing losers overboard like so much ballast?"

My answer is "Yes."

In fact I think that Prime Minister Harper is, secretly, quite happy with what the _Supremes_ have given him: peace on the _Law & Order_ front and peace, also, on the Constitutional front.

He can, now, turn, to the _conservative_ wing of his party and say, "I tried. I really tried hard, but the SCC will not let me have the _Law & Order_ agenda we all want and now I need to turn to other priorities." Ditto to the _consititutionalists_, which includes me: "Sorry," he can say, "I tried my best but the courts say no and, anyway, no one wants to reopen the Constitution." The end result is that the L&O gang can blame the _Supremes_ and the _constitutionalists_ can just be patient - but both wings have no reason not to vote Conservative: "there is," as our political heroine Margaret Thatcher used to say, "no alternative." That allows Prime Minister Harper and the CPC to focus on suburban Canadians ~ the cautious, socially _moderate_, penny-wise, financially _insecure_ (worried) family folk who will decide the 2015 election.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 May 2014)

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, Campbell Clark suggests that Kathleen Wynne's campaign in Ontario offers us a peek into Justin Trudeau's campaign in 2015:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/wynne-campaign-a-clue-to-liberal-strategy/article18603239/?cmpid=rss1&click=dlvr.it#dashboard/follows/


> Wynne's campaign offers clues to Trudeau's Liberal strategy
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




It will be interesting to see if _empathy_ works in Ontario, especially in the vote rich area code 289/365/905 belt of suburbs surrounding Toronto.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 May 2014)

Bruce Anderson opines on what I _*think*_ is the bigger problem (bigger than M. Trudeau's popularity) for the Conservative Party, they're getting stale, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-showing-all-the-signs-of-an-aging-government/article18610052/#dashboard/follows/


> Harper's Conservatives showing all the signs of an aging government
> 
> BRUCE ANDERSON
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




One of the problems facing the denizens of the Langevin Block is: in what direction might we look for new ideas? The Conservative Party has been remarkably successful at spreading a "big tent," and that's a good thing but it means that the party is diverse - there is no _core_. This is a disease that infected the Liberals from, say, 1935 to 2005. Oddly enough the Liberals now have better _focus_ than the Conservatives ... but that will change when (not if) they regain power.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 May 2014)

I wonder if this particular _backlash_ against M. Trudeau's "pro chice" edict is going to grow?

Dr Somerville makes a very good case for 'freedom of choice' for Liberals.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I wonder if this particular _backlash_ against M. Trudeau's "pro chice" edict is going to grow?
> 
> Dr Somerville makes a very good case for 'freedom of choice' for Liberals.



The secondary issue is that this stance leads to further "you may not join us if you don't think this way" edicts. As Ms Summerville accurately points out, MPs represent their constituents, not themselves or the party. An honourable member when forced to vote in a manner that differs from their personal beliefs would have to either abstain, or vote with their constituents. 

And people say that Mr Harper is the autocrat...


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 May 2014)

According to an article in the _Globe and Mail_ the Conservatives are learning how to 'govern without Quebec,' not against Quebec, just without always giving Quebec special considerations.

This time the issue is the giant Champlain Bridge which has been federal infrastructure since the St Lawrence Seaway was constructed back _circa_ 1960.





Champlain Bridge

The bridge has _decayed_ prematurely, possibly, (I would say probably) because of the corruption in the Quebec construction industry over the past decades. The _Feds_ want to transfer the three bridges it owns to the government of Quebec; Quebec wants them fixed, first, and is reluctant, in any event to _download_ an expense ... why would they want them? For the moment, however, the _Feds_ are willing to repair the bridge but they insist it become a toll bridge. Everyone in and around Montreal opposes this plan. But a quick look at the greater Montreal election results from 2011 shows why the Conservatives aren't holding out all that much hope for electoral success in any event:





Greater Montreal was, in 2011, heavily NDP. We can count on some of those seats shifting back to
the Liberals but, historically, the Conservatives have never been very strong in Montreal

This is both *a)* good policy, and *b)* good politics outside of Quebec.

It's refreshing to see Conservatives being _conservative_ for a change.


----------



## DBA (19 May 2014)

Quebec has never responded well to any criticism true or not even while it dishes out all kinds to others. 

I came to my current conclusion that Quebec politics is a farce or tragedy and should be ignored as much as possible from the two different reactions to two comediennes. The one from Quebec slagging Canada got support by putting forth principles they promptly tossed out when Conon O'Brien poked fun at Quebec and they got all offended. They argue principles to get what they want and not to actually advance those principles. A common failing these days. 

I would say to Quebec is: We promise never to treat you as poorly as you treat non-Quebecois. You also won't get any special treatment from now on.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 May 2014)

Picked this up on _Twitter_:






Now, the data used to _promote_ the Canadian middle class to a spot ahead of the USA is highly selective but it is a _snapshot_ in time of one economic aspect of our societies.

But it does, rather, knock some of the stuffing out of M. Trudeau's model.

The 'middle class problem' has several aspects:

     1. The very nature of _work_ has changed -

         a. There are fewer and fewer (relatively) low skill/(relatively) high paid (unionized) and (relatively) secure assembly line or 'metal bending' jobs,

         b. The growing number of _service_ jobs are better suited to females with high school+ educations than to male school leavers - this creates a bit
             of 'social upheaval,'

         c. The relative value of service jobs to the profit (or loss)of the employer is less than is (was) the case for assembly line/factory jobs. It was possible for an
             auto assembly line worker to both *I* have a _career_ from 16 to 65 with a solid pension at the end, and *II* support a family,
             comfortably, (house, two cars, even a boat and or cottage) on that salary. A bank teller or data entry clerk or insurance sales person is unlikely to have either
             the secure _career_ or the adequate salary;

     2. The _middle class_ is too loose to measure in any meaningful way. Consider any variation of the bell curve:

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          Most Canadians, certainly 70& of them, more likely somewhere over 80% of them, would define themselves as "middle class" and I think we can, using a mix of a
          standard "shopping basket" of goods and service plus salaries plus pensions, define a lower middle class (maybe 15% of the population), a middle class (lets say
          50% of the population) and an upper middle class (say another 15%). The boundary between the lower middle class and the "working poor" is fuzzy; ditto that between
          the upper middle class and the rich ~ ask yourself, is your family physician 'rich?' The median income for a family physician in Canada is about $120,000 per year
          that's about what a lieutenant colonel makes; is that "rich?" I think that e.g. family physicians and most senior military officers are in the upper reaches of the middle class
          or, colonels and general, in the upper middle class. Some physicians - specialists who earn more than, say, $500,000 per year are (or should be if they manage their affairs
          properly) "rich;" and

     3. As either Mark Twain or British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics," and in political campaigns all three will be trotted out.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 May 2014)

And for a little bit of a giggle (and it's not JUST applicable to cable news) ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 May 2014)

I think M. Trudeau and his advisors are torn, for the moment anyway, between two possible campaigns:

     1. Campaign 1 says that M. Trudeau and his Liberals have a good shot at replacing Prime Minister Harper and his Conservatives as PM and governing party; or

     2. Campaign 2 which says that displacing Prime Minister Harper is very, very hard but replacing Mr Mulcair and the NDP as opposition leader and opposition party is achievable.

There is one thing M. Trudeau must do ~ move past Mr Mulcair and the NDP. If he cannot do that he fails as leader and disappears as did Dion and Ignatieff before him.

In a better world (for Liberals) he wants to move past Mulcair and reduce Harper's Conservatives to a minority government; better still will be a Liberal minority government and, of course, the _brass ring_ is a Liberal majority. It seems to me that he has a very good shot at displacing the NDP, a good chance at reducing the Conservatives to a minority government, a decent chance at forming a Liberal minority government and, right now, a year to 18 months away from the election, a chance at forming a Liberal majority government.

But, which campaign to choose? He must defeat Mulcair, which suggests campaigning on the left, dividing the left, in other words, which helps Prime Minister Harper. But if he and his team estimate that they can defeat Prime Minsiter Harper and take the government then I expect them to run a centrist campaign ~ enough appeal to take seats, especially in Quebec, away from the NDP which no longer has _'le bon Jack'_ (who, I think, personally delivered dozens of seats in both Quebec and Ontario) but a campaign that directly tackles Prime  Minister Harper on the 'pocketbook' issues that mater most in the Ontario and BC suburbs.

The "middle class" has a role in each campaign:

     1. The _left_ campaign will have a lot of "make the rich pay" rhetoric - Trudeau will look like Obama in 2012; but

     2. The _centre_ campaign will be about holding the line on spending and creating jobs - less and less Crystia Freeland and more and more Scott Brison.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I wonder if this particular _backlash_ against M. Trudeau's "pro chice" edict is going to grow?
> 
> Dr Somerville makes a very good case for 'freedom of choice' for Liberals.




It seems, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, that the issue will not go away:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/trudeaus-abortion-stance-could-be-the-difference-between-victory-or-defeat-in-an-election/article18771398/#dashboard/follows/


> Trudeau’s abortion stance could be the difference between victory or defeat
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I still wonder if this was a _considered_ position or a 'shot in the dark,' just trotted out because M. Trudeau "felt like it." Neither inspires confidence.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 May 2014)

The _pro-choice_ tactic is not serving Justin Trudeau or the Liberal Party well according to _CBC News_.

I don't think the merits of his position matter ... the media sharks can smell blood in the water and they are circling, until, anyway, something else happens to someone who is more newsworthy.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...someone who is more newsworthy.



Who could possible more newsworthy than the anointed one?

Seriously though. This whole rule by edict thing has great backfire potential. I think voter understand that there is a certain spectrum of views within each party. They're content to vote for the party that aligns most with their political agenda. I'm not sure that voters will take well to a party that lays down too many restrictions on potential MPs. 

It's been said before: we vote for our MPs to represent us. Not themselves, or their party, or their leader. I don't care how my MP feels about a given issue, or how the party feels, it's their job to care how I feel about it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 May 2014)

Two columnists in the _Hill Times_ are speculating that "Next election campaign could be four months long, will cause spending ‘orgy’". The article is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Hill Times_:

http://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2014/05/26/next-election-campaign-could-be-four-months-long-will-cause-spending-orgy/38552


> Next election campaign could be four months long, will cause spending ‘orgy’
> 
> By ABBAS RANA, CHRIS PLECASH
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 May 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _pro-choice_ tactic is not serving Justin Trudeau or the Liberal Party well according to _CBC News_.
> 
> I don't think the merits of his position matter ... the media sharks can smell blood in the water and they are circling, until, anyway, something else happens to someone who is more newsworthy.




And the issue will not go away ... now The Toronto Star, an _officially_ liberal newspaper,* suggests that "“It appears Justin Trudeau’s restrictions on Liberal candidates with pro-life views has peeled off a small but important tranche of support for not only him, but, incrementally, his party. I’m not sure that there is a corresponding upside, in that those who support pro-choice views are already in his court,” said Forum Research President, Lorne Bozinoff." the article says that Liberal support has slipped by 3% (more than the margin of error) from 39% to 36% and that supports for the NDP grew my a similar amount, from 20% to 23%. Conservative support remained steady at 30%. The article also says that M Trudeau's "approval as leader" dropped by a corresponding amount as his party — three per cent — from 46% to 43%. (All numbers are based on _Forum Research's_ monthly polls.)

____
* See the Atkinson principles


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jun 2014)

While this article is about another Tea Party Movement victory in the United States, I think it has a place here. Many of the factors operating in the US which drive the Tea Party Movement (arrogant and disconnected politicians, an overweening bureaucratic/regulatory state which is used to cement advantages to the politically connected, open corruption by politicians and insiders) are quite obviously at work here as well. I suspect that while the form and nature of the Canadian movement will be different from the Tea Party Movement, the responses buy the political establishment and the various elites who benefit from the status quo will be remarkably similar.

Politicians who recognize this will be able to cash in (think Rob Ford), and while the current "big three" parties will be hard to dislodge, I think what we will see are a series of surprises (perhaps in a few ridings in the Ontario election, but more so in the fall municipal elections and then the 2015 Federal election) which will be a warning for the political establishment. The responses will range from "doubling down" on current policies to perhaps some new thinking or at least looking outside the box for new solutions. The ultimate end may be the actual disappearance of some parties (think of the Federal PC's, or even earlier the "Progressives" or even the American Whig Party prior to the Civil War. Plenty of other parties have vanished around the world when they no longer could supply answers or solutions to current issues and problems).

http://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2014/06/11/eric-cantor-and-the-conventional-wisdom/?print=1



> *Eric Cantor and the Conventional Wisdom*
> Posted By Roger Kimball On June 11, 2014 @ 4:45 am In Uncategorized | 11 Comments
> 
> There are two words that recur like a drumbeat in the news stories about David Brat’s defeat of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the Virginia primary last night.  One is “historic.” The second is some variant of “stunning” (“staggering,” “shocking,” etc.).  John Fund does us the courtesy of deploying both: “Eric Cantor’s loss is historic,” he writes at National Review [1]. “No sitting House majority leader has lost an election since the office was created in 1899. While Cantor’s loss was a stunning surprise, the warning signals were around for a while.” He then supplies a list of explanations that seemed obvious only after David Brat won. Yesterday afternoon, the wise men of the commentariat would have dismissed them with a self-assured thoroughness and consistency that is truly marvelous to behold.
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Jun 2014)

"Historic" and "stunning" are terms used by pundits who pronounced the Tea Party dead. 

There's still a pretty robust pulse there!


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jun 2014)

I think we need to be careful in reading _Tea Party_ tea leaves here in Canada.

First: there is no one, single, coherent _Tea Party_: it is a a diverse, disjointed _movement_. It appears, to me, that Mr Cantor failed on two fronts: he was _disconnected_ from his constituents, a peril of those in political leadership positions, and he was 'wrong' on immigration, at least as far as that issue motivated the (relatively) few people who bothered with the GOP primary.

Second; there is real, deep, visceral hatred of Washington, of _official Washington_, in large swathes of America. People are sick and tired of partisan gridlock and they are voting *against* everyone and everything that represents Washington. Mr. Brat, it seems, rode that pony to victory and Mr Cantor ... well he wasn't riding, he was carrying that horse on his back, as baggage!

Third: America remains deeply split. Yes, the _Tea Party_ is tearing the GOP apart, but the other half of America, the half that will vote for Hillary Clinton or for whoever the Democrats put up for president are not motivated by anything that bothers the _Tea Party_, except their distaste for Republicans, in general. The American split is deep and fairly even: left vs, right, red vs blue, Democrats vs GOP ... whatever the GOP may end up being.

We do not have anything like the _Tea Party_, coherent or not, in Canada. The CPC still has a pretty firm grip on the closest we have to a _radical right_ and he just strengthened it with a handful of actions which will not pass judicial muster but will suffice to keep the "red neck" part of the base on board.

Canadians may 'value' politicians about the same as they do used car salesmen but there is nothing like the hatred or even contempt for Ottawa that we find for Washington.

Canadians are, like Americans, split: but it is a three ways split: left, *ce[size=18pt]ntre**, right, and the real battle is for the very large, albeit mushy middle.

*


----------



## Nemo888 (11 Jun 2014)

David Brat sounds like a hybrid of Tea Party and Occupy. “I am running against Cantor because he does not represent the citizens of the 7th District, but rather large corporations seeking insider deals, crony bailouts and a constant supply of low-wage workers."

I wonder if he is electable? Cantor outspent Brat 20 to 1 and his message resonated so well it didn't matter.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jun 2014)

Interestingly, the seat was recently gerrymandered to make it a safer republican seat.  In doing so, however, it became more rural and conservative, which contributed to Cantor's defeat in the primary where only about 12% voted.

(Edit for flow & structure)


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jun 2014)

While we may not have a Tea Party movement per se, I still think some of the signs are there. The "Ford Nation" and the election of Rob Ford as mayor of Toronto is certainly a rejection of Toronto's political establishment. If Rob Ford were a different man, that could have been a huge factor in the Ontario elections coming up and perhaps the Federal election next year. Since Rob Ford is who he is, he has become toxic to most political parities and discourse, so the "Ford Nation" is an untapped force.

While the sort of "populist" voters who were a huge factor in the rise of the Reform Party in the 1990's might not arouse much admiration here, they too are still a force in the political landscape. IF the CPC is unable to manage them, then they may become something of a wild card in the electoral landscape.

And of course, more and more people are fed up with establishment politics anyway (think of low voter turnouts), and might be tempted by any semi viable alternative. As an example, Sun columnist and UWO professor Salim Mansur is running for the Freedom Party in my riding. He is the sort of "quality" candidate that the big three parties would have courted before hand. While I wish him well (he is also an acquaintance of mine), I think he is more of a warning of things to come (quality candidates no longer coming out to run for the establishment parties). Perhaps the longer term answer will be when outside the box parties can offer the combination of a positive message that resonates with voters and quality candidates to demonstrate they can carry out their programs.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jun 2014)

Electing the spoiled millionaire son of a politician as mayor is a rejection of the political establishment?  That's like saying a Kennedy running in Massachusetts gets no name recognition.


More interesting is this piece from the CBC - seems an old-time bagman in his 80s has decided to come clean.  Lots of interesting tricks - like supporting a failed party to get its candidates to draw votes from your rivals.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/political-fixer-jean-yves-lortie-reveals-his-mulroney-era-dealings-1.2649981


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jun 2014)

Please, lets not drift off into American politics ...

Perhaps we can close off discussions about the _Tea Party_, and about the US in general, in this thread, by looking at a lengthy "must read" report from _Pew Research_.

For those for whom it is too long, I offer one graphic:






Twenty years ago the _median_ views of Democrats and Republicans were fairly close together; then years ago those same _median_ views were still close. Now they are not. The culture wars have torn American apart.

We do not have anything like the same divisions in Canada. The current US experience is not relevant to Canadian politics. All three main parties in Canada are trying to woo the _mushy middle_. Even if the Conservatives elect a _conservative_ like Kenney or Moore they will not try to move the party off centre. The US example does not apply here, no matter how much a few people might wish it did ... _if wishes were horses then poor men would ride_.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jun 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Electing the spoiled millionaire son of a politician as mayor is a rejection of the political establishment?



Since the political establishment in Toronto is most accurately represented by silk stocking socialists (who right now are celebrating the defeat of Tim Hudek and salivating at the prospect of anointing Olivia Chow as queen of Toronto), then I have to say that yes, the election of Rob Ford was a stinging slap at the establishment. Consider as well  the bona fides of George Smitherman, the man who was widely expected to become the mayor of Toronto intend of Rob Ford. What sort of constituency did _he_ represent?

Ford may have establishment "roots" but he certainly ran and won as a populist, and against the "establishment".


----------



## Nemo888 (13 Jun 2014)

Rob Ford now lives in a Liberal riding. Dump Harper and get a proper candidate or the PC will be dumped in the next election.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jun 2014)

Define a "proper candidate".

The Ontario election is a danger to the people of Ontario's prosperity and a longer term danger to Canada if/when Ontario defaults, but it may actually represent an opportunity for the CPC. 

Other people have noted in other threads that the governing party in Ottawa and Queens Park have almost always been in "opposition" to each other. While I take little comfort in that, if this trend continues, then I doubt Prime Minister Harper has much to worry about, except perhaps the timing of his retirement announcement and grooming the next CPC leader for the 2019 elections.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jun 2014)

>Dump Harper and get a proper candidate or the PC will be dumped in the next election. 

What would a "proper candidate" be?  Have you objective criteria, or did you just mean "someone whose position is indistinguishable from the Liberals"?


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Jun 2014)

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/12/ontario-election-2014-results-a-live-riding-by-riding-breakdown-of-the-vote/

Correct me if I'm wrong but it looks as if the Liberals held Liberal Ontario (ie Toronto and any other place with a university) while the Conservatives held Conservative Ontario (agricultural Ontario - 519 and 705).  

Another way to look at it is those that provide funds to provincial coffers and those that suck funds from them (and indirectly from my Albertan pockets).

Wynne intends to finance her budget by "fighting" for more money from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland.  

I think Harper still has a firm base in Ontario for 2015.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jun 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/12/ontario-election-2014-results-a-live-riding-by-riding-breakdown-of-the-vote/
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong but it looks as if the Liberals held Liberal Ontario (ie Toronto and any other place with a university) while the Conservatives held Conservative Ontario (agricultural Ontario - 519 and 705).
> 
> ...




In this report, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, Campbell Clark sees Ontario as being more competitive:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/parties-take-note-the-path-to-parliament-goes-through-ontario/article19175948/#dashboard/follows/


> Parties, take note: The path to Parliament goes through Ontario
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




But I think there is another complicating issue for the Liberals and NDP: Quebec. It seems to me that the first battleground for the Liberals and the NDP is in Quebec and they, but not the Conservatives, are engaged in a three way race (a potentially renewed BQ is also in play) there. I think that the issues that matter in Quebec and the issues which the Liberals and NDP will have to embrace are antithetical to suburban Ontario. I will give the Liberals and NDP urban Totonro, Ottawa, Hamilton and Windsor, and I think we need to concede most (not all) of rural Ontario to the CPC (the NDP has some pockets of support, especially in the North-West) so it is the suburbs, some large like Mississauga and Brampton, some small like Port Colborne and Woodstock, where the seats are still up for grabs. It seems to me that the advantage is with the CPC: it can craft a platform aimed, squarely at suburban Ontario and they can be confident it will also appeal in most of the West (but likely not in urban Vancouver).

If they, the CPC, can hang on to many/most of the 18 seats they hold East of the Ottawa River then that can compete in enough of the 228 seats West of the Ottawa River to win about 160 (70%of the available seats (they won 73% of the seats West of the Ottawa Riven in 2011)) and give them, with say, 170 to 175 seats, a majority in 2015.


----------



## Ostrozac (16 Jun 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/06/12/ontario-election-2014-results-a-live-riding-by-riding-breakdown-of-the-vote/
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong but it looks as if the Liberals held Liberal Ontario (ie Toronto and any other place with a university) while the Conservatives held Conservative Ontario (agricultural Ontario - 519 and 705).
> 
> Another way to look at it is those that provide funds to provincial coffers and those that suck funds from them (and indirectly from my Albertan pockets).



Given the scale of agricultural subsidies in Ontario, I'm not even sure that rural areas of the province actually do provide funds to provincial coffers. Quite frankly, the economy of Ontario is a mess; rural and urban alike.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jun 2014)

There's an interesting piece in the _Ottawa Citizen_ in which some CPC MPs reflect upon the defeat of their Ontario PC cousins. One of they key points is made by Erin O’Toole, the MP for Durham, who says that "Ontario’s election financing laws also played a significant role ... millions of dollars of union money was thrown into attack ads against Hudak and the PCs that benefitted the provincial Liberals." While it is unlikely that Premier Wynne will follow the federal lead and ban such donations, they will not be a factor in the 2015 federal election.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jun 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In this report, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, Campbell Clark sees Ontario as being more competitive:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/parties-take-note-the-path-to-parliament-goes-through-ontario/article19175948/#dashboard/follows/
> 
> ...




In an article in the _Globe and Mail_ Lysiane Gagnon suggests that I am wrong to think that a "potentially renewed BQ" will be a factor in 2015. In fact, she says, the new BQ leader Mario Beaulieu means that the _Bloc_ "will be marginalized, even scorned, by many mainstream sovereigntists" and "the road is wide open for [Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau] ... the Bloc will only get, at best, the support of the dwindling group of diehard sovereigntists."


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jun 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In an article in the _Globe and Mail_ Lysiane Gagnon suggests that I am wrong to think that a "potentially renewed BQ" will be a factor in 2015. In fact, she says, the new BQ leader Mario Beaulieu means that the _Bloc_ "will be marginalized, even scorned, by many mainstream sovereigntists" and "the road is wide open for [Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau] ... the Bloc will only get, at best, the support of the dwindling group of diehard sovereigntists."



If the BQ runs a careful spoiler campaign, they should be able to siphon enough votes from the Liberals to keep many of the NDP seats in Quebec. Culturally Quebec is a Stateist polity (as Edward has mentioned quite often) and a Social Democratic NDP is the next best thing to a National Socialist BQ so far as most policy initiatives outside of sovereignty go. Given Tom Mulcair has suggested that 50% +1 is enough to declare sovereignty and independence, it would not be too much of a stretch to think the BQ and NDP _could_ work together in a marriage of convenience.


----------



## Remius (19 Jun 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If the BQ runs a careful spoiler campaign, they should be able to siphon enough votes from the Liberals to keep many of the NDP seats in Quebec. Culturally Quebec is a Stateist polity (as Edward has mentioned quite often) and a Social Democratic NDP is the next best thing to a National Socialist BQ so far as most policy initiatives outside of sovereignty go. Given Tom Mulcair has suggested that 50% +1 is enough to declare sovereignty and independence, it would not be too much of a stretch to think the BQ and NDP _could_ work together in a marriage of convenience.



I see it as a vote split.  The NDP stands to lose out more than the Liberals will.  BQ and NDP splitting the vote with the the Liberals coming up the middle.  And JTs message of change and hope will resonate in La Belle Province, as empty as that might be.  But this is assuming the BQ gets its act together and with this new leader we see that it is as split and messed up as ever.   If you want to keep Liberals from getting seats in Quebec you don't want a resurgeant BQ.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jun 2014)

It is very, very late ... mid 2014, but I wonder: will someone like François Legault or Françoise David be willing to jump from provincial to federal politics and lead some variant of either _Coalition Avenir Québec_ or _Québec solidaire_ in the 2015 federal election as an alternative to the BQ?


----------



## jpjohnsn (19 Jun 2014)

Have the most recent provincial elections across our country taught us nothing?  Prognosticating on what voters will do in 2015 based on polling, theories on vote splitting, or anything else, has become about as effective as reading entrails or casting chicken bones.


----------



## GAP (19 Jun 2014)

Hey!! Don't disparage the chickens, the gave their lives for your prognostication abilities!! 




 ;D


----------



## Remius (19 Jun 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is very, very late ... mid 2014, but I wonder: will someone like François Legault or Françoise David be willing to jump from provincial to federal politics and lead some variant of either _Coalition Avenir Québec_ or _Québec solidaire_ in the 2015 federal election as an alternative to the BQ?



Agreed.  Very late.  No, I see them trying to pick up the remnants of the PQ and solidifying their positions.  Legault will court the right wing and liberal sovereignists, Davis will try and pick up the left wing side of the PQ, Unions and what not.  I doubt both will jump to the federal side.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jun 2014)

The Conservatives are, according to Andrew Coyne in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, clearing one issue off the decks for the 2015 election. In so doing, he suggests, they are making bad policy in the interests of good politics:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Coyne+Reforms+temporary+foreign+workers+program+good+policy/9960515/story.html


> Reforms to temporary foreign workers program not good policy
> 
> ANDREW COYNE, POSTMEDIA NEWS
> 
> ...




Coyne is right: this is bad horrible public policy; it stinks to high heaven; it is nearly criminally irresponsible. *But*: it appeals to an important part of the Conservative electorate: unionized workers in the suburbs around Toronto/Hamilton and Vancouver and they count for more seats than Alberta and Saskatchewan combined. Who else are people going to vote for in Alberta? Thomas Mulcair? Justin Trudeau? Most prairies seats are safely Conservative, even after this bit of policy vandalism.

Why is this bad policy? Because it stifles _productivity_ by shackling management and making innovation illegal.

It is a demonstrable, unarguable fact that Canadian workers are lazy ... they are human, after all and they want to work less and be paid more. That, less _input_ (work)/more _output_ (gain, food on the table), is what _productivity_ is, really, all about: getting more for less. That's it at the _macro_ level, but, at the _micro_ level, at, say, a local, suburban McDonalds, the situation is that the _available_ labour pool _*will not*_ (not cannot) work the hours/shifts that the employer needs to operate in a cost effective manner for the salary that the work is worth. The workers want some combination of _better_ quality work (more shifts, fewer night shifts, etc) or more money ... who can blame them? I always wanted a bigger staff, a nicer office and a pay raise; it's normal; it's human nature. But an efficient and effective market needs balance and allowing, indeed, in my opinion, encouraging some low skill/low wage foreign workers provided an important safety valve: employers could pay the wages that a job is worth, not the level to which _demand_ drives those wages.

But: this issue resonated with a constituency that the CPC needs, and, like Liberals and the NDP, the Conservatives will institute bad public policies in the service of good politics.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Jun 2014)

I _think_, bad policy or not, that it might work if they dovetail this with the new rules for Unemployment benefits.

i.e. - If you're on UI, you will take any job, that's available, within a 30 mile radius or you lose your UI benefits.

It'd be tough on people like laid off auto workers, who expect they only have to take another job with full benefits and $30\ hr, instead of a service industry job for less, but them's the brakes.

It is not the responsibility of the taxpayer, to support people in their pipe dreams. The unemployed need to face the hard reality that those, unskilled, high paying jobs are a thing of the past and sitting around waiting is not going to change things.

We, all the taxpayers, also have to break the culture of generational welfare where children follow in their parents footsteps and their children do the same ad infinitum. We should adopt a culture of workfare. No work? No cheque. There is plenty of parks and highways to clean and a myriad of other mundane jobs for them to do.

 :2c:


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jun 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I _think_, bad policy or not, that it might work if they dovetail this with the new rules for Unemployment benefits.
> 
> i.e. - If you're on UI, you will take any job, that's available, within a 30 mile radius or you lose your UI benefits.
> 
> ...




 :goodpost: ... and those thoughts are good value, recceguy; I hope some people consider them.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jun 2014)

You can probably hire TFWs to do almost any job that doesn't have a high credential threshold (eg. medicine, law).  The assumption that each Canadian citizen displaced from employment by a foreign worker (paying - hopefully - Canadian income taxes on a lower wage or salary) will necessarily find re-employment is unsupportable, particularly in the face of recent employment trends in low- and medium-skilled jobs.

I recognize the economic (productivity) argument.  I also recognize that unemployed Canadian citizens have entitlements and voting rights.  Obviously we will never reach the absurd end state in which an army of foreign workers pays taxes to support a fully idle Canadian citizenry.  But how far along that path can we go before the wheels start to fall off?

There is more at stake than simple macroeconomic academic theory.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jun 2014)

Unemployed Canadians pay little or no taxes.
Foreign workers pay no taxes.

No taxes means no income for government to spend on projects and wages.

Over simplified, but.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jun 2014)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Unemployed Canadians pay little or no taxes. ✔ True ... but they do pay e.g. HST/GST on consumption
> Foreign workers pay no taxes. ✘ Errant nonsense. Every legal foreign worker pays the full panoply of taxes, deducted at source by the employer. What they don't do is consume social services, like EI, even though they pay for it, unless or until they become landed immigrants.
> 
> No taxes means no income for government to spend on projects and wages.
> ...


----------



## stealthylizard (21 Jun 2014)

Unemployed people on EI should take any *FULL TIME* job available to them, completely agree. Then make it so that the minimum wage is more than what a person gets collecting EI.  This is accomplished either by raising minimum wage to compete with the maximum EI benefit - back when I collected it was about $1500/month, net, in 2007 for BC. Or, reducing EI, so that the current minimum wage is more than what one would collect while unemployed.

EI is subject to income tax, as it is considered as income, and must be claimed on the tax return as income.

There is a need for the TFW program for specialized skills, even in the service industry, such as sushi chefs.  But it should be demonstrated that there is a specific need for using the TFW program.  For trades jobs, sure bring them in, with the understanding that the foreign worker has to take on a Canadian apprentice for the duration of apprenticeship program (4 years).

edited for spelling error


----------



## ballz (21 Jun 2014)

Just privatize income insurance already and let private companies work out the all the flaws in our system on their own dime.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (21 Jun 2014)

What bothers me about the temporary foreign workers program is that there are employers who staffed their restaurants just fine until they hired some foreign workers and haven't hired a Canadian since despite hundreds of applications from Canadians.  Foreign workers are less likely to quit, be hung over, talk back etc.  A lot of these business owners should be in jail for fraud because they have clearly been lying to the government.  In oil country it is hard for kids to get the crucial first jobs because foreigners are doing them.  In a lot of cases it's hire the Filippino instead of the native Indian.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jun 2014)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> What bothers me about the temporary foreign workers program is that there are employers who staffed their restaurants just fine until they hired some foreign workers and haven't hired a Canadian since despite hundreds of applications from Canadians.  Foreign workers are less likely to quit, be hung over, talk back etc.  A lot of these business owners should be in jail for fraud because they have clearly been lying to the government.  In oil country it is hard for kids to get the crucial first jobs because foreigners are doing them.  In a lot of cases it's hire the Filippino instead of the native Indian.



Do you think there might be a connection there? Canadians are often their own worst enemies (on all fronts).


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jul 2014)

In this video _Globe and Mail_ journalists discuss the _Trudeau effect_ and how the CPC _might_ counter it.

In my _opinion_ the CPC needs to shift its focus: don't attack M. Trudeau, _per se_, rather:

     1. Emphasize that the CPC has a sound economic plan ... ask the Liberals for their plan;

     2. Emphasize Stephen Harper the _economic strategist_ ... don't try and make him nice, make him _competent_, don't attack M. Trudeau, he's too nice, ask him for policies; and

     3. Emphasize CPC results in Canada vs Liberal results in Ontario.

The NDP has a different problem, they _might_ have to adopt a distinct anti-Trudeau strategy, especially in Quebec, emphasizing Trudeau's support for e.g. oil sands development and so on. As I have said before, M. Trudeau has a problem: the route to 24 Sussex Drive is through Quebec ... he must displace the NDP in Quebec and to do that he needs to run a campaign that will be less than popular in Ontario, where he must (another *must*) displace the CPC. It's not as easy as it looks.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Jul 2014)

I would make a slight adjustment of your observations, Edward.

The route to 24 Sussex runs through Quebec for the Liberals and NDP. Not neccessarily for the Conservatives.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jul 2014)

I _think_ that just as Premier Wynne campaigned against Prime Minister Harper in the recent Ontario election, Prime Minister Harper is going to campaign against her in the lead up to 2015, as explained in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/07/03/kelly-mcparland-joe-oliver-channels-jim-flaherty-in-telling-ontario-to-quit-whining-and-solve-its-own-budget-problems/


> Joe Oliver channels Jim Flaherty in telling Ontario to quit whining and solve its own budget problems
> 
> Kelly McParland
> 
> ...



Next year, at budget time, Ontario is going to have to signal its firm intention to reduce spending, social spending, in order to balance the budget by 2017/18. That will mean breaking its 'promises' to most of its constituencies and I expect the Conservative Party of Ontario to tie Premier Wynne very, Very, VERY closely to Justin Trudeau and paint him as equally untrustworthy ...








               [size=13pt]I suspect M. Trudeau may live to regret these pictures. I have no doubt they helped Premier Wynne this year...
                                                          I'm less sure they will help him in 2015.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Jul 2014)

A province which mismanages its productivity and economy reduces not only on its own revenues, but also Canadian federal revenues.  It is fragrantly ironic that a provincial government might ask for a greater share of a pie it made smaller.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jul 2014)

When even Jeffrey Simpson, the establishment _voice_ of the tax/spend _Laurentian Consensus_ gets it, as he does in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, then you and I must know that the "facts on the ground,' on the balance sheets cannot be ignored:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/wynnes-ontario-can-no-longer-afford-to-ignore-fiscal-reality/article19451455/#dashboard/follows/


> Wynne’s Ontario can no longer afford to ignore fiscal reality
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




This is an _Canada Election 2015_ rather than _Ontario Election 2014_ topic because Premier Wynne and the Liberal Party (Canada and Ontario) chose to make Canada, specifically the Conservative Government of Canada a _provincial_ issue ... it will come back to haunt them because, it appears, Prime Minister Harper and Finance Minister Oliver will be content to watch Kathleen Wynne and, by extension, Justin Trudeau twist in the wind as they, in Simpson's words, finally face the reality from which they (and the voters) fled during the Ontario campaign.

Premier Wynne cannot keep most of her promises; she must do a sharp _volte face_ (Simpson's words again) and, in fact, adopt very Conservative solutions to Liberal/_Laurentian Consensus_ problems: overspending on social programmes.

(Reminder: there are two kinds of spending:

     1. Long term _infrastructure_ type spending (roads, bridges, ports, canals, airports, etc) which provides a 'common good' that enhances _productivity_ and economic growth; and

     2. Immediate _gratification_ type spending, programmes that, fairly directly, benefit people on an individual level, social spending.

Sadly, for politicians, the first type, the productive type is _discretionary_, it is (fairly) easy to switch on and off; the second type, once initiated becomes damned near mandatory - voters hate politicians who cut 'transfers to individuals.' The secret to Chrétien-Martin programme was that they cut transfers to provinces and made those provinces, including Ontario, make the hard choices: cut transfers to individuals, which is what Ralph Klein did, or borrow to maintain social spending which was the Ontario reaction, even under Mike Harris. But this is a provincial problem and Premier Wynne cannot 'download' enough to municipalities.)

Just as we, Canadians, begin to think about who should govern us from 2015 to 2019, in about the late summer of 2015, we will see images of Stephen Harper crowing about a growing economy, a balanced budget and some targeted tax cuts, and Kathleen Wynee (and, again by extension, Justin Trudeau) breaking her promises, cutting payrolls, raising taxes and slashing transfers to individuals.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jul 2014)

_Schadenfreude_, Ontario will get the PC platform and a majority government to enact it anyway....

Back on the election 2015 topic, one issue which is lurking in the background is the $500 billion + in unfunded liabilities that the Federal government carries in addition to the $500+ billion in debt. This is another one of those stealth issues which will rise up and consume some future government as Federal workers retire in greater and greater numbers (along with the rest of the "boomers") and want to start collecting on the promised pensions and benefits.

No one cares because (like sewers and most other infrastructure) it isn't visible or "sexy", but the sooner steps are taken to address the issue, the easier it will be to fix.


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Jul 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> _Schadenfreude_, No one cares because (like sewers and most other infrastructure) it isn't visible or "sexy", but the sooner steps are taken to address the issue, the easier it will be to fix.



Agreed, but it isn't sexy, which is the usual answer. As well, the public goes nuts because of construction during the snow and ice free months. Just listen to talk radio for a bit or check community newspapers. In our little burg one of the major streets was dug up and completely rebuilt, including water and sewer lines, last summer. At the same time the railway overpass south of the town was being replaced by CPR. The local weekly rag went nuts with long, nasty editorials and opinion pieces about poor planning and the mayor and council being in Walmart's pockets because they obviously were trying to put all the downtown merchants out of business. To the council's credit, they are continuing with a program of upgrades and repairs this year, but in a less visible area this time.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jul 2014)

The 'unfunded liabilities' issues is not as clear as either the political _right_, who scream in horror about it, or _left_, who say it's a non-issue, would have us believe.

First: the number is far closer to, probably above $800 Billion in 2014 than it is to $500 Billion ... it's too high, no question.

Second: the real question is "too high by how much?" The answer, as far as I can see is:  :dunno:

What I do know is that it is incorrect to compare, directly, unfunded liabilities in _public_ pension plans to the unfunded liabilities in _private_ plans. There are too many differences between them to make simple, direct comparisons and extrapolations very useful. There are some similarities, and the rules of accounting apply universally, but there are also some quite fundamental differences.

_Public_ pensions are, _*traditionally*_, generous because, back in the day, until _circa_ 1970, public sector wages were low. Public sector workers traded wages for excellent job security and very good pensions. That's no longer the case: public employees still have excellent job security, damned near _iron rice bowl_ level job security, and very good pensions (a liability on the government) and, now, very good salaries, too. The "scandal" of unfunded public pension liabilities is, in fact, a "scandal" of poor public management. Governments entered into a version of free labour market economics with both hands, intentionally, tied behind their backs ~ it's pretty much the same across the OECD, by the way. Governments wanted to be, and to be seen to be, exemplary employers so they 'caved' in to labour's wage demands and never asked for concessions in either job security or pensions. That's probably _politically_ unsustainable. It isn't mainstream economist who worry about unfunded public sector pension liabilities, it's right wing ideologues who want a smaller, weaker, public sector in general.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jul 2014)

More on the issue of 'good debt' and 'bad debt' in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/rob-insight/why-we-should-cheer-canadas-debt-growth-double-act/article19472162/#dashboard/follows/


> Why we should cheer Canada’s new debt surge
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




So: Canadians, people just like you and me, are slowing the borrowing they do for _instant gratification_ (but they are borrowing only somewhat less for mortgages, which is more _productive_ borrowing) and that's a good thing; but business is, finally, taking advantage of low interest rates to borrow to invest in _productive_ things, things that create jobs, which is also a good thing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jul 2014)

According to an article in the _Globe and Mail_, Prime Minister Harper is moving his campaign in what I think is the right direct: towards policy and away from personal attacks on M. Trudeau.

Attacking M. Trudeau for his youth, inexperience, verbal gaffes and so on is a bad tactic ~ M. Trudeau is both charismatic and charming (Mr Harper is neither) people naturally and instinctively like him, all attack ads do is annoy the voters.

But: M. Trudeau is weak on policy and it is both _legitimate_ and smart to remind Canadians of that. Now, the Liberals (and their media apologists*) will say, "we have policies, it's just too early to release them," and that's probably true on both counts but *now* is the time (for the CPC) to begin forcing the issue. 

The next step for the CPC, in my opinion is to attack M. Trudeau's lack of policies by asking specific questions (about e.g. tax policy, foreign policy, pipelines to the two coasts, Quebec and infrastructure spending) during speeches, etc ... the media is forced to cover the PM and even the notably anti-Conservative CBC will be forced to repeat specific questions. (It is best to stay away from social policy, including law and order questions because M. Trudeau actually can, assuming he's well briefed, score points on the 'return' on those questions, but he and the LPC are weak, I believe, on the points I listed.)

_____
* Not all the media is pro Liberals, both the NDP and the CPC have _friendly_ outlets, in the CPC's case I would suggest that they have more _friendly_ media than do the Liberals.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jul 2014)

WRT unfunded liabilities, one does not have to be an ideologue to be concerned about the issue. $5-800 billion in pensions and benefits are going to be claimed by members of the Federal civil service, Armed Forces, RCMP and the various agencies like the Coast Guard and CBSA, yet there is nothing to in the till to pay these claims. Do we at some point simply say: "Sorry bub, we can't fulfill those contractual promises we made...."?

And much like the old lady who stopped the Mulrouney government from slaying the deficit and debt, governments of whatever stripe WILL be faced with protests by individuals and groups all demanding to receive their pensions and benefits, and providing bad "optics" for the government of the day. Of course, any political party which makes cause with the protesters to score political points will have made a bargain with the Devil; like Ontario's hapless Liberal government they will be expected to "pay up" and pay handsomely once they are gain or are returned to power only to look at the books and the judgement of the financial markets and realize that there _is_ no feasible way to pay.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jul 2014)

Issues ...

There's an interesting piece in today's _Globe and Mail_ about Jason Kenney _defuzing_ the Temporary Foreign Worker problem. Much has been made of the fact, and it is a fact, that the business community is upset but the article piints out that, "There are more than 1.1 million employers in Canada. Only about 12,000 used temporary foreign workers in 2013; barely 6,000 of them relied on migrant workers for more than 10 per cent of their work force." The problem isn't with employers; it is with the _perception_, fair or not, that induced "indignation [in] millions of Canadians, new and native-born, inundated with TFW horror stories."

It is similar with the anti-spam laws. Business, especially small businesses, are annoyed with a law that may not do much good and that has disproportionate, even draconian penalties, but millions and millions of "ordinary Canadians' see that the government has listened to them and has "done something" about a problem.

It's also why the Conservative government will appeal an (overwrought) Federal Court opinion on health care for refugees. It really doesn't matter if Judge Anne Mactavish erred in law (I _suspect_ she did, she acknowledged that the government has the right, the duty to assign priorities and set limits on social benefit plans but she thought it "cruel and unusual" to apply such priorities to pregnant women and children) the electorate are, again, seized with the issue of foreigners "ripping off: Canada's social safety net and they a government that is trying to fix things but is being blocked by _elite_ judges.

Ditto the prostitution bill ~ which, I by the way, _think_ is doomed to fail because it is just plain silly* ~ my guess is that Prime Minister Harper and Minister MacKay know their bill is fatally flawed but they don't care; they are not trying to pass a useful law, they are trying to appease one sergment of their base but will be fully content when, after the 2015 election the _Supremes_[ declare that prostitution is, _de facto_ an ordinary, fully legal, acceptable commercial enterprise in Canada; the existing criminal law will be sufficient to handle pimping, human trafficking and other forms of abuse; good business sense and municipal bylaws will prevent some of the messier side effects of the sex trade. It will be another _issue_ on which the CPC can tell part of its base that the _elite_ courts overruled the "will of the people."

Issue after issue can be declared 'settled' (to _general_ satisfaction) despite the wishes of conservative Conservatives ... just in time for 2015.

____
How can it be legal for prostitutes to sell sex, as Canadian law says it is, but illegal for customers to buy it?


----------



## GAP (7 Jul 2014)

> How can it be legal for prostitutes to sell sex, as Canadian law says it is, but illegal for customers to buy it?



reference......see: Alice in Wonderland..... ;D




and not the porn version either!!


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jul 2014)

I _think_ both Prime Minister Harper and Minister MacKay *know*, with absolute certainty, that C-36 will be challenged in court ~ Peter MacKay admitted that yesterday. I also _believe_ that they think, they're fairly certain, that the _Supremes_ will reject it, too.

Why, then, bring forward a fatally flawed bill? 

Because:

     1. One part (a small but important part) of the CPC base wants them to try; and

     2. Both MacKay (an old _Progressive_ Conservative) and Harper (a pragmatic Conservative) *want* to legalize prostitution in Canada but neither wants to actually say so. Beverley McLachlin and her colleagues will be _invited_ to do the deed for them
         ~ and accept the blame from that small segment of Canadians that actually cares.


Edit: typo


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jul 2014)

I find this whole debate quite amusing.  It is proposed to make the selling of sex legal, but the purchasing of sex illegal.  I actually find that hilarious.  


Meanwhile, in other nations, the sex trade is regulated and closely monitored by the law.  As long as the act is conducted by licensed sex trade workers, who are required by law to have regular medical checkups, in licensed premises, there is no illegal act being performed.   There is also policing of the sex trade workers to ensure they are conducting their business following all regulations and laws.  The policing involves inspection of licences and medical documents/certificates.



Perhaps the words of PET are forgotten in all of this: "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."


----------



## Remius (8 Jul 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Why, then, bring forward a fatally flawed bill?
> 
> Because:
> 
> ...



I agree on both points.  My only issue is that with the growing list of failed/flawed legislation, the CPC is starting to show that it cannot draft proper legislation.  I can understand one or two but the list is starting to get ridiculous.  While it is easy to blame the courts, one must remember that we do not have a partisan politicized judiciary (although some would disagree).

However I think, that the initial court ruling on the matter forced the CPC to act and was likely, like the abortion debate, something they wanted to avoid outright.  Inaction would have eroded their base as Mr. Campbell indicated in his post.

George hits it on the nail though.  The law makes no sense.  Ideally legalise the whole thing and all parts of it, buying, selling, etc.  Regulate it and use the money wasted on enforcement to promote education.  The same for marijuana.  If you apply the same principles applied to fight cigarette smoking you will yield better results than prohibition and wasted law enforcement ever will.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jul 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is an interesting bit of speculation or prognostication, if you will:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/why-stephen-harper-may-call-an-election-earlier-than-planned/article10337226/
> 
> I agree with Ibbitson's rationale for changing from fall to spring. Campaigns are, at a lawful minimum (and recent traditional maximum), 36 days in length, so an election on, say, 12 May 15 would require the campaign to begin on (or before) 6 Apr 15.




And there is, now, much speculation today that the _timing_ of Mike Duffy's court case could well impact on the timing of the election. If his trial is scheduled for, say, the summer or fall of 2015 - entirely possible - then a sprinf election might be very, very attractive, politically.

Senator Duffy is _toxic_ and he has the capacity, as the _Globe and Mail's_ Campbell Clark suggests to derail the CPC's campaign plans.

M. Trudeau's _popularity_, based nearly totally on *a)* his 'niceness,' and *b)* the simple fact that he is NOT Stephen Harper, remains very high. _Hurrican Duffy_ (to be followed by _Typhoon Wallin_?) will be a real gift for the Liberal Party of Canada. Maybe that gift, coupled with M Trudeau's charisma, which is real, will be enough to unseat the Tories.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jul 2014)

Further to _Hurricane Duffy_, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, is an assessment from a Liberal partisan:

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/reid-when-it-comes-to-mike-duffy-theres-always-more


> When it comes to Mike Duffy, there's always more
> 
> SCOTT REID
> 
> ...




Bear in mind that this is the Liberal Party's view ... but we can (must) expect that the LPC will exploit _l'affaire Duffy_ to the hilt, starting with this piece.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jul 2014)

The point of the article was evidently to be a vehicle for the speculations in the penultimate paragraph.  The rest is the standard FUD one gets from fartcatchers of every political stripe.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Aug 2014)

It appears to some commentators, like Mark Kennedy in the _Ottawa Citizen_, relying, largely, on the 'information' from Liberal insiders, think that "Since Justin Trudeau assumed the leadership in the spring of 2013, the Liberals have been at the top of the polls, and they remain there despite repeated efforts by Stephen Harper’s governing Conservatives to cast doubt on his character, his judgment and his leadership." And, they suggest, it _may_ be enough to earn him the keys to 24 Sussex Drive.

_Sun Media_, on the other hand (and not unexpectedly) took a look at a recent statement by M. Trudeau and declared it to be "just plain stupid." Now I am a pretty solid CPC partisan but, on its merits, I agree with Brian Lilley that Justin Trudeau's remarks display an abysmal depth of ignorance and naivety.  Gerald Butts and the Trudeau brain-trust were supposed to have stuffed some sense into M. Trudeau, he's supposed to be able to do something besides regurgitate inane, juvenile platitudes.

But, Brian Gable, in the _Globe and Mail_, gets it:





Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/karma/article19965366/#dashboard/follows/

Both Thomas Mulcair and Prime Minister Harper, and their campaign machines, have a steep hill to climb: M. Trudeau has _captured_ the "liability" high ground and it may be enough to propel him  and the Liberals into government next year.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Aug 2014)

Pure uneducated bafflegab designed to elicit support from the ignorant.

Anyone able to parse what he said should, rightfully, be able to determine that a shiny pony is not the person to entrust our country to.

I agree with B Lilley, people may condemn the CPC of re-iterating that Trudeau is in over his head, all the time. However, in token, Trudeau just can't stop proving them right.


----------



## observor 69 (17 Aug 2014)

Justin Trudeau's home broken into while family slept

OTTAWA — Someone broke into Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau's Ottawa home overnight Friday and left a threatening note while his family was sleeping.

Nothing was stolen from Trudeau's home in Rockcliffe Park — Ottawa's wealthiest neighbourhood — and nobody was harmed, but a threatening note was left behind

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/08/16/justin-trudeaus-home-broken-into-while-family-slept#

The price you pay for being a public fugure.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Aug 2014)

You would think someone of that stature, with that fancy a home, would have the place alarmed.

People with $125,000 homes do it.

Perhaps it's his unicorn belief that people like his intruder are just misunderstood and should have hung around for breakfast.

Then they could establish, the root causes of his misadventure. Then hire him for the election campaign.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Aug 2014)

It doesn't matter if his home was alarmed or he is a public figure.

He, his wife and his children are victims of a crime.

And the threatening note, or counting coup, doesn't help anybody - hopefully with the exception of the police.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Aug 2014)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_ is, I suspect a very accurate assessment of _Campaign 2014/15_ ~ Trudeau! TRUDEAU!! *TRUDEAU!!!* and nothing but Trudeau:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/the-gargoyle-justin-trudeaus-political-style-a-phenomenon-to-watch


> The Gargoyle: Justin Trudeau's political style a phenomenon to watch
> 
> MARK KENNEDY
> 
> ...



Mark Kennedy is right, "Voters will be urged to make their decision on matters of substance — Which party has the best platform? Is it time for a change or for continuity? Which party leader do you trust most? Who is best equipped to lead Canada?" *But*: if history is a good guide Canadians will vote with either their wallets or their hearts. IF they vote with their wallets then Prime Minister Harper and his Conservatives have a chance but if, as I suspect they will, Canadians vote with their hearts then M. Trudeau will be our Prime Minister in 2015.

Prime Minister Harper will, I fear fall victim to:

     1. His own success ~ the economy is improving, there are few really dark clouds on the horizon, business and consumers are starting to display a bit more optimism. There is, in short, no compelling reason to vote for Stephen Harper.
         There is no economic nincompoop like Stéphane Dion against whom he can run, nor is there is "just visiting" dilettante like Michael Ignatief; there is a genuinely "likable" _celebrity_ who, evidently appeals to a shallow, celebrity
         obsessed, unthinking populace. (And yes, I know I'm "dissing" my fellow citizens but I am firmly persuaded that 75% of Canadians (which number probably includes some of you) are shallow and celebrity obsessed, abysmally
         ignorant and have the attention spans of fruit flies.) 

     2. A well crafted, "tailor-made for TV," Liberal campaign that will be short on specifics - hard to attack - and _loooooooong_ on sex appeal.


----------



## GAP (21 Aug 2014)

Yeech !!


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Aug 2014)

I think that Mr. Harper will fall, period.  I can't speak for other parts of this country, but here in the Maritimes I don't hear one word amongst the masses that approve of him.  Trudeaumania will rule once again and the kid will be the "King of the Hill".  Mulcair will as your cartoon of earlier suggest, ER, be unable to get his message out.  I'm going to find it curious how many of the present big names of the CPC survive past next year.  I think it will look like the aftermath of Agincourt, on the French side.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Aug 2014)

Playwrights say there are only seven or eight plot lines.   I've seen each one of them at least twice......

I don't want to go to this one again.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Aug 2014)

John Lennon, Yoko Ono, Sean Lennon.

Pierre Trudeau, Margaret Sinclair, Justin Trudeau.

Go Canada.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Aug 2014)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> John Lennon, Yoko Ono, Sean Lennon.
> 
> Pierre Trudeau, Mick Jagger, Margaret Sinclair, Justin Trudeau.
> 
> Go Canada.



TFTFY


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2014)

The problems with even _discussing_ foreign affairs in an electoral setting become evident in this story about Andrew Leslie being _'bushwhacked'_ by a CPC staffer in a public 'roundtable.' Many years ago Prime Minister Kim Campbell was excoriated for suggesting that the campaign trail was, in fact, a poor place to discuss policy; I'm guess that LGen (Ret'd) Leslie agrees with her. Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Sun News_ is the story:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2014/09/20140902-231532.html


> Top Trudeau adviser breaks ranks, blames Israel for civilian deaths
> 
> DAVID AKIN | NATIONAL BUREAU CHIEF
> 
> ...


_


First, and it's important: *there is nothing wrong with party workers from one party questioning candidates/representatives of another party*. It is an old custom, I recall it well from the days (early 1960s) when Prime Minister Pearson set his party's "truth squads" - led by the unforgettable Judy Lamarsh - on Prime Minister Diefenbaker to harass him, and PC candidates, over the muddle that was 'Dief the Chief's' nuclear weapons policy.






Second, and it's also important: *Andrew Leslie did NOT say Israel intentionally targetted civilians. What he did say was, "Shooting dumb [unguided] artillery close to children is dumb."* 

But the Conservatives are going to use this, out of context, just as the Liberals did to John Diefenbaker 50+ years ago ... oh, and just as the Liberals did in 2006.


_


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Sep 2014)

ERC: 





> Second, and it's also important: Andrew Leslie did NOT say Israel *intentionally* targetted civilians. What he did say was, "Shooting dumb [unguided] artillery close to children is dumb."



Sun News report above: 



> But in saying the IDF fired *"indiscriminately"* on civilians, Leslie put himself outside the mainstream opinion of Canada's federal political class.



What is the difference between intentionally and indiscriminately in the context of the IDF fighting Hamas in populated areas? Using civilians as shields.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2014)

I included a link to the transcript of Leslie's remarks ... maybe my eyes are tired, but I don't see "indiscriminate" anywhere.

LGen (Rt'd) Leslie's use of the word "dumb" refers, I'm 99.99% sure, to _unguided_ artillery - i.e. not using something like e.g. the _Excalibur_ GPS-guided munition - which, I suppose, one _might_ interpret as indiscriminate ... or not.


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Sep 2014)

> *Woman:* I was just wondering what your professional opinion would be on the conflict with Israel. Where would you recommend us standing? What would you do troop-wise? Which side would you support, if any?
> 
> *Leslie:* So, every nation has the right to defend itself. Every nation has the right to defend its people. So keep that as a thought bubble.
> Then there’s this little Chinese gentleman about 2,700 years ago who said, in Cantonese: ‘Never do what your enemy wants you to do.’ So, just keep that as a thought bubble . His name was Sun Tzu.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2014)

Thanks, Rifleman62, I missed that ... I'm glad for David Akin, a journalist I do respect, that he (or the _Sun News_ editors) didn't put words in LGen (Ret'd) Leslie's mouth. 

(I would not have said that the Israelis were "firing indiscriminately onto Palestinian women and children," but I would have agreed had he said that the Israelis were using the wrong weapons for 'work' that requires great accuracy (_discrimination_).)


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Sep 2014)

>"Shooting dumb [unguided] artillery close to children is dumb." 

They just use a different calculator for proportionality, General.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Sep 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The problems with even _discussing_ foreign affairs in an electoral setting become evident in this story about Andrew Leslie being _'bushwhacked'_ by a CPC staffer in a public 'roundtable' ...
> ...
> ... *there is nothing wrong with party workers from one party questioning candidates/representatives of another party*. It is an old custom, I recall it well from the days (early 1960s) when Prime Minister Pearson set his party's "truth squads" - led by the unforgettable Judy Lamarsh - on Prime Minister Diefenbaker to harass him, and PC candidates, over the muddle that was _'Dief the Chief's'_ nuclear weapons policy.
> ...
> But the Conservatives are going to use this, out of context, just as the Liberals did to John Diefenbaker 50+ years ago ... oh, and just as the Liberals did in 2006.




The Liberals, in the person of Ralph Goodale are first out of the gate, branding this as "Nixonian" and as "designed to “impose a chill” on candid political discourse."

But, there was no mention, in the CP article of the 1960s "truth squads."


----------



## a_majoor (6 Sep 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Liberals, in the person of Ralph Goodale are first out of the gate, branding this as "Nixonian" and as "designed to “impose a chill” on candid political discourse."
> 
> But, there was no mention, in the CP article of the 1960s "truth squads."



Of course not. It's only bad if the CPC does it, otherwise it is perfectly OK.......


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2014)

There is a report in report in the _Globe and mail_ saying that Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair promises to unveil his platform a full year ahead of the next election.

     “Canadians want to know where we stand and they’re going to have a very clear idea,” Mulcair told The Canadian Press. “And they want more from us than, frankly, talking points, platitudes or partisan attacks.” Mulcair went on,
       suggesting that, in one ay, he agrees with former Prime Minister Kim Campbell, that, “One of the things that often frustrates me as a voter is when you find out right in the middle of a campaign that they’ve got this, that and
       the other idea. You don’t really have time to think about it, to measure it or to look at how it could help improve people’s lives.”


----------



## s2184 (7 Sep 2014)

Not a Conservative/Liberal Majority, but in 2015 I like to see a coalition government consists and govern by all major parties. Too many years for the current prime minister & there should be a new head for Canada in 2015.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Sep 2014)

And how will a coalition government help?

The outcome may be a NDP/Liberal coalition (with the NDP in the driver seat). What part of the NDP party platform or vision for Canada do you see as being beneficial for Canadians as a whole, or for the CF in general (since most of us are in the CF)?

You do understand that the NDP do not have a responsible economic platform, and their positions on international maters can be best described as "naive" (although the best way to understand the NDP position is to go to the Socialist International website, since the Canadian party belongs to the SI, and mirrors much of the SI position).

The Liberals, being a "Transactive" party, have no position on anything, but will simply sell their position to the highest bidder. We already see how well "crony capitalism" is working in the States and in Ontario, so extend that vision to cover all of Canada, including the current engines of Confederation: Alberta and Saskatchewan.

As for PM Harper, I suspect he will want to fight this election and be able to retire on his own time with the Young Dauphin's scalp under his belt, grooming a new CPC leader for 2019.


----------



## stealthylizard (8 Sep 2014)

I'm predicting the results in 2015 going one of two ways:

Conservative minority, with the Liberal Party becoming the official Opposition; or
Liberal majority, with the Conservative Party getting annihilated, but with enough to form the official Opposition.

There is a big enough bloc of "anything but conservative" voters to ensure Harper doesn't win another majority.  Trudeau will be able to get enough of that bloc to vote for the Liberal Party over that of Mulcair and the NDP.  

Harper will be replaced before 2019, unless he forms another majority government, but even then, his expiration date will be the 2019 election.  

Trudeau will definitely become Prime Minister in 2019, if not sooner.

No predictions about Mulcair's future.  His time in the spotlight is done after the next election.  I think he has done a great job as the Opposition leader, while knowing that the NDP will never have the numbers to become the party in power.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Sep 2014)

You overlook the challenge of Quebec for the Liberals. In order for either of your forecasts to occur, the Liberals have to take Quebec in large numbers. I'm not sure that's a realistic outcome. Personally, I think the Bloc will be resurgent and potentially displace the NDP as opposition.


----------



## Remius (8 Sep 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> You overlook the challenge of Quebec for the Liberals. In order for either of your forecasts to occur, the Liberals have to take Quebec in large numbers. I'm not sure that's a realistic outcome. Personally, I think the Bloc will be resurgent and potentially displace the NDP as opposition.



Not likely.  The Bloc is in complete shambles.  their current leader Mario Beaulieu is too polarising and controversial, even party stalwarts dislike him.  His caucus is leaving slowly but surely.  Rumours of more departures are swirling.  He will be marginalised by people like Duceppe and Bouchard who will not lift a finger or might even impede any success he may hope to achieve.  They are no where near ready for a campaign within a year.  The seperatist movement as a whole is suffering an existensial crisis and the they will be more focussed on reclaiming what hey can at the provincial level than at the federal level.  Quebec will be a battle between the NDP and Liberals.  I estimate the NDP will lose half their seats to them in that province if not more.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2014)

M. Trudeau is on a roll, let there be no question about that; but he's "rolling" uphill and we all know how hard that is to do.

M. Trudeau must do two things:

     1. Beat Thomas Mulcair and the NDP in Quebec and Atlantic Canada  where, now, the NDP have 61 of 108 seats, versus 21 for the the Liberals. My _guess_ is that the Liberals must almost reverse those numbers; and

     2. Beat both the NDP and Conservatives in Ontario and BC where the Conservatives have 92 of 142 seats and the NDP have 32 versus only 14 for the Liberals. The Liberals must turn 80 of those seats and hold on to
         the few (2, actually) seas they hold in other regions and get half of the 30 new seats in order to form a majority government.

The conventional wisdom is that the Conservatives will attack the Liberals on the right and the NDP will attack on the left and the Liberals will be "sitting pretty" in the all important political centre.

My guess is that the NDP will, indeed, attack from the left, in French, in Quebec where left wing economic and politics are both very popular. I doubt, however, that Prime Minister Harper will attack from the right. My guess is that he will campaign from a firmly centrist position: challenging M. Trudeau to come to him with policies, M. Trudeau's weak suit. That's why M. Mulcair is going to announce real policies early: he senses that M. Trudeau is uncomfortable with policy. The Liberal campaign is all about "selling the sizzle, not the steak." 

It, "selling the sizzle, not the steak," is _Marketing 101_ and is gospel in many businesses, and has been for a generation or more ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





                    ... but marketing guru Elmer Wheeler (who coined the phrase) taught his folks that while they should sell "sizzle" they had to have a steak underneath it all. M. Mulcair is betting that M. Trudeau
                        and his campaign team have no steaks, all they have is the _sizzle_ that is M. Trudeau's personality.

M. Trudeau has 37 seats, today, in the House of Commons. He needs 170 to form a majority government; that's 130+ new seats he must take away from the Conservative and Liberals. Can he do it? Maybe. Will it be easy? No, no easier than rolling uphill is for you or me.


----------



## s2184 (8 Sep 2014)

What a Coalition Government is capable of?

If there are NATO, European Union, UN exist crossing international boundaries, why there cannot be an effective coalition government that is not possible within Canada?

Why team work of different parties should not be the mandatory part of governing Canada? Parties cannot share power among them based on the number of seats in the parliament?

There cannot be a better Prime Minister for Canada other than Hon. Harper?


----------



## Remius (8 Sep 2014)

Coalition governments are possible and legal in our system.  But one party will likely hum and haw about it despite it being legal.

The problem is that party leaders and party officials balk at coalitions.  Personalities and party policy get in the way which makes coalitions very difficult to create and maintain.  Compromise is needed and many if not all are not willing to do that.  Plus it means conceding power to one of the coalition partners.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Sep 2014)

Yes coalition governments are legal, but the question is "why" would we want a coalition?

The expressed will of the voters is essentially overturned by the formation of a coalition (with the exception of a wartime "unity" government, the two or more parties running on a coalition government platform or if the vote split results in a tie, which is unlikely. Even in that case, the better solution would be to have another election).

In the case of Ontario, we have had an unofficial coalition prior to the last election, where the party in power (Liberals) essentially crawled on their hands and knees to the NDP to retain power, proposing policies and budgets which the NDP would vote for, and then enacting them after being voted in the house. Taking the PCPO out of the equation for the moment, how do you think _Liberal_ voters felt about turning government over to the NDP?

WRT your examples of international organizations, they have relatively clear mandates, but are also constrained by the domestic politics and concerns of the partners. This would also be the case in any coalition government, so it is unclear how this would result in "better" outcomes for Canadians. Looking at the confused response by NATO over the Russian destabilization and invasion of Ukraine, which is a pretty clear cut problem, do you imagine a coalition government being able to respond to domestic emergencies any better? If they are unable to do so in the face of a very clear and present danger, would coalitions be able to respond effectively to more diffused or nebulous problems?

As for s2184' last question, perhaps there is a "better" possible Prime Minister out there (I can think of some people on this website who would get my vote), but so far no one with the combination of intelligence, will power, tactical political skill, strategic vision and (lets face it) "street smarts" than the Right Hon Stephen Harper has stepped up to the plate. It will be very interesting to look at the potential candidates within the CPC (and possibly outsiders) who might become the next leader of the CPC and potentially Prime Minister, and there is even a thread on that somewhere.


----------



## Remius (8 Sep 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Yes coalition governments are legal, but the question is "why" would we want a coalition?
> 
> The expressed will of the voters is essentially overturned by the formation of a coalition (with the exception of a wartime "unity" government, the two or more parties running on a coalition government platform or if the vote split results in a tie, which is unlikely. Even in that case, the better solution would be to have another election).



The expressed will of SOME voters.  And certainly not a majority.  Forming a government has nothing to do with voters.  it has to do with having the support of a majority of seats in the house.  The same reason we don't get to choose our Prime Minister.  Voters elect a representative to hold that seat.  They might vote in the hopes that the seat in question supports the party or leader  or what not.  But it's whoever controls the support of a majority of those seats and can hold the confidence of the house that forms the government. 

And while it may seem like semantics to some, it is exactly what the westminster parliamentary system is about.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2014)

I agree with Crantor. The UK has a coalition, right now, because the Brits have a horror of minority governments and the Liberal-Democrats decided to partner with the Conservatives, who won the most seats, to form a stable (majority) government.

I can see two potential coalitions in 2015:

          A well left of centre NDP~Liberal coalition or a Liberal~Conservative coalition on the centre-right.

I think, however, that Canadians, being very, very immature in politics, like minority governments which are, too often, coalitions in everything but name. (We had a _de facto_ Conservative-Liberal coalition from 2006 until 2011. The Conservatives tailored their policies to get Liberal support and stayed in power.)


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Sep 2014)

I think most voters would have no issue with a coalition government if they knew that was one possible outcome. When the party leaders vehemently reject the notion during the campaign, and then conspire after the election to effectively overturn the result is where we have a problem.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think most voters would have no issue with a coalition government if they knew that was one possible outcome. When the party leaders vehemently reject the notion during the campaign, and then conspire after the election to effectively overturn the result is where we have a problem.




I agree with you, and I would be happy to hear Stephen Harper say, "Yes, I will form a coalition with M. Trudeau's party IF they will agree to *a)* economic issue 1; *b)* economic issue 2; and *c)* smaller government issue 3. We, in turn, are willing to go along with the Liberal Party's *i)* social policy issue 4, and *ii)* law and order issue 5." He would, I would hope, go on to say: "A coalition between we Conservatives and the NDP is not possible because we are too far apart on too many economic issues."


----------



## s2184 (8 Sep 2014)

There can be more things done through coalition. But the question is about the maturity of the parties to work towards it.  If they can unite together only in war times to get the best output, that is too bad for the country. May be Canadian Politics has to grow, and wait another 100 years for its maturity?


----------



## a_majoor (8 Sep 2014)

s2184 said:
			
		

> There can be more things done through coalition. But the question is about the maturity of the parties to work towards it.  If they can unite together only in war times to get the best output, that is too bad for the country. May be Canadian Politics has to grow, and wait another 100 years for its maturity?



There can also be more things done via a majority government, or if you want to go all the way, a dictatorship has few impediments to carrying out actions.

Going the other way, the pre civil war United States was described by Alexis de Tocqueville as a "Nation of associations", with a very limited central government and relatively weak State governments, yet a great deal "got done" by people getting together within their associations, pooling ideas and resources and carrying out plans. This was a period where the US rapidly reached and surpassed the industrial output of major European nations, rapidly settled vast areas of the continent and laid the groundwork for globe spanning commercial enterprises.

To suggest that government is the "only" vehicle for getting things done shows a very limited conception of how things work. Come to think of it, you have never stated just what sorts of "things" should be done (either by government or private sector). All I am really reading is a thinly veiled and very non specific attack against the current government and political party.


----------



## s2184 (8 Sep 2014)

What I will do? 

In regards to Election 2015, I will vote for Conservative if Liberal seems stronger by the time of the election. I will not vote for Conservative if it seems stronger at the election time. In that case I have to still decide to whom I am going to vote.  :

I agree with you that it cannot be all the government, but private sectors, and other entities can play significant roles to deliver best output for the nation.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2014)

Further to my notion that M. Trudeau is trying to manage an uphill roll (a difficult thing), a report in the _Toronto Star_ says:

     "Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservatives still trail the Liberals in the polls but continue to cut into that lead for the second month in a row, the latest survey by Forum Research shows ... The Sept. 5 poll of nearly 1,300 Canadian
      adults found that the 16-point lead Justin Trudeau’s Liberals held over the Conservatives in July has dropped to six points ... Last month the Liberal lead was nine points ... The Liberals have the support of 40 per cent of Canadians,
      down slightly from last month’s 41 per cent support. The Conservatives meanwhile saw their support rise slightly from to 34 per cent 32 per cent ... [and] ... The NDP had the support of 18 per cent of respondents, up from
      17 per cent last month. "


----------



## Infanteer (9 Sep 2014)

I suspect coalitions are very difficult for Canada for the following reasons:

1.  Us, more than the Brits, have inherited more (through osmosis) of the "dueling parties" culture of the U.S.  Although adversarial politics is a part of the Westminster system, we seem to have grafted on some of it's uglier parts in an effort to imitate our neighbours.

2.  The regional nature of our politics (class in the UK, race in the US, regions in Canada).  This would lead voter bases to claim their party is "selling out" the Maritimes/Quebec/Ontario/The West/The North in favour of a coalition managed by a party of the Maritimes/Quebec/Ontario/The West/The North.

3.  The unparalleled concentration of power in the PMO's office, where the shots are called.  Coalitions work when all parties are given equal parts to play in Cabinet - but would this matter in our system where so much decision making is concentrated in the PMO's office?


----------



## dapaterson (9 Sep 2014)

A coalition might slow the concentration of power in the PMO.  A subsequent majority would probably see regression to the mean, but from a transparency in governance perspective it might be good.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I suspect coalitions are very difficult for Canada for the following reasons:
> 
> 1.  Us, more than the Brits, have inherited more (through osmosis) of the "dueling parties" culture of the U.S.  Although adversarial politics is a part of the Westminster system, we seem to have grafted on some of it's uglier parts in an effort to imitate our neighbours.
> 
> ...




I agree, whole heartedly, with your first point. Remember the old joke ...

          Canada is, potentially, the luckiest country in the world: is is the heir to English political wisdom, French cuisine and American industrial 'know how.'
                    Sadly it got English industrial 'know how,' American cuisine and French political wisdom ...

I also agree with your second point, but I'm not sure it is quite a dominant as you think. I'm still of my "Old Canada"/"new Canada" mindset but, I _suspect_ that it is not quite as simple as originally (by Michael Bliss?) presented or as remembered by me. "Old Canada" is, indeed, everything East of the Ottawa River; "New Canada" is BC, AB, SK and MB. Ontario, vote rich Ontario, is the _swinging gate_ which connects the two but, as it swings it strengthens the political power of one or the other.

I don't think your third point takes sufficient account of the complexity of coalitions nor of the power struggle that exists, in all Westminster systems, between the PMO (or its Australian, British, German or _whatever_ equivalents) and the PCO/Cabinet Office, etc. (The Americans, because they use the _spoils_ system of management ~ imagine if, after every election, not only the ministers changed, as they do in most democracies, but also the DMs and the ADMs changed, that's the US system ~ have political management way too far down into departments and agencies so this is no permanent, civil service _vision_ (or master plan) for the country, their partisan political programme always prevails ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



          The *real* government, as we all learned from "yes Minister."

... we have to remember that, as Jim Hacker taught us, in our, Westminster, system, “The Opposition aren’t really the opposition. They are just called the Opposition. But, in fact, they are a government in exile. The Civil Service are the Opposition in residence.” (See, also, this.)

First point: coalitions are not and should not be "equal," in good, workable coalitions, Germany almost always has on, one party has most of the power while the other gets some of its policies and some portfolios.

Second:the key decisions almost always, see e.g. Cameron and Merkel, today, reside with the head of government (PM or Chancellor) and his/her most senior officials (PCO/PMO).


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Sep 2014)

The flaw of a coalition - assuming you have the interests of Canada at heart - is that the partners have to compromise, and the easiest compromise is for them to mutually agree to pay for things they want using someone else's money.

The realistic candidates for PM are Harper, Trudeau, and Mulcair.  I think Mulcair could be trusted not to get Canada bent over in an international forum up against savvy leaders like Merkel and Putin, but not Trudeau - lamb to slaughter.  But Mulcair is a long shot.  Given the choices, the best candidate for Canada is Harper.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Sep 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I also agree with your second point, but I'm not sure it is quite a dominant as you think. I'm still of my "Old Canada"/"new Canada" mindset but, I _suspect_ that it is not quite as simple as originally (by Michael Bliss?) presented or as remembered by me. "Old Canada" is, indeed, everything East of the Ottawa River; "New Canada" is BC, AB, SK and MB. Ontario, vote rich Ontario, is the _swinging gate_ which connects the two but, as it swings it strengthens the political power of one or the other.



My view is the "Old/New Canada" view is overly simplistic.  Having lived out West for a significant portion of my life, there is very much a "Western" mentality when it comes to identity and politics.  Ottawa and Toronto are often used as whipping boys and are portrayed by some (many?) as foreign places from which spring misguided policies and and one of half of official bilingualism.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Sep 2014)

The "Old/New" Canada trope is alive and well because it is useful and because it does describe many elements of the current situation. The phrase was popularized by Preston Manning's book "The New Canada", and the thesis was reexamined and amplified In "The Big Shift" by Bricker and Ibbitson. Like most ideas of this type, there is a degree of simplification for the popular press (think of "The Clash of Civilizations" trope introduced by Huntington; his book is far richer and more nuanced than the popular idea).

Of course the idea of Canadian regionalism is hardly new, we can go to "The Two Solitudes", or even just look at various issues in our history caused by regionalism.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (10 Sep 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> A coalition might slow the concentration of power in the PMO.  A subsequent majority would probably see regression to the mean, but from a transparency in governance perspective it might be good.



Absolutely.  That concentration is a cancer that is eating my beloved country.....and my chosen profession.  Anything would better at this point.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Sep 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Ottawa and Toronto are often used as whipping boys and are portrayed by some (many?) as foreign places from which spring misguided policies and and one of half of official bilingualism.


And you don't have to go THAT far west of these places to have people feeling the same way ....


----------



## Lightguns (10 Sep 2014)

For sure, I watched the NB debate last night, one candidate talking about the need to develop natural resources to provide jobs and the other four candidates beating him up for it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2014)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Absolutely.  That concentration is a cancer that is eating my beloved country.....and my chosen profession.  Anything would better at this point.




The _concentration_ is, as far as I can see/read almost universal, leaving aside the USA because it has a different, less 'adversarial' system of political-civil service relations. We, Canadians, were _pioneers_, having begun the concentration of power in the PMO _circa_ 1970, while the Brits, for example, didn't really follow until Tony Blair became PM in 1997. But the _disease_ appears, to me, to be prevalent in Australia, Britain, Germany, India and so on.

I _think_ the real concentration began with Pierre Trudeau. There were a lot of things Prime Minister Trudeau didn't like about Ottawa _circa_ 1967, but, in my _opinion_, what he hated most was the _concentration of influence_ in the hands of a few people who were almost perfect copies of the civil service that OD Skelton created. 

(Skelton was an odd duck. He was convinced that Britain was out to screw us in every way possible and that we could not trust them in any thing. But, he was also an _Anglophile_ and the people he, personally, recruited into the civil service, people like Arnold Heeney, Lester Pearson, Norman Robertson and Hume Wrong were all of a type ~ WASPs and _Oxbridge_ men. There were no French Canadians, few Roman Catholics, fewer Jews and so on. Was Skelton racially/ethnically prejudiced? Probably ... but so were many, likely most people of his generation.)

When Trudeau arrived in Ottawa it was hard, I have heard/read, for ministers, even for Paul Martin Sr, to penetrate the "old boys club" of the PMO (Mike Pearson, with only a few ides), PCO (Gordon Robertson, came to Ottawa after Skelton but of the same 'type:' WASP + Oxford), Finance (Mitchell Sharp, another former senior civil servant, but _only_ a London School of Economics graduate was minister) and (then) External Affairs. Trudeau set about doing two things:

     1. He appointed his "own" man, Michael Pitfield, to be Clerk of the Privy Council ~ a move which I have heard/read was _resisted_ by the "old guard" which, essentially, went _underground_ for several years; and

     2. He, sometimes forcefully, moved younger French Canadians into senior civil service appointments, especially in External Affairs, a department for which he (Trudeau) seemed to have a special animus.

You might have thought that Brian Mulroney would try to reverse Trudeau's changes - and he did, of course, make a few changes, but he came to Ottawa, as most Tories do, extremely mistrustful of the civil service which he, like many Tories, saw as a bastion of Liberal insiders ~ and you can understand that when you look at e.g. Pearson, Sharp and Marcel Massé all former very senior bureaucrats. But he was well served by Gordon Osbaldeston as Clerk and pretty much the entire civil service was behind him when he decided to implement the key elements of Liberal Donald Macdonald's Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada, including Free Trade with the USA. Mulroney faced a common "new government" problem: inexperienced ministers. A strong PMO is almost mandatory when ministers (and ministerial staffs) are all "new to the business."

Jean Chrétien, for reasons of his own, promoted Jocelyne Bourgon to be Clerk of the Privy Council which gave his chief of staff, Jean Pelletier, and the PMO, even greater power. 

Part, an important part, of the _containment_ of the PMO is to have a strong, effective (but equally un-elected) PCO. The PCO was too weak under Jocelyne Bourgon, Mel Cappe and Alex Himelfarb, none of whom, although able individuals, were noted as being strong leaders; I _suspect_ that Prime Minister Harper found the PCO to be too strong under Kevin Lynch.



Edit: grammar  :-[


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2014)

Further to my last, see this, by Andrew Coyne, from the _Ottawa Citizen_. It's about Michael Chong's (now nearly totally aborted) _Reform Act_ which aimed to "rebalance the relationship between party caucuses and their leaders," but it applies, equally, to the entire _concentration_ of power.

Coyne explains, accurately I believe, that:

     "We are just going to have to accept this: Canadian democracy is unreformable — not without the consent of the leaders, and the leaders aren’t about to give it.

      That’s leaders, plural. If any good has come of this, it has been to confirm how empty were the pledges of support, or at least openness, from Justin Trudeau and Tom Mulcair. These were exactly
      as they appeared: tactical markers, nothing more, intended to avoid any overt display of opposition while the dirty work was being done behind the scenes. For make no mistake, if they had supported
      the bill, along with the 30 to 40 reform-minded Conservative MPs behind it, it would have passed.

      This is greatly clarifying. It isn’t only one party or its leader who stands in the way of Parliament’s reform. They all do. From the standpoint of democratic governance, ejecting Stephen Harper and
      the Conservatives from power wouldn’t make a dime’s worth of difference. It would simply replace one leader and his retinue of unelected advisors with another. Now we know."


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2014)

I listened, quite carefully, to Justin Trudeau (_"Trust fund Trudeau"_ the Tories have taken to calling him - see my remarks elsewhere about _attack ads_ that work, this one, short and simple as it is, might work) being interviewed by Michael Enright on CBC's _The Sunday Edition_, this morning.

A longer version is here.

     First: I liked some of his answers - except for the "middle class" thing where he misused and abused statistics (the economy has doubled but the median "middle class' income has grown
     by only 15% in the same period: "So F___ing what? They are totally unrelated measures of different things!") - especially on free trade and general economic terms;

     but

     Second: it was a supremely _softball_ interview, Michael Enright at his fawning best worst; and

     Third: I am about 95% certain M. Trudeau was, for 95% of the time, reciting scripted answers because his advisors knew what would be asked ~ not because Enright told them, he didn't
     have to, they know his views, they knew what he would ask.

Anyway, it's worth a half hour of your time if you plan to vote in 2015.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2014)

Michael de Adder, in the _Hill Times_ sums up the big fight: between Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau:







Both really want to fight against Prime Minister Harper but they must go at one another, first. The key, for both, is the legacy of *"le bon Jack,"* in Quebec. Right now, M. Mulcair's NDP holds 55 of Quebec's 75 seats* and M. Trudeau's Liberals hold 8; if M. Trudeau wants, even, to be Leader of the Opposition, much less prime minister, he must, first, come close to reversing those numbers. From the 1940s until the rise, in the 1980s, of the BQ, the _key_ to a majority government in Canada depended on having a firm base of 110+ seats in ON and QC ~ more in ON if you were Conservative, more in QC if you were Liberals. In the 1980s and '90s Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's Liberals won with only 20 or so Quebec seats but they got 95+ in Ontario so the general rule held true. Let me "give" M. Trudeau 25 of the 32 seats in Atlantic Canada (up from the 13 he holds now) and 12 seats in Western Canada (up from the 4 he holds now), he must, still, get 133 in Ontario and Quebec in order to form a majority government. Now, will he "sweep" Ontario, as Jean Chrétien did in the 1980s and '90s? No, I don't think so. The Conservatives _resonate_ better in Ontario than did Reform and there is far, far less fear of Quebec than there was in the 1980s and '90s. Let's say that Ontario will split in M. Trudeau's favour and he will get, say, 70 of Ontario's 121 seats; he still needs 60+ in Quebec - he needs to hold the CPC to their current 5, gain all of the 3 new seats and "turn" 55 seats from the NDP, the BQ and the Independents. That's no easy task. 

But, as Michael de Adder suggests he has one hugely important ally: a largely uncritical, celebrity obsessed media.

_____
In the 2015 election Quebec will have 78 seats.


----------



## Remius (15 Sep 2014)

Interesting.  Here is a first contribution from Eric Grenier (three hundred and eight.com founder) to the CBC that breaks down some of the support in recent polling.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-polling-lead-more-than-a-justin-trudeau-honeymoon-1.2765560

Note that the NDP seems to be holding more or less firm in Quebec but that somehow, the Liberals are still leading.

Also note the decline in Conservative support in Ontario.

Looking forward to seeing what this year brings to the political spere.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Interesting.  Here is a first contribution from Eric Grenier (three hundred and eight.com founder) to the CBC that breaks down some of the support in recent polling.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-polling-lead-more-than-a-justin-trudeau-honeymoon-1.2765560
> 
> ...




If the NDP can hold on to 25 seats in Quebec, and if the Liberals cannot make real, substantial gains in almost every single province, then a Conservative government is still most likely ... a majority? Maybe, but a slim one.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Sep 2014)

For the record, regarding Hiva Mohammad Alizadeh, an Iranian born Canadian citizen who was sentenced to 24 years in prison for acts a judge described as being akin to treason ...

Justin Trudeau's (non) response ... (two revealing video clips)


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Sep 2014)

Well if that does not make its way into a conservative attack ad next year, nothing will....


----------



## Remius (23 Sep 2014)

First off, this article is by Scott Reid so it will be somewhat biased but the various scenarios offer some interesting discussion points.  

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/reid-dont-dismiss-duffys-ability-to-force-harper-to-go

Now that we know the date and timleine of Duffy's trial (April 2015), it is doubtful that a spring election will be called so that removes that scenario.  Meaning now that the CPC will be in full campaign mode while dealing with the potential damage of this trial.  I truly believe that the PM would rather quit than face the prospect of a defeat at the hands of JT if it looks like it would be inevitable.

However from a practical standpoint I could see them betting that a surplus and improved economy might just get them through the storm assuming it is achieved and teh storm isn't as big as it could be.


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Sep 2014)

or Harper can go to the polls this coming January....


----------



## dapaterson (23 Sep 2014)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> or Harper can go to the polls this coming January....



In violation of the act that he championed.  Unless he brings in a budget, orders his MPs out of the house when it comes up for a vote, and then gets an election called because the house fell on a money bill...


----------



## Remius (23 Sep 2014)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> or Harper can go to the polls this coming January....



Not likely.  He'll want to table a budget geared towards an election. That will be Feb/March.  No way he'll go before and no way he'll want to have a spring election with the Duffy thing going on.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Sep 2014)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In violation of the act that he championed.



Not really. The legislation lays out when a PM must call an election, not when he or she may call one.


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Sep 2014)

And, God forbid, Mike Duff who is innocent until proven guilty and not in good health, dies, the media party will speculate about how lucky - nudge, nudge, wink, wink - the evil Harper was to escape the adverse publicity of a trial.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> For the record, regarding Hiva Mohammad Alizadeh, an Iranian born Canadian citizen who was sentenced to 24 years in prison for acts a judge described as being akin to treason ...
> 
> Justin Trudeau's (non) response ... (two revealing video clips)



Now Ezra Levant gave what I would _guess_, I have not watched it, a typically Ezra Levant rant about Justin Trudeau ~ that is to say, bombastic, edging on being libelous, in poor taste, with scant respect for accuracy, etc ~ in his _commentary_ programme. That's what Ezra Levant is: a _commentator_. he is not a journalist in the way that, say, David Akin or Mercedes Stephenson (both of whom are known to members this site) are journalists, he doesn't report the 'news;' he is not even a 'journalist' in the way that, say, the _Globe and Mail's_ Jeffrey Simpson or Lawrence Martin, both highly opinionated, are journalists, he doesn't address big, national issues; he is of a newer, shriller, highly partisan variety that originated in the UK tabloids but has been transformed by US TV.

But M. Trudeau's campaign team has decided to boycott all of _Sun Media_, "until the company [Québécor Inc.] resolves the matter." Here is the text of the message sent out by M. Trudeau’s spokesperson Kate Purchase"

          “On Monday of last week (September 15th 2014), a segment on Sun News Network program ‘The Source’ crossed the line by airing a personal attack on the Trudeau family that was offensive and breached
            any reasonable measure of editorial integrity.

          “We have raised this issue with the appropriate people at Québécor Inc., the owners and operators of Sun News Network, and have asked that they consider an appropriate response.

          “Until the company resolves the matter, the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Justin Trudeau will continue to not engage with Sun Media.”

The _Twitterverse_ is all aflutter; the media, generally, dislikes Ezra Levant and his _style_ of journalism, but they also respect his _right_ to express his views and most of the journalists' _tweets_ that I have seen, regardless of their views pro or con, begin with the *fact* that M. Trudeau was, already, ignoring _Sun Media_ ... see above.

An important point is that Québécor Inc. is the largest media company in Canada, and is especially strong in Quebec. I wonder how M. Trudeau's team will square that circle.

Edited to add:

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from from _Sun News_ is the company's response:


> *QMI AGENCY*
> 
> OTTAWA - Federal Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau says he will continue to snub English-language Sun Media reporters in protest of an opinion piece broadcast by Ezra Levant on his Sun News Network program, The Source.
> 
> ...




Further edit to add:

Ottawa lawyer/consultant and Conservative _activist_ Manny Monenegro _tweets_ that"

          "Justin Trudeau called Peter Kent (very decent man) "piece of shit" because disagreed with him   I'd rank "slut" slightly below that"

Here's a link to a report on that 2011 bit of name calling; and a link to the video.


----------



## cryco (24 Sep 2014)

I heard clips this morning on the radio of what Levant said about the Trudeaus and it was quite harsh. I don't blame JT for losing it on this one.
This will be interesting to follow.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2014)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a report on how Prime Minister Harper thinks he has reshaped Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/in-rare-moment-harper-gives-advice-to-conservative-parties/article20784184/#dashboard/follows/


> Harper's rare advice for Republicans, conservative parties
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




Prime Minister Harper is certainly right about immigrant communities often being quite _small c_ conservative but it is important for Conservatives to remember that many (I dare say most) immigrants *do not* share the values of the religious right. Some immigrants are offended by what they see as, at least, _Sinophobia_, if not overt racism amongst many _social conservative_ Conservatives. The Prime Minister, himself, and some key ministers do well in East Asian neighbourhoods but some Conservative MPs, including some ministers, have difficulty there.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2014)

A hard core Conservative _tweeter_, Karla Sofen (@KSofen), compiled a list of M. Trudeau's strengths. She was being more than just a bit tongue in cheek but, it is, actually, a good and even fair list:

      Trudeau strength #1: _*Name recognition.*_  Lots of hard core communists, socialists and liberals in Canada will vote on that alone.

      Trudeau strength #2: _*Good looks.*_  Canada loaded with vacuous people who will vote on that strength alone.

      Trudeau strength #3:  _*Killer instinct.*_  He'll do what it takes to win and that means anything.  No restrictions means he can be Zelig.

      Trudeau strength #4: _*100% media support.*_  He won't face criticism or scrutiny.  A candidate with free unlimited positive media powerful.

      Trudeau strength #5: _*Quality of Mercy.*_  This one is a real strength.  He beat Brazeau but refused to humiliate him even when he could have.

      Trudeau strength #6: _*Common touch.*_  He's a lot like typical Canadian.  Every college student holds same views on all issues.  So does he. When all your views are common or platitudes
      no one can disagree with, most people won't be opponents.


----------



## s2184 (25 Sep 2014)

Anyone reads CBC (CBC.CA) comments? Unofficial Election campaign 2015 is carried out right there?  ;D


----------



## stealthylizard (26 Sep 2014)

I can't read CBC.ca commentary without something at hand to control my blood pressure. #cdnpoli on twitter is almost as bad.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2014)

And now even uber-Liberal partisan Warren Kinsella chimes in, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Sun_:

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/09/25/trudeaus-sun-ban-isnt-news----or-democratic?token=3996dc234754fc106da5cdba51d6369a


> Trudeau's Sun ban isn't news -- or democratic
> 
> BY WARREN KINSELLA, QMI AGENCY
> 
> ...




So, Ezra Levant isn't the _raison d'être_ for M. Trudeau's boycott of _Sun Media_, he's just a convenent excuse for M. Trudeau to ignore a media chain which opposes him. One wishes, but doubts, that the rest of the Canadian media had even a tiny shred of professional standards and would boycott Justin Trudeau in return ... but, hey, the rest of the media either just enjoys the show (and the profits from 'full' column inches) or hates Stephen Harper more than it values ethics.


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Sep 2014)

You are aware that you used media and ethics in the same passage?


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> You are aware that you used media and ethics in the same passage?




Yes, and without a    too. There are some, probably many, _ethical journalists_. Warren Kinsella, a _commentator_, part of the _infotainment_ business, names David Akin (a member here at Army.ca) and I agree. I know at least one or two others: journalists who want a good, _juicy_ story, of course, but who fact check and double check to make sure they have it right. There are also _ethical commentators_, they have distinct points of view, sometimes, even often, distinctly political points of view, but they try to present their commentary with accuracy.

Ezra Levant is not a journalist; he's an entertainer, he plays a role on TV, that of the bombastic buffoon.

M. Trudeau is a lightweight who is _afraid_ to deal with tough questions about important issues from real journalists.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Sep 2014)

Changing channels on the Young Dauphin for a moment: cracking down on the "Canadians of Convienience" racket. This should play well to the Conservative "base", and perhaps some portion of immigrants who have made the effort to come here and become Canadians. I wonder how it will play to other segments of the population, and more particularly, how the other parties will react?:

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/features/2014/09/27/For-Arab-immigrants-a-Canadian-passport-and-a-GCC-job-may-no-longer-mix-.html



> *For Arab immigrants, a Canadian passport and a GCC job may no longer mix*
> 
> By Mourad Haroutunian | Special to Al Arabiya News | Toronto
> Saturday, 27 September 2014
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Oct 2014)

_*Caution*_, this is a bit of a _rant_ ...

As I have said elsewhere, M. Trudeau, quite cynically, plans to use what he is sure (and I agree) will be Canadians' general dissatisfaction, in 2015, with our contributions, however modest, to the war against IS**. His comments about the CF-18s, comparing the actions to boys measuring penis length, etc, are just plain _*insulting*_ to the men and women in the RCAF and he owes them, and all Canadians, an apology.

I want to repeat two words: _*cynically*_ and _*insulting*_; they completely sum up M. Trudeau's position.

That being said, I _suspect_ that Prime Minister Harper is joining an ill-conceived, aimless, badly led mission which will do nothing of any use and may, very likely will, backfire ~ law of unintended consequences, and all that. I don't know how to do whatever needs doing to IS**, because, obviously, I don't know what we should be doing. It's OK that I don't know, but someone, maybe someone in President Obama's entourage, ought to know, but my _guess_ is that they don't know, either.

M. Trudeau could have, should have tried to make that point. Mr Mulcair did try, sort of, but he, M. Trudeau, chose the easy, partisan route instead: cynicism and cheap shot insults. Many, many, many Canadians are going to vote for M. Trudeau and, if enough of them do, we will, once again, get the "leadership" we deserve: _*cynical*_ and _*insulting*_.


----------



## Rifleman62 (4 Oct 2014)

Do you think that if the Middle East was Christen vice Muslim, that there would be all this slaughter, rape, refuges, etc?

And yet Christians are vilified in the Western World (especially in politics), and Obama will not even use the words Muslim Terrorists, and says IS** are not Muslims.

Obama is destroying the US and and world peace, bit by bit. And Cdns want Obama North?


----------



## a_majoor (4 Oct 2014)

While I don't personally agree with the idea of Canada sending troops or equipment to directly confront ISIS (they should be the targets of Iranian blood and treasure, not ours), Prime Minister Harper must try to make the "least worst choice" where there are so many conflicting variables.

While the US is aimlessly thrashing around, we cannot sit aside and refuse to help, because there may be dire economic and diplomatic consequences downstream because of that. While many Canadians are Granola eaters, they are rightly horrified by the rise of barbarism in the Middle East and demand we "do something". Other Canadians want to put their heads in the sand. The Prime Minister also has to balance his overriding political goal of reelection in 2015 on an balanced budget with the extra expenditures needed to prosecute a war.

And that is without looking at the other war in Ukraine, unknown goings on in the DPRK, aggressive Chinese posturing in the South China Sea, Ebola......

The Young Dauphin's _*cynical*_ and _*insulting*_ actions are partially a result of his (very limited) world view, and I suspect that as the hard choices that *we* as Canadians become more and more clear, the extent that he is out of his depth and unable to function at this level will come into very sharp focus. He certainly will continue to suffer gravely from _Foot in Mouth_ disease, and at some point even his media enablers and apologists will no longer be able to cover or ignore this. If the Young Dauphin can't even deal with the Sun Media chain, it is difficult to imagine what will happen when he encounters Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping.

Frankly, from a "tactical" perspective, the Prime Minister should start showcasing Mr Mulcair during question period and whenever else is appropriate (personally answering the Opposition leaders questions, making reference to Mr Mulcair in news releases, maybe even publicly inviting Mr Mulcair to to a private meeting to discuss the war issue) in order to highlight the choices Canadians have when thinking about a leader.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Oct 2014)

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer in other words.


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Oct 2014)

Let's reflect upon the effect PET had upon Justin as he developed his personality and attitudes. Pierre Trudeau distrusted the United States and tried to draw Canada closer to other powers, including the USSR and its satellite, Cuba. Remember the Uncle Fidel crack from, I think, his brother.

It is possible he is "programmed" not in the Manchurian Candidate way, but by growing up in an environment that had a certain focus on life, so that he cannot fathom taking up arms in a coaliiton led by the US. It would take an awful lot of real exposure to the realities to even shift his mindset a brain cell or two.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Oct 2014)

I think you could go back farther than that Old Sweat.  His father was disinclined to pick up arms for any cause..... Motorcycles and German helmets.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2014)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I think you could go back farther than that Old Sweat.  His father was disinclined to pick up arms for any cause..... Motorcycles and German helmets.



I t_hink_ that, in fairness and despite my great distaste for PET and all his doing, that he came to regret this, sincerely. My _sense_ is, however, that he never lost his Quebecois xenophobia, a result of his education and his flirtations with Abbé Groulx and others, but, while in graduate school in Europe he fixed on the notion that _nationalism_, all sorts of _nationalism_, including Quebecois nationalism, was the root cause of the 20th century's manifest problems. I believe that his dislike or mistrust of the Canadian military was based on the nation that it was a 'tool' of British _nationalism_. He also saw American nationalism at (some) of its worst in the 1940s, '50s and '60s.


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Oct 2014)

Getting back to JT, there are a few possible explanations for the position he has taken. These include a crafty strategic positioning to take advantage of the national revulsion when the mission goes sour; liberal naivety with its tendency to blame the ills of the world on the west (remember his looking for the root causes line he reverts to on occasion); a belief that Canadian forces should only do peacekeeping, which in turn increases Canada's influence in the world; simplemindedness; or a genuine desire to be liked and thus a tendency to avoid doing anything offensive, except to Conservatives.

I suspect it could be a combination of two or more of the above, especially the first, second and last.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2014)

I agree, fully, with Old Sweat's analysis and here, reproduced under there Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, is Andrew Coyne's analysis of M. Trudeau's position, which he describes, being charitable, as "discreditable:"

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Coyne+Liberal+Leader+Justin+Trudeau+stance+against+Canadian/10260825/story.html


> Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s stance against Canadian combat mission in Iraq is discreditable
> 
> ANDREW COYNE, POSTMEDIA NEWS
> 
> ...




M. Trudeau's _position_ is, indeed, "discreditable," it is cynical, partisan politics at its worst ~ and it is likely to succeed. We are very likely to get the leadership, cynical and discreditable 'leadership,' that we deserve in 2015.


----------



## Remius (6 Oct 2014)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Getting back to JT, there are a few possible explanations for the position he has taken. These include a crafty strategic positioning to take advantage of the national revulsion when the mission goes sour; liberal naivety with its tendency to blame the ills of the world on the west (remember his looking for the root causes line he reverts to on occasion); a belief that Canadian forces should only do peacekeeping, which in turn increases Canada's influence in the world; simplemindedness; or a genuine desire to be liked and thus a tendency to avoid doing anything offensive, except to Conservatives.
> 
> I suspect it could be a combination of two or more of the above, especially the first, second and last.



I would add to that list.  He isn't courting conservatives.  He is courting that centrist target, disaffected NDPers and fence sitting Liberals that could vote either conservative or NDP.  He's also courting Quebec.  This will play well to them.  Quebec voters have never been fans of expeditionary adventures.  His position is just as likely based on that as well.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Oct 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> He's also courting Quebec.  This will play well to them.  Quebec voters have never been fans of expeditionary adventures.  His position is just as likely based on that as well.



Even Quebec was polling with support to air strikes against ISIS. Canada was at ~64% support, Quebec was ~53% from the Ipsos-Reid poll here: http://globalnews.ca/news/1595317/majority-of-canadians-back-use-of-fighter-jets-to-strike-isis-in-iraq/

I think JT is going to be on the losing end of this one, every town massacre, every journalist/humanitarian worker killed, makes their stance weaker and weaker. The only thing propping him up is the lefty media, and even they've started to focus more on the NDP vs Tories, as they came out against right from the start.


----------



## Old Sweat (6 Oct 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I would add to that list.  He isn't courting conservatives.  He is courting that centrist target, disaffected NDPers and fence sitting Liberals that could vote either conservative or NDP.  He's also courting Quebec.  This will play well to them.  Quebec voters have never been fans of expeditionary adventures.  His position is just as likely based on that as well.



Your comment re Quebec is certainly moot, and one that I had considered. It perhaps is a case of keeping an eye on the Quebec seats held by the NDP and the seeming demise of the BQ. It is interesting that the Liberal premier of Quebec supports the mission and has a child in the CAF.


----------



## Remius (6 Oct 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Even Quebec was polling with support to air strikes against ISIS. Canada was at ~64% support, Quebec was ~53% from the Ipsos-Reid poll here: http://globalnews.ca/news/1595317/majority-of-canadians-back-use-of-fighter-jets-to-strike-isis-in-iraq/
> 
> I think JT is going to be on the losing end of this one, every town massacre, every journalist/humanitarian worker killed, makes their stance weaker and weaker. The only thing propping him up is the lefty media, and even they've started to focus more on the NDP vs Tories, as they came out against right from the start.



I think he's taking a gamble that with every civilian hit by coalition forces and god forbid a canadian become a casualty that the support will swing his way.  Something tells me he's being heavily advised by JC (not the holy version either   )


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2014)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_¸is what _I think_ is a pretty fair assessment of the Liberal campaign strategy for 2014/2015:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/in-the-2015-election-lead-up-trudeau-positions-himself-as-the-anti-harper/article21154844/?page=all#dashboard/follows/


> In the 2015 election lead-up, Trudeau positions himself as the anti-Harper
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




I know I'm repeating myself, but: almost 20% of Canadians will vote Conservative and another 20% will vote Liberal no matter what; 15% will vote NDP and 5% will vote Green and so on ... but that means that 35%+ of Canadians can be persuaded to vote one way or the other. Not since John G Diefenbaker in the 1950s have 50%+ of Canadian voted for one political party; election are won with 35-45% of the popular vote. Forty percent is, generally, thought to equal a working majority but a majority can be had with 37%, if the vote is very _efficient_ and 42% can still produce a minority if your votes are too concentrated in specific regions. As a general rule, then, that 35% of _independent_ voters needs to split 2:1 for either the Conservatives or the Liberals. 

My _sense_ of what I read/hear is that is that Canadians really "like" M. Trudeau by about 2:1 over Prime Minister Harper, but, as some of the comments in the article suggest, it's not clear that they trust his judgment. I also _believe_ that Canadian, generally, _understand_ Prime Minister Harper; they don't like him very much but they know what to expect; my _guess_ is that Canadians don't, yet, "get" M. Trudeau; they like him, he's a very nice young man, but they aren't sure about his abilities.

There's one other factor: age. Older people vote; younger people don't bother. Prime Minister Harper is more popular with older people, M. Trudeau is more popular with younger people.

I _think_ running away from policies - strong suits for both Prime Minister Harper and M. Mulcair - is a good tactic, for now. But, later in 2015 I think the Liberals must go head-to-head with both the CPC and the NDP on policy and I also _think_ that both the CPC and NDP are, already depriving the Liberals of several useful policy planks. He is, as _The Star_ suggests, "getting squeezed from left and right."


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2014)

An interesting _infographic_ provided (via _Twitter_) by journalist david Akin:L






If th same _rates[/.i] apply in the coming year then the election in Oct 25 might look something like this: 

BQ:     5%
Cons: 33%
Libs:  29%
NDP:  27% _


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Oct 2014)

While the following quote relates to the Winnipeg civic election, it may illustrate why the Libs might have an uphill fight:



> ...does not plan to vote in the upcoming election, but she wants to.
> 
> “I want to vote for this one dude because he came and knocked on my door. He seemed pretty sweet but I can’t remember his name,” she said.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Oct 2014)

Sometimes you just want to go door to door and punch people in the face.

That same bovine creature who could not even muster up enough brain cells to remember a candidate's name or go and vote will be screaming long and loud about how she disagrees with/hates what the government is doing in 2016....


----------



## Infanteer (19 Oct 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> An interesting _infographic_ provided (via _Twitter_) by journalist david Akin:L
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_

I'm trying to remember what occured in the 2011-12 timeline that impacted the Liberals - attack adds?_


----------



## a_majoor (19 Oct 2014)

The attack adds were a big part of it ("Just Visiting" was pretty damning), but the lack of any sort of coordinated Liberal messaging really killed them. Do you remember anything about the Liberal platform? Even Stephan Dion's "Green Shift" was more coherent and actually stood for something (and most people can remember it as well).

Since the Liberals _still_ don't have any message or coherent platform, squeezing them from the Left and Right makes perfect sense (after all, when the Liberals finally come up with something, it will simply look like trying to "me too" the CPC or NDP platform). The Young Dauphin's constant "Foot in Mouth" will also do more to hurt the Liberal's credibility than anything the other parities can do, eventually he will have made enough gaffes that even the most "severely normal" and non partisan Canadian will realize just how out of touch and out of depth the Young Dauphin really is.


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Oct 2014)

Ah, well the Media Party will take care of Trudeau, and in a different way Harper. 

Three examples  below. Plus a bonus, the new Chatelaine magazine issue has a fawning feature on Mr. T, and tonight CTV W5 will do the same. Sickening.

http://abearsrant.com/2014/10/the-conservative-obsession.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ABearsRant+%28A+Bear%27s+Rant%29

*Justin Trudeau – Much Ado About Nothing* - 19 Oct 14

Excerpts:

There has been more talk about Canada’s Peter Pan for the past sixteen months and a bit than any other politician or political topic. A quick search of “Justin Trudeau” on Google returned 2.45 million hits compared to only 878, 000 for Stephen Harper who is not only Canada’s Prime Minister but who has been in the public eye about four times longer than Trudeau. Indeed, pick a subject and even if Trudeau isn’t a part of it, his detractors and supporters alike will find some way to weave him into it.

More than 20,000 news stories and commentary have been published about Justin Trudeau in four of Canada’s major newspapers and on three television networks alone over the past two years. I know this because I ran a search for both Stephen Harper and Justin Trudeau on each of their websites. The total number of stories and commentary about Trudeau works out to an average of 27 a day although to be honest, some days have fewer than others. Add to that local newspapers, radio commentary and magazine articles and you begin to wonder how we find time for anything or anyone else.



http://bcblue.wordpress.com/2014/10/
*
Trudeau outs Media Party members for helping write his ‘memoir’ *- 18 Oct 14

The Media Party is in full-campaign mode pimping Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s memoir with fawning, fluff interviews but the Star’s Susan Delacourt may have slipped up with this gem:



> The actual writing of the book was a group effort. Trudeau sat down with various interviewers (including the National Post’s Jonathan Kay), and then the taped recollections were sorted by editors and advisers.


(see here)

So, either Trudeau ‘stole’ these Media Party members’ news material which, led by the CBC is colluding to keep from the Conservatives (see here), or they gave it willingly to help him ‘write’ this book.

Also: See earlier post where Kay goes out of his way to smear Sun News after they dared to expose Trudeau campaigning in an extremist mosque here


http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/untitled-yet---.html#more

*Yes, Virginia, there is a Media Party *- October 18, 2014

This is aardvarking unbelievable.

The online webpage of Toronto newspaper the Star is running a free 4-minute promo-piece/campaign ad for Justin Trudeau that auto-plays when you click on the link to what appears to be a newspaper article.

The blatant campaign ad - because that's what it is - is titled "Justin Trudeau's intimate conversation with Susan Delacourt". It's a curious title, because Delacourt is not seen or heard once in the entire four minute promo piece, which has on-screen chapter headings, brief moments showing Trudeau reading from his own memoir, and a video-scrapbook of lovingly presented images, processed with the Ken Burns effect, set to Trudeau's practiced, pandering voiceover.

This raises some serious questions.

How much did the Star pay for the production of this very professional looking, thinly-veiled campaign ad masquerading as an adjunct to an article about Trudeau's memoir? Does the Star have its own paid highly professional video/film production team on standby capable of making such a polished piece, or did they pay an outside production company to make it?

One would have to assume for the unknowing moment that the Liberal Party didn't produce or pay for it, or for any part of it, and that the Star didn't use or consult with even one single member of Trudeau's team to help write or craft or produce the video. But the Star broadcast it on the internet for free, with no trace of any reportage, or any commentary other than Trudeau's, under the guise of a "News / Insight" article. In doing so, is the Star acting as a journalistic organization, or as a member of Trudeau's election team?

If a news organization broadcasta over the internet a fawning, hagiographic puff-piece-slash-campaign ad, with a cloying, saccharine, daytime TV- music soundtrack, what does it say about the impartiality and quality of the rest of their "news" reporting?

Welcome to the Media Party Consortium's current modus operandi: Networks collude behind-the-scenes to try to keep paid Conservative ads off the airwaves if the ads use even one second of footage of Justin Trudeau. Almost simultaneously, scores of pundits, many of them from the print divisions of those same broadcast organizations, decry and vilify Conservative attempts to solidify long-standing legal precedents of fair usage of such footage. Now, a national newspaper broadcasts over the internet, and almost certainly produces and pays for, a clip that gives every appearance of being little more than an extended Justin Trudeau ad.

Anyone see a pattern here?


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Oct 2014)

"What a pleasant young man.  Let's appoint him to make important decisions affecting our lives."

Does the preceding describe your thinking?  Then please recuse yourself from voting, ever.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Oct 2014)

I routinely suggest that, on matters of foreign and defence policy, we should treat the _Globe and Mail's_ Jeffrey Simpson's views with a grain of salt, but that we can trust his views on Canadian politics - a field in which he is very well versed. It is also a generally accepted fact that Mr. Simpson is not a huge fan of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. But, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, are his thoughts, a full year out, on what he thinks _*might*_, indeed *can* happen in a fall 2015 general election:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/harpers-demise-is-greatly-exaggerated/article21294082/#dashboard/follows/?=2


> Harper’s demise is greatly exaggerated
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...



Many commentators, including Mr. Simpson and his colleague Lawrence Martin at the _Good Grey Globe_, and Paul Wells at _Maclean's_, have suggested that Prime Minister Harper's aim, for the past decade plus, has been, and remains, to make Canada a much more _conservative_ country. I would agree and I would also suggest that he has succeeded. I doubt that M. Trudeau can "do a Chrétien," essentially 'write off' most of the West and even much of Quebec and _sweep_ Ontario as he did in 1993 (winning 98 of 99 seats in Ontario), 1997 (101 of 103 seats) and, again, in 2000 (winning 100 of 103 seats there). The 'Harper Conservatives' are not the 'Manning Reform Party.' The Conservatives have made real, solid gains in rural and suburban Ontario, probably as close to permanent gains as one can imagine in Canadian politics.

I _think_ that the Conservatives have, _*willingly*_, lost ground in both Atlantic Canada and Quebec. I can well imagine that they could be _swept_ out of almost all their seats in both regions. I _think_ it is likely that they will end up with less than 15 seats in the five eastern provinces (down from the 20 or so they hold today). I think they will hold most of the 70+ seats they know hold West of Ontario and gain some of the 12 new seats, too. That brings the Conservatives to, say, 90+ seats. Ontario will have 121 seats in 2015. The CPC currently holds over 70 of them. If they have 95 seats in Canada beyond Ontario they need to win 75 of the 121 in Ontario to form a bare majority. That's a big task, even a daunting one.

The tasks for both Opposition Leader Thomas Mulcair and M. Trudeau are even more daunting. M. Mulcair must _advance_ from 100_ish_ to 170 and M. Trudeau must add 135+ seats to the ones he currently holds ... 135 seats he must win away from the BQ (not too hard), the Conservatives and the NDP.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Oct 2014)

Although your election math seems correct, I wonder if the CPC could play a spoiler role in Atlantic Canada and Quebec by aggressive campaigning there? Or is the more certain path to leave the field for a punishing Liberal/NDP cage match instead?

Spreading the Fog of War in these regions might have certain advantages for the CPC, and is a tactic they may be considering (although I would have to think very long and hard about how this would work and what the expected results should be).


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Oct 2014)

Although some recent polls have suggested that the CPC can be/even will be 'shout out' of Atlantic Canada, I believe that is too optimistic or pessimistic - according to your own political point of view. I think my math  (15 seats, maybe even more) East of the Ottawa River and 75+ seats West of Ontario. That makes it a "_battle of Ontario_."

121 seats at stake. 

If I'm right, and I concede it's a *Big IF* then the CPC has the easiest task of the three: win 70 of those 121 seats.

The Liberals and the NDP must, first, battle it out in Quebec and Atlantic Canada (78+10+4+11+7=110 seats of which _I believe_ 95 are _available_ for the other parties) and my current _guess_ is that they _*might*_ split something like this:

Region   BQ   CPC   Lib   NDP   Others
_*Quebec*_  10     5      25    35        3     = 78
_*Atlantic*_   0    10     11    11       0      = 32

If the CPC can , indeed, take 75 of the 104 seats West of Ontario then that leaves the Greens, Liberals and NDP with only 29 to divide. lets give the Greens the 1 they have (Elizabeth May's) and the Liberals 14 and the NDP 14. After giving one territorial to each of the three major parties, that brings them to:

CPC     91 )                        needs    78 of 121 seats to win a bare majority
LPC     51 )   _Headed into_    needs 118 of 121 seats  "    "   "    "        "
NDP    61 )   _Ontario (121)_  needs 108 of 121    "      "    "   "    "        "
Others 14 )


Edit: typo


----------



## cryco (25 Oct 2014)

what makes you think the BQ will get 10 seats? they're in shambles now.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Oct 2014)

cryco said:
			
		

> what makes you think the BQ will get 10 seats? they're in shambles now.



The NDP victory in Quebec is an aberration. The BQ will be back. Personally, I think that 10 seats is to low, I predict at least 20.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Oct 2014)

I think that, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, M. Trudeau may have just given himself yet another self inflicted wound:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/income-splitting-leave-it-to-trudeau/article21293240/


> Leave it to Trudeau
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Let's go back to my "numbers game." I gave the Liberal and the NDP most of Atlantic Canada, almost all of Quebec and good slices of Ontario and British Columbia. In fact, I'm going to concede ALL the seats in urban Montreal (about 30 of 78 seats), Toronto/Ottawa/Hamilton/London (50) and Vancouver (20) to the Liberals and the NDP, that's 100 of the 150+ seats I was already conceding to them. But, it is the suburbs that matter and people in the suburbs are, broadly and generally, not amongst the "half of Canadians [who] already get more income from government transfers than they pay in income tax." That half, the _*dependent*_ half, live, disproportionately in dense urban ridings or they have other concerns which may make them ripe for Conservative policies and programmes. In other words, I think M. Trudeau is singing to the choir.


Memo to Justin:




You've already won Toronto, you need to win in Kelowna and Red Deer,
in Swift Current and Brandon, and in Pickering and Ajax, and in Fredericton
and Fundy-Royal, too ... places where income splitting, for example, is going
to be popular.

In short, you need to win here ...




 ... I'm not sure you have a ghost of a chance.


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Oct 2014)

You raise a good point. When we see these polls all we know for sure is that 1000 or so folks were polled nationwide. What we don't know is the distribution. I wager that these calls happen more often in the urban ridings than in the rural ones. That, in itself, is enough to skew the results. If, as you say the Liberals and NDP have already won the "downtown" (and I'll give you that), then the distribution of the polling calls would necessarily reflect that.


----------



## cryco (27 Oct 2014)

Justin Trudeau is doing what no other liberal leader in the past has been able to do: Push me to vote conservative.
Income splitting would be a godsend for me (wife's at home, i make the dough). Combine it with his lack of support for Harper's move to send some military assistance in the middle east and lastly, his oh so f**@#ng annoying theatrical way of speaking and tada!


----------



## RangerRay (27 Oct 2014)

I am not sure what to make of polls now.  We have had several instances in recent years of polls not lining up with the results (BC, Alberta, Calgary, Winnipeg, etc,. etc., etc.) that I am really starting to question the methodology of modern polling (or polling conducted in modern times).  Now, more than ever, I agree that "polls are for dogs".


----------



## a_majoor (27 Oct 2014)

The comedy practically writes itself:

The Young Dauphin says he is "going to help the middle class", then talks about preemptively raising taxes and taking away income splitting: the Young Dauphin kicks the middle class right in the teeth.

Then again, the Young Dauphin does not know what the middle class actually is, so this is no surprise...


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Oct 2014)

I fondly remember when Liberals were howling about the Conservatives' failure to uphold a 0.5% slice of income tax announced by Liberals in the throes of election foreplay.  I like their sense of integrity.


----------



## MilEME09 (30 Oct 2014)

So in a recent article Jason Fekete of the Ottawa citizen says the federal government decided not to spend $7 Billion of its own funding, including $1 billion from DND, $7 billion can make for a lot of incentives to throw around pre election.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Oct 2014)

Not spending $7 billion makes it easier to come in and present a balanced budget. I suspect the speading of pre election "goodies" will be rather restrained in order to reinforce the message (we are good budget managers), and the main offer to the electorate won't be Government programs but rather a tax cut (maybe a $7 billion tax cut   ).

Considering that the average Canadian household spends @ 40% of their income* on government fees and taxes (more than they do on food, fuel or housing), a broad based tax cut will be apprieciated by the middle class, and I expect to see something along these lines in the CPC platform.

* _I have seen different numbers from various sources, ranging from 40 to 45% of income. The diference probably has a lot to do with what sorts of metrics are being used, but even 40% is far too high_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Nov 2014)

And here is a reason to not go to the polls earlier than Oct 15: Mac Harb to go to trial Aug. 10 on fraud, breach of trust charges.

Retired senator Harb still has an opportunity to do a similar (à la Dead Del Mastro) great service to his party by pleading guilty ... otherwise his trial will provide lots of fodder for _Liberals are all crooks_ attack ads ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2014)

_The Economist_ has a good wrap-up of the recent US mid-term elections, here. This is extracted from that newspaper and amended just slightly:



> The answer is that although the economic headlines look good, voters do not feel that way. Median incomes are in the doldrums and many households feel terribly insecure about the future. A staggering two-thirds of Americans _Canadians_ expect their children to be worse off than they are. And when they look at Washington, DC _Ottawa_, to see what their political leaders are doing about it, they see a circus of name-calling and irresponsibility ... The proportion of Americans _Canadians_ who trust it is a wretched 7%. It may be harsh, but when voters think the country is on the wrong track, the president _prime minister_ and his party get the blame.



Prime Minister Harper is not, in any respect, immune to the popular discontent that we see in the USA.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Nov 2014)

The Professional Institute of the Public Service, the contradictorily named 'union' of 'professionals' has decide to campaign against Prime Minister Harper's government according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Global News_:

http://globalnews.ca/news/1660829/union-of-federal-scientists-professionals-to-campaign-against-harper-tories/


> Union of federal scientists, professionals to campaign against Harper Tories
> 
> By Staff
> The Canadian Press
> ...




My _"spidey senses"_ tell me that the Conservatives are both *a)* ready for this, and *b)* going to use it as a weapon against the Public Service, which, despite itself and the good work it does for Canadians, is neither much liked nor respected.


----------



## Remius (8 Nov 2014)

My spider sense tells me we might be seeing a slew of third party advertising like we saw I the recent Ontario election.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (8 Nov 2014)

I missed the war on labour unions.  I don't think attacks from labour unions could do anything other than firm up the core Conservative support.  How many of the 38 % necessary to elect a Conservative majority would change their vote because of whining public service unions.  The exact number is none.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Prime Minister Harper is not, in any respect, immune to the popular discontent that we see in the USA.




But, there is a reason for the discontent in the USA.

Look at this _infographic_ from the _New York Times_:






Canadian middle class, suburban, voters ought to be a lot less unhappy then their American confrères.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Nov 2014)

Ought to be, but since that does not fit the "narrative", don't expect celebratory reports in the media, academia or left wing think tanks.

This is probably the most pernicious problem with the modern political scene; "narratives". Looking at the real facts and figures, it is difficult to see the world of the "narrative" (from any side) being reflected in reality. Guns, crime, economic growth, employment figures, immigration...you'd think these headlines are being beamed in from a different planet (or maybe an alternate universe).


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2014)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Ought to be, but since that does not fit the "narrative", don't expect celebratory reports in the media, academia or left wing think tanks.
> 
> This is probably the most pernicious problem with the modern political scene; "narratives". Looking at the real facts and figures, it is difficult to see the world of the "narrative" (from any side) being reflected in reality. Guns, crime, economic growth, employment figures, immigration...you'd think these headlines are being beamed in from a different planet (or maybe an alternate universe).




But those "facts and figures" are being bandied about, with equal dishonesty _spin_ by both sides: liberals and conservatives.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (9 Nov 2014)

Crantor said:
			
		

> My spider sense tells me we might be seeing a slew of third party advertising like we saw I the recent Ontario election.



Nope. There's a spending cap on how much people/organizations can spend on political advertising during a federal election. Now, prior to the election that a different story.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2014)

This, from _CBC News_: "TTC union vows to make next federal election the 'transit election'" could be interesting. There are about 25 seats in the Toronto area that are served by the TTC ... out of 338. Currently the CCP has a bit more than ⅓ of them the remainder are fairly evenly split between the Liberals and the NDP.

Transit IS an issue ... in several cities. But John Tory and Kathleen Wynne both just won elections is which transit was a major issue. I _suspect _ this issues can be made to work in some urban areas, but it is not clear to me that it will,help or hinder any particular party, especially in a federal election.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Nov 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This, from _CBC News_: "TTC union vows to make next federal election the 'transit election'" could be interesting. There are about 25 seats in the Toronto area that are served by the TTC ... out of 338. Currently the CCP has a bit more than ⅓ of them the remainder are fairly evenly split between the Liberals and the NDP.
> 
> Transit IS an issue ... in several cities. But John Tory and Kathleen Wynne both just won elections is which transit was a major issue. I _suspect _ this issues can be made to work in some urban areas, but it is not clear to me that it will,help or hinder any particular party, especially in a federal election.



Largely because the House is so badly skewed.  Each riding in PEI represents less than 35,000 citizens (a little more if you include Kanata North in the calculations, right, Senator Duffy?); Brampton represents 170,000 - nearly 5x as many.  Urban Canada is grossly under-represented.  Put a more equal footing in place, and urban issues will suddenly get a lot more traction - and the usurious supply management systems will crumble and fall.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2014)

The TTC union thing suggests the "Progressive" elements in Canadian politics have learned (or for that matter, are being coached) from the Democrats and their tactic of slicing and dicing the electorate into mini constituencies. Yes TO is only a few seats in a 300+ seat house, but if you apply the same logic to all other ridings and demographics, pitching whatever the "issue de jour" is for _that_ demographic and using as much money and influence as possible to drown out other messages and counter narratives, then you may be able to pull in enough votes and win enough ridings to take the election.

Now the down side of this is many of these groups now feel entitled because they are part of the ruling coalition, but will discover they are disposable if they are up against another part of the ruling coalition with more clout. (This is the other half of the reason the Republicans swept the mid terms; there were enough Democrat sub groups who felt snubbed and didn't come out to vote this election cycle).

In this regard, I now see the lack of any visible platform for the Liberals as being a tactical advantage; the Young Dauphin simply needs to learn not to speak (otherwise he comes off as frighteningly uninformed and out of his depth) and the various sub electorates being courted by special interest groups like the TTC union will write their own narrative. Of course the feeling of being used and discarded will still apply post election, but there may be less blowback when people realize there actually isn't any promise they can point to.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Nov 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This, from _CBC News_: "TTC union vows to make next federal election the 'transit election'" could be interesting. There are about 25 seats in the Toronto area that are served by the TTC ... out of 338. Currently the CCP has a bit more than ⅓ of them the remainder are fairly evenly split between the Liberals and the NDP.
> 
> Transit IS an issue ... in several cities. But John Tory and Kathleen Wynne both just won elections is which transit was a major issue. I _suspect _ this issues can be made to work in some urban areas, but it is not clear to me that it will,help or hinder any particular party, especially in a federal election.



Makes me wonder though. TO has the ability to steamroll the rest of the province in a provincial election. I don't think that they have the capability to do the same in a country wide election. The hate for TO is pretty universal across the country.


----------



## CougarKing (13 Nov 2014)

An election come March or April?

Andy Radia politics column/Yahoo News



> *Positive poll numbers for the Harper Conservatives could mean an early election*
> By Andy Radia | Canada Politics – 23 hours ago
> 
> There’s been a lot of chatter lately about the possibility of the Harper Conservatives calling an early election.
> ...


----------



## McG (13 Nov 2014)

And another lobby group declares its intent to fight the Conservatives in the next election.  This one wants serving service members to join its cause.


> *Veterans want military on side [to bring Conservative defeat in next election]*
> Murray Brewster
> The Chronicle-Herald
> 13 Nov 2014
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Nov 2014)

While I am not insensitive to the plight of injured veterans (my wife has been in a running battle with VAC and SISIP for several years now, which is very stressful for both of us), I hardly imagine that any of the other 19 political parties registered by Elections Canada will be more receptive or even interested in defense matters than the current government (i.e., not much more than is absolutely necessary).

Looking at the past platforms and statements (or lack thereof) of the major parties, I would suggest that *we* would be even worse off under a Liberal, NDP or Green government, and that includes the injured veterans. Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Nov 2014)

The _veterans' industry_ has the bit between its teeth, it can smell blood ... brains and critical thinking are left far, far behind.

(I repeat: I think the New Veterans' Charter is *immoral* ... not, necessarily, because of what it offers but because of how and when it was introduced. Every single member of the CF serving or who had served prior to or on 13 May 2006, when the NVC was given royal assent, should have been 'grandfathered' and, at least, given a choice of electing 'old' or 'new' benefits. We were in the middle of a (small) shooting war; it is fundamentally wrong to fiddle with such benefits when men are fighting and being wounded. That being said, I think the veterans of World War II - a hugely politically powerful cohort - voted themselves (aided by their parents and aunts and wives and so on) a 'sweetheart deal' back around 1947 when the now 'old' benefits package took effect. Veterans are _special_ but they do not have an unlimited claim on the public purse.)


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Nov 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _veterans' industry_ has the bit between its teeth, it can smell blood ... brains and critical thinking are left far, far behind.
> 
> (I repeat: I think the New Veterans' Charter is *immoral* ... not, necessarily, because of what it offers but because of how and when it was introduced. Every single member of the CF serving or who had served prior to or on 13 May 2006, when the NVC was given royal assent, should have been 'grandfathered' and, at least, given a choice of electing 'old' or 'new' benefits. We were in the middle of a (small) shooting war; it is fundamentally wrong to fiddle with such benefits when men are fighting and being wounded. That being said, I think the veterans of World War II - a hugely politically powerful cohort - voted themselves (aided by their parents and aunts and wives and so on) a 'sweetheart deal' back around 1947 when the now 'old' benefits package took effect. Veterans are _special_ but they do not have an unlimited claim on the public purse.)



I would add that it was introduced by the Liberals in such a way as to be a political trap for the other parties, particularly the Torries. How could they possibly vote against something that was championed as an improvement, and maintain their "support for the troops" position. A poisoned political pill that all parties had to vote for; veterans were a distant third consideration. Debt reduction and cost control was the second; and sticking it to the opposition parties was the first. It was such an effective strategy that Harper now gets the lion's share of the blame.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Nov 2014)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I would add that it was introduced by the Liberals in such a way as to be a political trap for the other parties, particularly the Torries. How could they possibly vote against something that was championed as an improvement, and maintain their "support for the troops" position. A poisoned political pill that all parties had to vote for; veterans were a distant third consideration. Debt reduction and cost control was the second; and sticking it to the opposition parties was the first. It was such an effective strategy that Harper now gets the lion's share of the blame.




Quite correct: Albina Guarnieri was the Minister of Veterans' Affairs in Paul Martin's cabinet when she introduced the NVC. It is the Liberal Party's 'gift' to vets ... most of whose "leaders" are too bloody thick to understand that.


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Nov 2014)

It may have been the gift of the Liberal party but the CPC has had their hands on the tiller since 06.  They have had plenty of time to take any corrective action they deemed necessary to address shortfalls.  Fair or not, I believe they have not done anything substantial to make the equation any better for the rank and file.  Just their bottom line as always the next election is what they have their eyes upon.  Talk is, as they say, cheap.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Nov 2014)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It may have been the gift of the Liberal party but the CPC has had their hands on the tiller since 06.  They have had plenty of time to take any corrective action they deemed necessary to address shortfalls.  Fair or not, I believe they have not done anything substantial to make the equation any better for the rank and file.  Just their bottom line as always the next election is what they have their eyes upon.  Talk is, as they say, cheap.


As you say, it _may_ have belonged to the liberals initially, but ownership has passed to the CPC. One has to look no further than the installation of that bumbling bureaucrat Fantino, who's obfuscation, ignorance, ego, thick skin and insensitivity know no bounds.

IMHO, he was given the portfolio to be a voluntary lightning rod. He knows his job, and that is to deflect, and take blame when required, to take the heat off the CPC and the PM. He follows the mantra of the current Veteran's Affairs Insurance Company, or visa versa.
  
Delay, Deny, Die.

Delay the applications. Deny when they manage to get through (revert to stage one). If all else fails, wait till the applicant Dies.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Nov 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Albina Guarnieri was the Minister of Veterans' Affairs in Paul Martin's cabinet when she introduced the NVC. It is the Liberal Party's 'gift' to vets ... most of whose "leaders" are too bloody thick to understand that.


And, as others have beat me to say, a Conservative government doesn't look like, even when in a majority position, it's done much about it since 2006.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Nov 2014)

I'm not arguing that the CPC now owns the policy. I did argue, several years ago, that it was time to trash the NVC, blame the _Liberals_ for being cruel to veterans, and start afresh, but the _Conservatives_ elected to stay with it ... in some part, I am persuaded, because the political centre, PCO, Finance and Treasury Board, all think it is both _fair_ policy and good money management.

I don't dispute either contention ... it was, it remains, the timing that bothers me most.

I still, eight years on, think there is time to amend the policy to _protect_ all those who were serving before 13 May 2006 ... it would cost money but, _politically_, it might be money well spent.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Nov 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I still, eight years on, think there is time to amend the policy to _protect_ all those who were serving before 13 May 2006 ... it would cost money but, _politically_, *it might be money well spent*.


Agreed, wholeheartedly - we'll see if the right thing gets done.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Nov 2014)

I don't care if it's an obvious and blatant attempt to put Vets back onside before the vote.

As long as it gets done and is solidified before the vote.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Nov 2014)

One things that's important to understand, especially for "leaders" of social policy advocacy groups ~ which most certainly includes veterans ~ is that there is no policy, no matter how well crafted and generous, that will not _screw_ someone. It is in the very nature of all social policies.

My _sense_, which may not be well enough informed, is that most veterans' advocates just want to go back to the 'old,' WWII and Korea level benefits, system. It was generous. In my _personal opinion_ is should still apply, in whole or in large part, to every veteran who enrolled in the CF prior to 13 Mar 06. What _*should *_happen to everyone else in a matter that is open for debate amongst fair minded people. Whatever system is devised should apply to everyone who *a)* enrolls on or after the day it come into effect, and _*b)*_ served before it comes into effect and who want to take advantage of its benefits. That's fair.

Deciding to _organize_ people to vote against _*this*_ government, absent firm promises from other parties, is stupid ... but I understand that's the default position of many, many (most?) veterans _leaders_.


----------



## Rifleman62 (20 Nov 2014)

A bit late to reply.

ERC, 14 Nov:



> (I repeat: I think the New Veterans' Charter is immoral ... not, necessarily, because of what it offers but because of how and when it was introduced. Every single member of the CF serving or who had served prior to or on 13 May 2006, when the NVC was given royal assent, should have been 'grandfathered' and, at least, given a choice of electing 'old' or 'new' benefits. We were in the middle of a (small) shooting war; it is fundamentally wrong to fiddle with such benefits when men are fighting and being wounded. That being said, I think the veterans of World War II - a hugely politically powerful cohort - voted themselves (aided by their parents and aunts and wives and so on) a 'sweetheart deal' back around 1947 when the now 'old' benefits package took effect. Veterans are special but they do not have an unlimited claim on the public purse.)



As I posted years ago, the Tables of Disabilities were amended effective 1 Apr 06. These new Tables, as intimated by several VAC employees are not as "generous" as the previous Tables. This was done while Cdn service people were engaged in combat.

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services/after-injury/disability-benefits/benefits-determined/table-of-disabilities/tod1995



> Introduction
> 
> The 1995 edition of the Table of Disabilities (TOD) is the instrument used by Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) to assess the extent of disability from a pensioned/entitled condition, as well as the 2006 edition.



http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services/after-injury/disability-benefits/benefits-determined/table-of-disabilities



> The old Table of Disabilities affects decisions prior to 1 Apr 06



What this means is that it is more difficult to achieve a favorable decision for disabilities caused by service in the CF.

When you receive your rejection letter for reassessment for a disability under the previous tables, it will state your condition is *grandfathered* under the criteria of the 1995 Tables implying the assessment is not within the criteria of the 2006 Tables.

What 





> ......as well as the 2006 edition.


 under the Introduction to the 1995 Tables means to me is if you were lucky to get your disability ruling prior to 1 Apr 06, you would not get the assessment under the new Tables. Additionally, for the reassessment, your disability is being assessed on the 2006 Tables, not the Tables originally assessed by, but VAC cannot take away a previous assessment, thus grandfathered. No wonder reassessments are very probably not often favorably granted.

Not only the loss of a monthly pension in favor of a insulting one time cash settlement, but difficulty meeting a less "generous" standard.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Nov 2014)

Hmmm ... _Return of the Native_?

This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is interesting:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/bill-caseys-comeback-is-bad-news-for-harper/article21720634/#dashboard/follows/


> Bill Casey’s comeback is bad news for Harper
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...








Bill Casey


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Nov 2014)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is, _I think_, bad news for the Liberals:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-ndps-poisoned-chalice/article21777679/


> The NDP’s poisoned chalice
> 
> LYSIANE GAGNON
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




First: I think Mlle.Gagnon is correct, too much _concentration_ in Quebec can be detrimental to a party in the Rest of Canada: it happened to the Liberals after the 1950s, 60s and 70s; it happened to the Conservatives after the 1980s and it will happen to the NDP, too.

But, second: unless he can do a "Chrétien 1990s" and _sweep_ Ontario (something I think is unlikely) then _I think _ Justin Trudeau must displace the NDP in Quebec ~ not totally, but, at the very least, he needs to _split Quebec_ with the NDP ... say BQ: 3; CPC: 5; LPC 35 and NDP 35.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Nov 2014)

Part 1 of 2

For background; reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Ciopyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/finance-minister-joe-oliver-on-crafting-an-election-winning-budget/article21777606/


> Finance Minister Joe Oliver on crafting an election-winning budget
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI
> The Globe and Mail
> ...



End of part 1


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Nov 2014)

Part 2 of 2



> *********************************
> 
> It’s some distance, metaphorically speaking, from Montreal’s Notre-Dame-de-Grâce neighbourhood to the corridors of Conservative power in Ottawa. If you grew up Jewish and anglophone in 1940s NDG, you were a Liberal or, in a few cases, a communist. The Olivers were Liberals. A great-uncle flirted with communism and returned to the family’s native Russia. “He was the intellectual, you see,” Oliver sniffs. “Fortunately for him, he changed his mind and returned [to Canada]—before the Second World War, which might have been terminal. My family was anti-communist. We understood the horrors.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Dec 2014)

Almost a year ago, Justin Trudeau told Canadians that he understood that “Canadians need to see that the Liberal party has understood the lessons of the past and is willing to completely reboot ... We have to offer a full reboot, and that means that every candidate for the Liberal Party in 338 ridings in 2015, or whenever the election does come, will have been chosen in a free vote by the Liberal members of that riding.”

Hmmm ... that seems to be working well for LGen (ret'd) Andrew Leslie in the Ottawa-Orléans riding where both prospective competitors for the nomination have been disqualified by the Liberal Party of Canada _machine_.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Dec 2014)

Yup,.....getting harder and harder for that "Harper is a dictator" crowd to keep the volume up.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Dec 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Almost a year ago, Justin Trudeau told Canadians that he understood that “Canadians need to see that the Liberal party has understood the lessons of the past and is willing to completely reboot ... We have to offer a full reboot, and that means that every candidate for the Liberal Party in 338 ridings in 2015, or whenever the election does come, will have been chosen in a free vote by the Liberal members of that riding.”
> 
> Hmmm ... that seems to be working well for LGen (ret'd) Andrew Leslie in the Ottawa-Orléans riding where both prospective competitors for the nomination have been disqualified by the Liberal Party of Canada _machine_.



Well.....Today.....Police had to be called in:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.

Police intervene after fight breaks out at meeting to nominate Andrew Leslie as Liberal MP candidate
Mark Kennedy, Postmedia News | December 7, 2014 | Last Updated: Dec 7 1:48 PM ET
More from Postmedia News
The National Post

Former Canadian Forces general Andrew Leslie will carry the Liberal banner in Orléans in next year’s federal election, but his nomination Saturday was marred by a chaotic and divisive scene in which police had to break up a noisy scuffle.

Leslie, an adviser to Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, was acclaimed by Liberals in Ottawa-Orléans as their candidate for the 2015 election, when the riding will be known simply as Orléans.

But the event turned into a political embarrassment for Leslie when his only rival, Ottawa lawyer David Bertschi, showed up with some angry supporters to complain that the party had acted undemocratically last month in disqualifying him from seeking the nomination.

“Shame, shame, shame,” some of those Liberals chanted as it became clear that Leslie was about to be acclaimed without a fight from his rival.

Leslie, in a speech to the tension-filled hall, urged the Liberals to put aside their differences and work together to defeat the local Conservative MP, Royal Galipeau, and the governing Tories.

“I understand that emotions are running high,” he said.

“I extend a hand of friendship to every citizen of Orléans, especially to all members of the Liberal family.”


Leslie offered to meet with anyone in the room to discuss their concerns and how he hopes to represent them.

“Today, we are a team, we are a family. Yes, there has been some tensions in the family. This is natural. It’s actually healthy. It shows that there is passion, there is fire.”

Leslie’s remarks were cheered by many Liberals who gave him a standing ovation, while others angrily sat in their seats.

Bertschi ran for the Liberals in the riding in 2011, losing to Galipeau, and also made a long-shot bid in the leadership contest won by Trudeau in 2013.

Last week, he filed an appeal with an internal Liberal Party appeal committee, challenging the party’s decision to revoke his candidacy.

Bertschi had initially been given the “green light” — approval to seek the nomination — by a committee that screens potential candidates. But last month, the Liberals’ national campaign co-chairs, Katie Telford and Dan Gagnier, wrote to Bertschi to inform him the approval had been rescinded.

Telford and Gagnier said Bertschi hadn’t complied with a plan to pay down outstanding debts from his 2013 bid for the Liberal leadership.

There was also a question about whether he had properly informed the green-light committee about a defamation action he had launched against a U.S.-based gossip website. At Saturday’s meeting, a letter from the party was read aloud to those gathered to explain the need for all potential candidates to go through background checks by the green-light committee. The room was also told that Trudeau had supported the decision of the green-light committee and had formally invoked his authority as leader to decline to approve Bertschi be a candidate.

David Bertschi, right, watches as the new Liberal candidate for Ottawa-Orleans, Andrew Leslie, speaks at his acclamation during a Liberal nomination meeting in Orleans Saturday, December 6, 2014. Bertschi was not allowed to run against Leslie.

In recent days, Bertschi called the party’s decision against him “back-room, strong-arm politics” and filed an appeal. He said that his debts were being paid down in accordance with Elections Canada rules and noted that the libel action had been abandoned.

Bertschi’s supporters were clearly unhappy about the party’s actions and shouted at the moderator of the meeting Saturday, trying to disrupt the proceedings.

“That’s what we call an open and fair nomination,” shouted one woman in ridicule of the event.

During the meeting, Bertschi stood at the side of the hall but ran into a mêlée in the middle of the room to help assist a police officer in breaking up two angry people who scuffled over a Canadian flag.

Bertschi told the Citizen the event was anti-democratic and that although he is a long-time Liberal, he is now “leaving my options open” on whether to support the party because Trudeau has informed him in a letter that he is not prepared to let him run in any riding.

“This is not the Liberal party I have been part of my whole life and I’m disappointed,” said Bertschi. “I’m numb. I believe in democracy.”

Judith Holtzhauer, an angry member of the Liberal party, tears up her membership card as the the new Liberal candidate for Ottawa-Orleans, Andrew Leslie, speaks at his acclamation during a Liberal nomination meeting in Orleans Saturday, December 6, 2014.

Judith Holtzhauer, who said she has voted Liberal for the past 40 years, ripped up her Liberal party membership card and threw it at Leslie’s feet as he left the stage after delivering his speech.

“This is unbelievably undemocratic,” she told the Citizen.

“There are many of us who perhaps would have voted for him if we had a democratic process. But to have somebody parachuted in, it’s just not a possibility.”

In his speech, Leslie spoke of the need to defeat Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Conservative government and also provide strong representation to the voters of Orléans.

“Why don’t you live here?” someone from the crowd fired back.

“Go back to Rockcliffe,” shouted another.

Leslie acknowledged to the crowd that he doesn’t live in the riding, but said he is an “Ottawa East boy.

“I’ve been around the world a couple of times. I’ve fought for my country. I believe in public service and Orléans is where I belong.”

Leslie was led out of the hall accompanied by supporters and as uniformed police officers kept watch on the adjoining hallways.

At a news conference after the event, he said nominations can sometimes get emotional and that about just 10% of those in the hall had expressed their “displeasure.”

He said his main task now is to reach out and bring people together into “one cohesive group.”

Leslie said he lives about three kilometres outside the riding he hopes to represent as an MP — a home he moved to after leaving the Canadian Forces — but that he is certainly “open” to someday moving directly into the riding.

He said he believes he could have beaten Bertschi had there been a contest, and that he still believes it was an open nomination because everyone had to go through the green light committee.

“I have faith in the Liberal party and the mechanisms they have in place to process the nomination (of) candidates,” said Leslie.

“I’m a team player. I firmly believe in the leadership of Justin Trudeau. He has been very clear that yes, open and transparent nominations — but as well that there is a rigorous process that you go through to be declared a candidate.”

“It turned out in the end that I was the only one that had all the conditions for the green light process.”

Trudeau named Leslie to his panel of foreign affairs advisers last year. In February, Leslie, 56, said he had been courted by several parties to run for office, though he wouldn’t say which ones.

He is now considered a star candidate for the Liberals, who want to present Canadian voters with a strong “team” in next year’s election that can easily be turned into a credible cabinet if Trudeau becomes prime minister.

=================================================================

Gen. Andrew Leslie’s frank talk suggests the Liberals’ foreign policy shibboleths are on their last legs

Retired lieutenant-general Andrew Leslie was last seen making Conservative and Sun News heads explode with criticisms of Israel’s “indiscriminate” and “dumb” bombing of civilians in Gaza. But on Saturday at the general meeting of the Liberals’ Ontario wing in Markham, during a foreign policy session for delegates, Mr. Leslie did not talk like a man on a leash.

He did cede a question on Gaza to co-panelist Kirsty Duncan, the Liberals’ international development critic. But on Canada’s shuttered embassy in Tehran, he suggested the Conservatives aren’t just uninterested in diplomacy, but hope to “exacerbate [the] situation … as a way to either anger or get excited their base.” And on radicalized young men shipping out to fight for ISIS, he called it “a tragedy for [the] families that have lost their young men.” He stressed ISIS’s barbarism has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. And he even dared mention the need to “deal with some of the root causes — disaffection, disenfranchisement, whatever it might be.”

Read More


[/quote]

Videos and more on LINK.



If this is not outright dictatorship on the part of Justin Trudeau and the discarding of democracy by the Lieberal Party; then what is it?


----------



## a_majoor (21 Dec 2014)

And now a change of pace: Australian humorous comic Oglaf has a fun 3 page cartoon about elections here

Enjoy


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Dec 2014)

This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ plows familiar ground:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/harper-must-aim-for-a-majority-or-bust-in-2015/article22173514/


> Harper must aim for a majority or bust in 2015
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I agree with Campbell Clark that a CPC _*minority*_ cannot last too long, for the reasons he states. I also agree that the CPC is very, very weak in "old Canada," Atlantic Canada and Quebec.

I disagree with the whole notion of a "majority" of Canadian votes being, somehow, necessary to govern "legitimately." The last time any Canadian party polled more than 50% was in 1984, 40 years ago, when Brian Mulroney did it. Before that it was John Diefenbaker in 1958 when Diefenbaker, also a Conservative, by the way, got 53% of the vote ... but I cannot ever recall anyone suggesting that Pierre Trudeau or Jean Chrétien were less than legitimate leaders because they governed with 35 to 45% of the vote, maybe it's because they were Liberals and approved by the _Laurentian consensus_.

Anyway, Mr Harper can win by focusing on the big city suburbs and small cities in Ontario, the prairies cities and BC. He needs to pander to those middle class voters as the _guardian_ of their bank accounts.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Dec 2014)

There may be a case to be made that even a Conservative minority government might still be a win. If the opposition were to cause the government to fall shortly after the election, they might pay the price at the polls. That being said, the Conservatives would have to recognize they are doing poorly going into the vote, and hold the NDP and Liberals to ruling out the possibility of coalition. They can then recycle the other leaders' comments in the next round. While the GG could call on the opposition to form the government, he may be reluctant to if their previously stated positions gave the electorate the opposing view.

That being said, a minority government would certainly spell the end of Mr Harper's time as party leader, but that is going to happen anyhow after the next vote. I don't see him lasting much longer than late 2016 or early 2017 in any event. A minority government might just advance that timetable some.

One of the things that the Harper HatersTM forget is that he is a consummate political tactician and far smarter and better at the game than they give him credit for.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Dec 2014)

Bill Davis managed to survive being reduced to a minority (twice) by playing the NDP off against the Liberals.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Dec 2014)

Mixed blessings in this Christmas Season ... journalist/commentator, and Army.ca member/contributor David Akin suggests that Prime Minister Harper is not thinking about turkey and mistletoe, he's pondering the warnings in this editorial in _The Economist_ which ends by saying that:

     _"The political scene is also different, and not in a good way. At the end of the 1990s most people in the rich world had enjoyed the
      fruits of the boom: median American wages rose by 7.7% in real terms in 1995-2000. Since 2007, by contrast, they have been flat in
      America, and have fallen in Britain and much of the euro zone. All over the rich world voters are already grumpy with their governments,
      as polling numbers and their willingness to vote for protest parties show. If they are squeezed next year discontent will turn to anger.
      The economics of 2015 may look similar to the late 1990s, but the politics will probably be rather worse."_

On the brighter side, however, prime Minsiter Harper can look at this story from the _Globe and Mail_ which says that:

     _"The governing Conservative Party has taken a slim lead over the Liberals, according to a new poll that also found a “sizeable” improvement
      in public sentiment toward Prime Minister Stephen Harper."_


----------



## Rifleman62 (23 Dec 2014)

Can you see  Justin Trudeau on the "World's Stage" ? 

I can't.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Dec 2014)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Can you see  Justin Trudeau on the "World's Stage" ?
> 
> I can't.



Indeed. If he is afraid to talk to Sun Media correspondents, one can only imagine how he thinks he is going to deal with Vladimir Putin and the like.


----------



## Kilo_302 (30 Dec 2014)

The current government's biggest problem is themselves. Here's another example of their approach of ideology before evidence further alienating them from reality.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/12/30/greenspan-doob-stephen-harpers-scary-crime-bluster/

From the article:





> "Some believe that offenders learn from imprisonment that “crime does not pay.” This, too, is wrong. Published research — some of it Canadian and produced by the federal government — demonstrates that imprisonment, if anything, increases the likelihood of reoffending. For example, a recent study of 10,000 Florida inmates released from prison demonstrated that they were more likely subsequently to reoffend (47% reoffended in 3 years) than an almost perfectly equivalent group of offenders who were lucky enough to be sentenced to probation (37% reoffended).
> 
> Crime and punishment issues are far too complex and far too serious to allow the national debate to be dominated by dishonest platforms and slogans. False promises are often convincing. Whether those offering them are dishonest or ignorant matters little: Conservative crime policies will not make Canadians safer."



It's great to "feel" things: Anger, fear, satisfaction that a criminal is being punished. But these things a rational policy do not make.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Dec 2014)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The current government's biggest problem is themselves. Here's another example of their approach of ideology before evidence further alienating them from reality.
> 
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/12/30/greenspan-doob-stephen-harpers-scary-crime-bluster/
> 
> ...



There's only a 10% gap for re-offence between the incarcerated and probation groups. Of those two groups 53% and 63%, respectively don't reoffend at all. In my mind 10% is no more than a statistical fudge factor. Especially when they sight, "an almost* perfectly* equivalent group of offenders". They are either equivalent or not and if they're not, "perfectly'' is a useless word and should not be included. However it is, in order to lend credence to those that wish to squew things in their favour.

Besides which, it's based on the US penal system that can't even be remotely compared to ours.

Nice try though.


----------



## Kilo_302 (30 Dec 2014)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There's only a 10% gap for re-offence between the incarcerated and probation groups. Of those two groups 53% and 63%, respectively don't reoffend at all. In my mind 10% is no more than a statistical fudge factor. Especially when they sight, "an almost* perfectly* equivalent group of offenders". They are either equivalent or not and if they're not, "perfectly'' is a useless word and should not be included. However it is, in order to lend credence to those that wish to squew things in their favour.
> 
> Besides which, it's based on the US penal system that can't even be remotely compared to ours.
> 
> Nice try though.



Well clearly that one stat is insufficient to 100% prove his point, and I did notice the language he used ("perfectly") but I don't have too much trouble believing an accomplished criminal lawyer and a professor emeritus of criminology at a respected university over the partisan hacks Harper has in his cabinet. The fact that the National Post saw no problem with publishing the article would seem to reinforce how out to lunch the Conservatives are. That paper isn't exactly known for its bleeding heart. I would add that this isn't a research paper, but an article.  

And I really don't have to try at all here. Did you read the first paragraph? When an elected official who is supposed to be familiar with the law and crime and punishment in general suggests that ALL convicted criminals be put in prison it's safe to say we're no longer dealing with well thought out policy, but an irrational ideological bent. But I suspect you're part of the audience this stuff is targeted at anyways (see my above reference to "feelings."). It's when it becomes official policy and starts costing Canada billions of dollars more than necessary that it becomes a real problem.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Dec 2014)

My _personal opinion_ ~ worth exactly what you're paying for it ~ is that Conservative _policy_ is set, in the main, by Stephen Harper and while Mr. Harper _may_ have some ideological views, they are ALL overwhelmed by his one, overarching _political_ goal: re-election.

We have seen that Mr Harper has a high degree of disdain for the _'extreme'_ views of the Conservative base: look at the CPC's record on e.g. abortion and it's relatively _soft_ views on gun control. Mr Harper knows that he *must* win the 'moderate middle' and _nothing_ else matters to him. If there is a "law and order" agenda it is because most, or, at least, a plurality of the 'moderate middle' wants it.

You are quite wrong to consider _ideology_ when assessing Stephen Harper's political strategy: ideology is completely irrelevant. The Liberals and, especially, the NDP are far more _ideological_ than is the CPC under Stephen Harper. There are many, many ideologues in the CPC ~ but they are (as they should be) political and policy eunuchs.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (30 Dec 2014)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If there is a "law and order" agenda it is because most, or, at least, a plurality of the 'moderate middle' wants it.


 So true. I remember going back home to Sask. and talking to friends/family who were true, blue Knee-Dippers and they were just as likely to believe in the "lock-'em-up-and-through-away-the-key" philosophy as any Conservative. 



> You are quite wrong to consider _ideology_ when assessing Stephen Harper's political strategy: ideology is completely irrelevant. The Liberals and, especially, the NDP are far more _ideological_ than is the CPC under Stephen Harper. There are many, many ideologues in the CPC ~ but they are (as they should be) political and policy eunuchs.



The left likes to talk about the "right-wing Conservative" ideology, or label the Conservatives of being "ideologues" as if was something evil, but ideology is nothing more more "than a system of beliefs" which all political parties have. And, like you say, the Liberals/NDP/Greens are just as ideological driven as the CPC; perfect example is Trudeau the Youngers diktat that all new members must be pro-abortion.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Dec 2014)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Well clearly that one stat is insufficient to 100% prove his point, and I did notice the language he used ("perfectly") but I don't have too much trouble believing an accomplished criminal lawyer and a professor emeritus of criminology at a respected university over the partisan hacks Harper has in his cabinet. The fact that the National Post saw no problem with publishing the article would seem to reinforce how out to lunch the Conservatives are. That paper isn't exactly known for its bleeding heart. I would add that this isn't a research paper, but an article.
> 
> And I really don't have to try at all here. Did you read the first paragraph? When an elected official who is supposed to be familiar with the law and crime and punishment in general suggests that ALL convicted criminals be put in prison it's safe to say we're no longer dealing with well thought out policy, but an irrational ideological bent. But I suspect you're part of the audience this stuff is targeted at anyways (see my above reference to "feelings."). It's when it becomes official policy and starts costing Canada billions of dollars more than necessary that it becomes a real problem.



There it is. Now I remember why you're on ignore.

First you throw out a baseless study and when it's objectively scrutinized and counterpointed, you regress to your "anti Harper. Harper is Satan" rhetoric.
Then to try top it off, your resort to ad hominem attacks against myself, personally, because I dared to try discuss a misleading study, based on flawed statistics, which has nothing whatsoever to do with our justice system or the application thereof.


Sooooooooooo, nothing has really changed as far as your posts or "boogey man in the closet" drivel that you proffer as your antidote to smite the real, existing world, in exchange for your fantasy Utopian world led by a Shiny Pony.

Back on Ignore.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jan 2015)

Given the Liberals' legacy as bearers of the "decade of darkness" mantle, I don't see how a bit of window dressing will help ....


> Justin Trudeau's Liberals are hoping to capitalize on the cracks that have appeared in the Conservatives' promilitary image, especially when it comes to veterans.
> 
> To accomplish that goal, the Liberals will have a number of former and currently serving military members running under their banner, including retired lieutenant general Andrew Leslie and Lt.-Col. Harjit Sajjan, the first Sikh to command a Canadian army regiment.
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (13 Jan 2015)

Two stories that I think will have an impact on this year's election.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/little-chance-of-federal-budget-surplus-in-2014-2015-td-report-1.2899104

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/alberta-recession-likely-in-2015-conference-board-of-canada-says-1.2186042

Of course this assumes that oil prices might not go back up.  If they don't, I'm not sure how the government will get to a surplus without significant cuts (more significant than what they've already done).

This may be more of a reason for an earlier election than anything Duffy, Isis or Justin Trudeau can offer.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2015)

Since Canada is still in better shape than most others, the fall in oil prices is a setback, but not a disaster (like in Russia or Venesuela). Still, this will take a lot of spin doctoring, considering most of the electorate will only look at the issues "_about a month after the election_" (as per a clear minded poster right here on Army.ca, whose name escapes me right now).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Jan 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Since Canada is still in better shape than most others, the fall in oil prices is a setback, but not a disaster (like in Russia or Venesuela). Still, this will take a lot of spin doctoring, considering most of the electorate will only look at the issues "_about a month after the election_" (as per a clear minded poster right here on Army.ca, whose name escapes me right now).



Was it me? C'mon, don't be shy, tell me it was me. You know it was. Right? Right? Stop the suspense for everyone. Pick me! You know I'm right. C'mon whadda you say? :bowing:


----------



## Remius (13 Jan 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Since Canada is still in better shape than most others, the fall in oil prices is a setback, but not a disaster (like in Russia or Venesuela). Still, this will take a lot of spin doctoring, considering most of the electorate will only look at the issues "_about a month after the election_" (as per a clear minded poster right here on Army.ca, whose name escapes me right now).



I think we can all agree that the economy is what will truly matter to electors.  The issue isn't whether this is a disaster or not (it isn't)it is more about the government stating it will balance the budget.  It is the primary part of their platform.  

My concern is that the party has started making promises that it might not be able to afford.  Granted no one could have predicted the drop in oil prices so it isn't so much about blaming them but more about the challenge of maintaining their line without compromising their position with spending initiatives aimed at winning the election.

This does have the potential to possibly trigger an earlier election or defining one that may come later.  But as I stated, oil prices could go back up.  Could an increase in the manufacturing sector be enough of a silver lining?


----------



## YZT580 (13 Jan 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> This does have the potential to possibly trigger an earlier election or defining one that may come later.  But as I stated, oil prices could go back up.  Could an increase in the manufacturing sector be enough of a silver lining?



Not so much of a problem as long as the prices of a latte in Toronto don't go up.  Seriously though, people don't care if we run a deficit as long as it doesn't touch them directly and if industry is hiring or jobs feel secure then the voters will pay little attention to a continued short term deficit.  If you want proof look no further than the last Ontario provincial election.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Was it me? C'mon, don't be shy, tell me it was me. You know it was. Right? Right? Stop the suspense for everyone. Pick me! You know I'm right. C'mon whadda you say? :bowing:



Recce, it sure sounds like you, and since I wasn't able to find the post with the quote I will certainly give you the richly deserved honours...


----------



## ballz (13 Jan 2015)

The effect of the drop in oil prices on budgets (Alberta, Nfld, the Feds, others I'm sure) really drives home how our shitty of an idea it is for us to depend so heavily on a resource-based economy.


----------



## Jed (14 Jan 2015)

Too me this big drop in oil prices drastically effecting the Federal and some provincial budgets drive home the message that North America needs to become energy independent. 

We do not want the Saudis screwing with our Canadian or American economies when ever the urge hits the House of Saud.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Jan 2015)

The problem with your proposal is being demonstrated right now- oil is a fungible product. It's price is set on the world market. The only way to decouple the North American oil market from the world oil market would be to for Canada and the U.S. to nationalize their oil and gas industries. Not going to happen.

I would suggest this round of price cuts by the Saudis (I think that there are other factors involved in the previous price of oil. The end of quantitative easing , followed immediately by oil prices starting to fall is a bit too to convenient. I would suggest that oil was being used as a hedge and that hedging has disappeared) will last until fall. At that point, US and Canadian output should be dropping and many of the weaker North American companies will have either gone bankrupt or maybe even acquired by OPEC sovereign wealth funds. From there, the prices should start to rise again to ? (Your guess is as good as mine)


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jan 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I think we can all agree that the economy is what will truly matter to electors.


Curious - will the the larger "economy" concerns outweigh the "holy mackeral, lookit how cheap gas is!"?  I know where I live, I can't remember the last time I've seen buck-a-litre gas here (the average price over the past few days).  Wonder if seeing that day-to-day will be a hard message to get over with a broader, "what's good for the SYSTEM" issue?


----------



## Remius (14 Jan 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Curious - will the the larger "economy" concerns outweigh the "holy mackeral, lookit how cheap gas is!"?  I know where I live, I can't remember the last time I've seen buck-a-litre gas here (the average price over the past few days).  Wonder if seeing that day-to-day will be a hard message to get over with a broader, "what's good for the SYSTEM" issue?



This is just it.  Consumers are seeing a real tangible effect on their wallets.  The problem is when the economy as a whole takes a hit that can affect taxes, jobs etc.  In Alberta we are just staring to see job cuts and housing demand drop.  Suncor is cutting 1000 jobs and Shell has announced 300 jobs cut.  And this is just the beginning since those jobs are core secondary job generators (constructions, service industry, medium manufacturing etc etc) If oil drops even further it will get worse before getting better.  Cheap oil and gas is great for the consumer but consumers need jobs to spend.  And Alberta may have to face hard decisions like tax hikes and or service cuts to make up the shortfall. 

Now the flip side is that pronvinces like Ontario and Quebec will benefit from the weak dollar and low operating costs.  I'm just not sure that the gains can happen fast enough to compensate for the losses in Alberta, Sask and Newfoundland.  I heard that Ontario (due to unwise fiscal and environmental policies) might not have the capacity to supply the demand in such a short time frame.

The sad part for me, is that the Ontario Liberals will benefit from all of this through no actions of their own... :-\


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Jan 2015)

I am hoping gold will continue to climb as that is good for BC, although copper is taking a hit, good for me as a shooter, but negated by the currency difference I suspect as most bullets are made in the US. The money saved on gas will be significant for the consumer, although likely this will increase demand, reducing supply, forcing the price up a bit. 
Saudi can play any games it wants, but the reality is that Fracking has destroyed OPEC's power, even if all fracking stopped today, restarting it won't take long.
As for the elections, as a gun owner I don't want the Libs or NDP in, but I am highly unimpressed with the CPC, the best result is a minority CPC government where they can't go full retard.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Jan 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> The sad part for me, is that the Ontario Liberals will benefit from all of this through no actions of their own... :-\



I'm not so sure. Most of the manufacturing power requirements are satisfied with electricity. No longer a cheap option in Ontario.


----------



## Remius (14 Jan 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure. Most of the manufacturing power requirements are satisfied with electricity. No longer a cheap option in Ontario.



True but a lower dollar attracts business and the low cost of fuel cuts back on shipping costs.  Two very important factors for the manufacturing sector.


----------



## Remius (15 Jan 2015)

However this article seems to counter my presumption that Ontario may benefit.  I forgot that a lot of Ontario's manufacturing services provinces like Alberta, a fact that has kept that sector in Ontario from flatlining.  

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-recession-the-mindset-is-already-setting-in-1.2900940


----------



## Remius (15 Jan 2015)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-pushes-north-american-leaders-summit-to-late-2015-1.2901809

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-postpones-three-amigos-summit-with-us-and-mexico/article22454108/

Another sign that we might be in for an early trip to the polls?   :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (15 Jan 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Another sign that we might be in for an early trip to the polls?   :Tin-Foil-Hat:



Or not! The article seem to be based on information obtained from the security people, not the Government, and there is no indication as to either a reason for the postponement nor the source of it. It could be a demand for delay from the Americans as much as the Canadians or Mexicans. The last part of the article is just a statement of  fact (date of the election) that is put there to suggest something without any evidence of its validity and is pure speculation on the part of the journalist.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (15 Jan 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The problem with your proposal is being demonstrated right now- oil is a fungible product. It's price is set on the world market. The only way to decouple the North American oil market from the world oil market would be to for Canada and the U.S. to nationalize their oil and gas industries. Not going to happen.



I don't think we have to de-couple from the world market or nationalize anything. May be we just need to keep the oil we (Canada, US, Mexico) produce in North America and less reliance on foreign oil from countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. 

As to when oil prices might start rising again, my WAG is in the spring; the weather is nicer and people will start traveling more. On the other hand the warm weather means less need for heating oil, so who knows. T


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jan 2015)

ff topic:   :sorry:

The problem with oil prices is that most of the OPEC countries, including Saudi Arabia have weak, mismanaged economies. They failed to invest their oil wealth properly and decided to live off the "fat of the land." The Saudi's have a massively unproductive and hideously expensive welfare state; they *need* $100/bbl oil to just balance their budget; they are in real, serious fiscal trouble, right now.

Falling oil prices hurt us ... but they threaten to destroy both Russia and Saudi Arabia and few others; we can stand some pain for a helluva lot longer than they can.

As to the USA: fracking is a big, *but very temporary* deal; our oil sands have the capacity to produce for many decades, even centuries.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jan 2015)

I don't think tracking is a temporary deal; don't forget that tracking can be (and is) used in old oilfields to extract oil that wasn't economical to extract in the past. The Bakken formation wasn't considered to have much economical oil until the late 1990's. A combination of resurveying it with modern methods and using modern extraction methods like horizontal drilling and fracking have made it one of the largest and most productive areas for oil exploration.

As well, the current Administration has largely kept oil exploration off federal lands (and California has it's own insanity), so the amount of oil that is accessible could be much larger than most people think. California alone is thought to have $15 trillion dollars worth of oil in various fields, shale and undersea formations, more than enough to cover its disastrous financials if Sacremento would only grant exploration and drilling licences...


----------



## Kilo_302 (17 Jan 2015)

Alberta's oil has been completely mismanaged. We should have been taxing revenue at a far higher rate, the demand was there to sustain it. Then we take those funds and use them to diversify the economy. The coming recession in Alberta (and Canada by extension) was depressingly predictable. Flat tax rates and a commitment to free-market ideology all but guaranteed we would ignore examples like Norway.

The Terry Lynn Karl interview is pretty illuminating. She's spent most of her academic career studying the impact of oil on politics.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/12/18/Terry-Lynn-Karl-Interview/

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/why-every-norweigian-is-a-kroner-millionaire/article21353835/


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Jan 2015)

I would suggest to you that the real problem not the free market ideology of Alberta, or  the tax rate, it is that the oil revenue did not go to the Heritage Fund, like it was supposed to, it went to general revenues. Even then, successive governments could not suppress the appetite to spend it all, and more.

This is a spending, not a revenue, problem.


----------



## Kilo_302 (17 Jan 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I would suggest to you that the real problem not the free market ideology of Alberta, or  the tax rate, it is that the oil revenue did not go to the Heritage Fund, like it was supposed to, it went to general revenues. Even then, successive governments could not suppress the appetite to spend it all, and more.
> 
> This is a spending, not a revenue, problem.



Yes, but if you're not getting enough revenue to be able to both save and spend at the same time, it's a revenue/tax problem. The Alberta government wasn't exactly giving the money away, it has one of the more conservative fiscal policies among the provinces. Norway taxed oil revenue at 80%, so it was able to spend AND save. 80% might seem aggressive, but it didn't keep investments out at all. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/11/oil-fund-norway-millionaires_n_4576887.html

If the Alberta government had wanted to actually negotiate terms rather than give its oil away it would be in a far better position than it is. I wouldn't call policy in Alberta "conservative" fiscal policy, because traditional conservative fiscal policy would have had a good balance of debt reduction, Heritage Fund contributions, and the usual government program spending. Heck, they could have even invested in diversifying the economy to ensure falling oil prices wouldn't have such a negative effect. But since taxes are political suicide in Alberta for some reason, the rest of Canada is going to foot the bill.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jan 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Yes, but_ if you're not getting enough revenue to be able to both save and spend at the same time_, it's a revenue/tax problem. The Alberta government wasn't exactly giving the money away, it has one of the more conservative fiscal policies among the provinces. Norway taxed oil revenue at 80%, so it was able to spend AND save. 80% might seem aggressive, but it didn't keep investments out at all.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/01/11/oil-fund-norway-millionaires_n_4576887.html
> 
> If the Alberta government had wanted to actually negotiate terms rather than give its oil away it would be in a far better position than it is. I wouldn't call policy in Alberta "conservative" fiscal policy, because traditional conservative fiscal policy would have had a good balance of debt reduction, Heritage Fund contributions, and the usual government program spending. Heck, they could have even invested in diversifying the economy to ensure falling oil prices wouldn't have such a negative effect. But since taxes are political suicide in Alberta for some reason, the rest of Canada is going to foot the bill.




THEN SPEND LESS! Eventually anyone and everyone, individual or state, whose _expenditures > revenues_, must either spend less or declare bankruptcy. There is never, ever any f'ing alternative. You can rob banks (legally if you're the state) or tax the people more and more, but, eventually the people (and the banks) will rebel and you WILL cut spending.

The Norwegian model works in Norway so long as spending is constrained, as it is, and the government can dictate to e.g. _Statoil_ because it owns 65% of the stock. (Our, Canadian, foray into state owned petroleum companies (_Petro-Canada_) was a miserable failure.)

The rest of your post is, _in my personal opinion_, (totally, 100% discredited, by experience) Marxist drivel.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Jan 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The Alberta government wasn't exactly giving the money away, it has one of the more conservative fiscal policies among the provinces.



Premier Jim Prentice disagrees with you:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/public-sector-contracts-new-taxes-prentice-ponders-unprecedented-actions/article22498520/

_“We’re providing the highest-cost public services in Canada, by a significant margin. We have the best of everything. Yet at the same time, we have had the lowest taxes on every front. Alberta has only been able to do this by drawing down $10-billion annually of oil revenue. That revenue stream is gone,” Mr. Prentice said._


----------



## Kilo_302 (17 Jan 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> THEN SPEND LESS! Eventually anyone and everyone, individual or state, whose _expenditures > revenues_, must either spend less or declare bankruptcy. There is never, ever any f'ing alternative. You can rob banks (legally if you're the state) or tax the people more and more, but, eventually the people (and the banks) will rebel and you WILL cut spending.
> 
> The Norwegian model works in Norway so long as spending is constrained, as it is, and the government can dictate to e.g. _Statoil_ because it owns 65% of the stock. (Our, Canadian, foray into state owned petroleum companies (_Petro-Canada_) was a miserable failure.)
> 
> The rest of your post is, _in my personal opinion_, (totally, 100% discredited, by experience) Marxist drivel.



Then you're clearly not very familiar with Marx.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Jan 2015)

Groucho, Harpo or Chico?


----------



## dapaterson (17 Jan 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Premier Jim Prentice disagrees with you:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/public-sector-contracts-new-taxes-prentice-ponders-unprecedented-actions/article22498520/
> 
> _“We’re providing the highest-cost public services in Canada, by a significant margin. We have the best of everything. Yet at the same time, we have had the lowest taxes on every front. Alberta has only been able to do this by drawing down $10-billion annually of oil revenue. That revenue stream is gone,” Mr. Prentice said._



Please God let there be another Oil Boom I promise not to piss it all away next time.

There is nothing new under the sun.


----------



## Remius (17 Jan 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Groucho, Harpo or Chico?



Work Warehouse?


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jan 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Please God let there be another Oil Boom I promise not to piss it all away next time.
> 
> There is nothing new under the sun.



That were a generation and half ago DAP..... and most of the current generation weren't living in Alberta then if they were living at all.

Every generation invents sex.


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Jan 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Groucho, Harpo or Chico?



or their cousin, Time?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Jan 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Then you're clearly not very familiar with Marx.



 :brickwall:

Le sigh. Yes, please point to that model Marxist country on the map...where everyone is equal and each according to his means, etc...now which one was it again?


----------



## ballz (18 Jan 2015)

Norway will probably come out of this no better off than Alberta. 

Every time someone pointed to the Norway model, I pointed out that they now have a population that believes luxury spending like free post-secondary for 8 years is an entitlement, and will not respond well to being told they will now have to work for those kinds of things on their own when oil, inevitably, runs out or becomes worth much less. I know someone in Norway who's program is not offered in Norway, so they are paying for all of her expenses so she can take it in the UK... Who could have predicted that this madness is not sustainable?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/08/us-norway-economy-insight-idUSBREA4703Z20140508


----------



## cryco (18 Jan 2015)

that article is from last year, but holy crap, their rainy day fund is ridiculous...

quoting article:
< Norway had the foresight to put aside a massive $860 billion rainy-day cash pile, or $170,000 per man, woman and child. It also has huge budget surpluses, a top-notch AAA credit rating and low unemployment, so tangible decline is not imminent.>


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jan 2015)

cryco said:
			
		

> that article is from last year, but holy crap, their rainy day fund is ridiculous...
> 
> quoting article:
> < Norway had the foresight to put aside a massive $860 billion rainy-day cash pile, or $170,000 per man, woman and child. It also has huge budget surpluses, a top-notch AAA credit rating and low unemployment, so tangible decline is not imminent.>



That would just about buy every living Norwegian an Oxford University education (link) or a liver transplant per family (the kids get to decide if Dad needs one to repair the akvavit damage...) (link).

A Trillion bucks just doesn't go as far as it used to I guess.


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Jan 2015)

But then Norway doesn't have non-productive regions relying on productive regions for their over spending. They also have a much smaller geography than we do, and a much higher personal tax rate. Apples and rutabagas comparison.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Jan 2015)

They also have all that shit, non alcoholic beer that you think is a cheap bargain till you drink 20 of them and realize you don't have a buzz. Seems like they don't like over indulgers. Go figure, another disadvantage of not knowing a foreign language.

Probably why liver transplants aren't high on the list ;D


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Jan 2015)

Speaking of oil republics going tits up... Look no further than Venezuela 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2015/01/13/the-impending-collapse-of-Venezuela/




> The Impending Collapse Of Venezuela
> 
> On Tuesday January 13th, the ratings agency Moody’s downgraded Venezuela to Caa3, one step above default. This comes as no surprise – markets have been pricing in the likelihood of default for some time now.
> 
> ...



Just another example of why populism/marxism/communism/socialism (whatever term is in vogue atm) doesn't work. Governments have no business meddling in the affairs of private enterprise. Prior to joining the military, I worked for the NB Power Corporation (a hydro electric company). We burned oil at many of our plants and much of it came from Venezuela. 

Two of our plants burned Orimulsion, a special type of fuel that was Sole-sourced from Venezuela. PDVSA (Venezuelan State Oil) nationalized and went back on the deal they had signed with us costing our power company billions of dollars and forcing us to refurbish plants at considerable cost to the taxpayer in order to burn alternative fuels. 

I am laughing now and won't shed a tear when Maduro has his head mounted up on a a stick along with the rest of the criminals in the Venezuelan government. You reap what you sow as far as I'm concerned.  

Venezuela had oil money, they blew it on stupid populist projects while managing to alienate everyone in the Western Hemisphere. Now that the oil money has run dry, they have nobody to blame but themselves. Chavez's and now Maduro's tough talk has been proven to be nothing but hot air.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jan 2015)

>Then we take those funds and use them to diversify the economy.

Ah.  An underpants gnome solution.
1. More funds.
2. ???
3. Diverse economy!!!

cf. "Misallocation of Capital"


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Jan 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> They also have all that shit, non alcoholic beer that you think is a cheap bargain till you drink 20 of them and realize you don't have a buzz. Seems like they don't like over indulgers. Go figure, another disadvantage of not knowing a foreign language.
> 
> Probably why liver transplants aren't high on the list ;D



Never met Norwegians on their home turf - Only in Denmark, Sweden and Seattle.....Liver transplants amongst the Ex-Pats would seem to be a necessity.


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Jan 2015)

The Young Dauphin gave a radio interview in London yesterday. One suspects that the CPC breathed a collective sigh of relief after hearing a transcript as much of the interview was about the battle against ISIS and he tied himself in knots coming up with convoluted non-answers. The reaction of Liberal loyalist and one time war room operative Warren Kinsella, along with comments on his column, may be found here. Kinsella's item also includes a link to a tape of the interview.

http://warrenkinsella.com/2015/01/trudeau-and-isis-the-perils-of-local-media/


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Jan 2015)

We, Canada, could be in trouble.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jan 2015)

One of WK's comments caught my attention:

"Two: is he saying that we should only ever fight when we know we can win?"

According to Sun Tzu: Yes.


----------



## YZT580 (21 Jan 2015)

Sun Tzu wasn't talking about never but rather arranging the circumstances so that the odds were in his favour before engaging.  They are two very different approaches.  Boy wonder would never take a stand according to his own words.


----------



## Spartan (22 Jan 2015)

It has been addressed about Mr. Trudeau's apparent lack of policy direction. 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-dodges-question-on-running-deficits-1.2199217



> LONDON, Ont. -- Justin Trudeau won't say if he thinks the federal government should abandon its commitment to a balanced budget given the economic turmoil caused by plunging oil prices.
> 
> The Liberal leader said the Bank of Canada's surprise interest rate cut Wednesday is further proof that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government is on the wrong economic track.
> 
> ...


The last part is the scariest piece of the whole article. This is not a another bag of money that is accessible for pet projects or infrastructure. Pension funds should be used for pensions. 

If this is what the advisers or members are inclined to think, then the Liberal Party is far worse off.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Jan 2015)

Spartan said:
			
		

> It has been addressed about Mr. Trudeau's apparent lack of policy direction.
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-dodges-question-on-running-deficits-1.2199217
> The last part is the scariest piece of the whole article. This is not a another bag of money that is accessible for pet projects or infrastructure. Pension funds should be used for pensions.
> ...



Agreed entirely Spartan.... That way lies Cyprus   http://army.ca/forums/threads/103357.0.html


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Jan 2015)

On the issue of Oil Prices:



> Energy Aspects oil analyst Virendra Chauhan said prices were likely to rise in the second half of 2015.
> 
> "I think you will start seeing the effect of lower supplies from Q2 15," Chauhan told the Reuters Global Oil Forum. "Overall, we think that, led by Asia, global oil demand has started to pick up."



http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/22/us-markets-oil-idUSKBN0KV04Q20150122



> BP boss Bob Dudley: Oil prices 'low for up to 3 years'





> talian oil group Eni has said the next spike could be around $200 a barrel.
> 
> Eni's chief executive, Claudio Descalzi, said the oil industry would cut capital spending by 10-13% this year because of slumping prices.
> 
> He said that would create longer-term shortages and sharp price rises in four to five years' time, if the Opec cartel fails to cut supplies.



http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30913321

$50 Today.  $200 in 4 years.  Split the difference and you get $125.  Even short sighted businesses can manage a four year horizon.  And the Oil Patch is not short sighted.  Most of their projects take at least that long to negotiate - let alone implement.  Oil traders - now they are another matter.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Jan 2015)

Mr Trudeau has provided his opposition with a rallying cry:

"Hands Off Our Pensions!"


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jan 2015)

Spartan said:
			
		

> This is not a another bag of money that is accessible for pet projects or infrastructure. Pension funds should be used for pensions.


It _should_, but it hasn't been - by either of the two parties vying for the steering wheel - and Brison's line suggests it will be again under Trudeau fils.


			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Mr Trudeau has provided his opposition with a rallying cry:
> 
> "Hands Off Our Pensions!"


Don't know how popular that'll be, given the general lack of public outcry over previous government dips into that well.


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Jan 2015)

Would someone please explain to me where this stat comes from and why only wealthy Cdns will benefit: 





> ...... promise a $2-billion tax break to 15 per cent of wealthier Canadians



Wouldn't everyone?

My wife and I, both retired, income split, and we are not wealthy, financially.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Jan 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Would someone please explain to me where this stat comes from and why only wealthy Cdns will benefit:
> Wouldn't everyone?
> 
> My wife and I, both retired, income split, and we are not wealthy, financially.



Here's the bones of the policy:


> Only families with children under 18 with two parents in different tax brackets would benefit.



The talking heads maintain that this requires one high income earner and one low income earner. Therefore, only the wealthy will benefit. 

Considering that 50% of Canadian households pay no tax, it's only logical that a tax cut would favour those with higher incomes who do pay tax.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Jan 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Would someone please explain to me where this stat comes from and why only wealthy Cdns will benefit:
> Wouldn't everyone?


1)  Generally, the idea comes from a Conservative finance minister:  _“It benefits some parts of the Canadian population a lot and other parts of the Canadian population, virtually not at all .... I think income-splitting needs a long, hard analytical look . . . to see who it affects in this society and to what degree, because I’m not sure that, overall, it benefits our society.”_
2)  In particular, this from an admittedly happy-to-bash-Harper-and-company think tank:


> .... This study finds that, in 2015, Canada’s federal government will give up an estimated $1.2 billion in lost revenue due to pension income splitting and the provinces will lose another $500 million in revenue for mimicking this tax change — for a total revenue loss of $1.7 billion.
> 
> (....)
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jan 2015)

OK everyone, repeat after me:

*This is our money, not the government's.*

I am quite good with the government leaving $2 billion + in the productive economy with the people and families who earn it, since they have a far better idea of where to invest, save or spend it than any number of bureaucrats staring at computer screens in an office in Ottawa. (the technical reason is termed the "Local Knowledge problem" i.e. knowledge is dispersed across the organization and can only be identified, accessed and used in fleeting instants, hence centralized organizations can never, in theory or practice, take advantage of it. See http://hayekcenter.org/?cat=41 for more discussion).

And of course with $2 billion staying in our pockets and not the bureaucrats, there is now some incentive to spend more carefully, since the problems of debt and deficit across Canada, from Federal down to municipal are all _spending_ problems, not revenue problems.


----------



## ballz (22 Jan 2015)

While I'm all in favour of tax cuts and smaller government, I recently switched my view on income splitting.

To me, income splitting is a government policy that rewards certain lifestyle choices at the expense of other lifestyle choices. The government doesn't exist to pick and choose how people live their life, so it should not actively support the way certain people live their life by giving them a tax cut. The tax burden just got higher for me just because I am single and have no dependants.

IMO, the government giving a tax cut to two parents with children under 18 is no more fairer than giving all single, working people a tax cut that does not apply to people who have dependants. It's ludicrous.

Rather than give an income tax cut worth $2 billion dollars to certain people because you like the cut of their jib a little more, why not raise the Basic Personal Exemption and help out all taxpayer's equally.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jan 2015)

In the best of all possible worlds, your solution is better, but since Dr Pangloss is not the leader of any political party at the present time  , I will take what is available.

I will even one up you and say the "ideal" policy would be a single or flat tax which taxes all income the same regardless of source and has few or no "loopholes" or exemptions. In most flat tax schemes the basic personal exemption is fairly high anyway, which answers some of the arguments that claim this sort of tax is "regressive". The added advantage to a flat or single tax is Canadians will no longer have to pay out an estimated $3.5 billion a year in after tax dollars to get their taxes done; an even bigger return of monies to the productive economy. (Making tax law and regulations so complex that even a non professional needs help to get their taxes done is diverting money away from where the taxpayer might want to save, spend or invest it).

Somewhere there is an entire thread on flat taxes, so I won't rehash the arguments here.


----------



## YZT580 (22 Jan 2015)

Income splitting favours sergeants and above in pay scale whose spouses make less than 20 an hour. Part of the higher income is placed with the lower and is then taxed at the lower rate.  It will provide a few extra dollars to help with the daycare payments.  It is a solid benefit for most married couples who pay tax at two different rates.  It doesn't benefit single parents directly (there are other tax breaks for them) and there is no benefit for professional couples.  A single income family sees no benefit either.
f


----------



## McG (23 Jan 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> A single income family sees no benefit either.


How is that?  The parent earning an income transfers half to the spouse who does not.
It seems like a good deal for military families in small communities without many employment options for spouses.  Petawawa, Cold Lake, Baggotville, Shilo, Wainwright, etc should all see troops with young families benefit from this.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Jan 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> A single income family sees no benefit either.



Really? Because I'm a single income family and I'll be getting the maximum credit of $2000. $2000 basically pays for my property tax for the year, or will put both of my kids in hockey. I fail to see how that's "no benefit".

In case anyone wants an estimate, here's a quick calculator I found: http://incomesplittingcanada.com/


----------



## YZT580 (23 Jan 2015)

I was wrong.  I assume that this is done by filing a claim for the person that currently has no income.  Does that mean you will have to pay into CPP on behalf of the individual who currently has no income but will now be filing?


----------



## krimynal (23 Jan 2015)

a bit off-topic , but I've seen a french military news site ( 45enord.ca ) today , they had 2 different articles on both major parties ( Liberals and NPD ) ... 

Am I the only one who is disgusted about them trying to say that the intervention we are doing right now with the Special Forces is wrong ? the way they act they are talking about how much good a humanitarian intervention would be, and how much Canada should try to provide help , with medical and food , and schools ......

what the heck do these guys think ??? I mean , if it was possible , we would do it .

What happen when you have sometype of Cancer ? do we feed you peanut butter - jelly sandwich to make you feel good ? No , it's not gonna make you better , you get chemo and you try to kill the disease to eventually win the fight and get better.

what does Chemo do ? it kills the cell , some good some bad , but it kills the disease so you can heal from it .... do we start manifestation about people getting chemotherapy ? heck no ! we know it's basically the only choice we have if we want to survive from cancer.  Then why do we start speaking about humanitarian aid ?? Right now we need to get rid of the disease , and avoid it to comeback.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jan 2015)

Tom Mulcair and the Young Dauphin both forget (or never realized in the first place) that you need to control the area on the ground to ensure that humanitarian aid actually gets to the people who need it, rather than get expropriated by whoever has more guns and combat power.

I'm sure the Young Dauphin will be able to explain to CBC why ISIS fighters are running around in Syria and Iraq wearing Canadian cold weather gear and eating Canadian rations under *his* plan......


----------



## krimynal (23 Jan 2015)

I just love how these guys are trying to make the current situation look bad politically speaking ( I know we are going thought a election year and that's what they need to do to get elected ) .... and sadly average voters are going to fall for that simply because they see human aid , and they can't think otherwise ....

But the fact is .... so many previous situations has been seen when a country would send in  food / clothes / medicinal supplies / etc. ... and it would only aggravate the situation , because rebels would be taking them and basically make people do all the bad things for them simply to get access to some .... 

are we safe to send a regular doctor over there , and ask him to cure people ?? how dumb do that sound ??


----------



## ballz (23 Jan 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I will even one up you preach to the choir and say the "ideal" policy would be a single or flat tax which taxes all income the same regardless of source and has few or no "loopholes" or exemptions.



FTFY. The CRA costs $7 billion dollars a year just to run it, or almost $400 every working Canadian is paying just to get their taxes taken from them.

There *IS* one party advocating a $17,000 BPE with a 15% flat tax rate


----------



## dimsum (23 Jan 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'm sure the Young Dauphin will be able to explain to CBC why ISIS fighters are running around in Syria and Iraq wearing Canadian cold weather gear and eating Canadian rations under *his* plan......



Wait a minute....cold weather gear with GPS trackers installed.  Genius.   >


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jan 2015)

>This is not a another bag of money that is accessible for pet projects or infrastructure. Pension funds should be used for pensions. 

I like the irony.  Although the prior raids have been on pension surpluses and this is an entirely deeper dive (presumably into the non-surplus pension assets, placing them at risk if the projects go tits up), the Liberals did most of the historical raiding and are now proposing to do more.  Meanwhile, there are people who claim to be former Conservative supporters spitting nails and blaming the Conservatives squarely for the bureaucracy's inability to spend VA money and making that their single-issue excuse for jumping ship to the Liberals.

Pension funds _could_ be used for infrastructure projects as investments (probably are), but only under the control of people who are 100% charged with managing the funds.  Politicians should have no say whatsoever.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jan 2015)

A household with children is a family unit, not a husband and wife going their own separate ways with their respective incomes (OK, maybe some do, but that's not the ideal).  Variations on income splitting treat income as a household resource and tax it at potentially less confiscatory rates.  A counter-proposal might be to treat it as a single income, which would tend to push more of it into a higher bracket.

I don't find much to admire about progressives who whine about the money women make compared to men and the difficulties of paying for childcare, and then fight against policies which would at least allows families with kids to pretend that the hours the wife works are worth as much as the husband's (or vice versa, albeit more rarely) and to more easily afford childcare so that they can pay the taxes progressives love to spend.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jan 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> A household with children is a family unit, not a husband and wife going their own separate ways with their respective incomes (OK, maybe some do, but that's not the ideal).  Variations on income splitting treat income as a household resource and tax it at potentially less confiscatory rates.  A counter-proposal might be to treat it as a single income, which would tend to push more of it into a higher bracket.



That would be to treat the family as a corporation. No?

Not a bad thing.


----------



## Jed (24 Jan 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> That would be to treat the family as a corporation. No?
> 
> Not a bad thing.



That's how they do it down on the farm.  :nod:


----------



## ballz (24 Jan 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> That would be to treat the family as a corporation. No?
> 
> Not a bad thing.



This is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Two adult individuals made a *choice* to engage in an agreement that involves living together, sharing expenses, etc (which is usually financially to their advantage), and a *choice* to have kids (which is usually financially to their disadvantage). The government has no business supporting or not supporting these choices. They should still have the same responsibility to pay "x" % of their income in taxes. It would be no more justified than if two bachelor's lived together and decided to buy a dog, and the government decides all willy nilly they should pay less taxes than someone without a dog.

This is a Conservative Party promoting its own social agenda at the expense of all other taxpayer's. IMO, in a free society government has no place in supporting / not supporting choices made by sovereign individuals.

The right thing to do is a flat tax rate and no biases added from the government (deduction for this, credit for that). There is a hardly a person in the country that wouldn't directly benefit from a 17,000 BPE and 15% flat tax rate on anything over that, and we wouldn't need a $7 billion CRA just to take our money.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jan 2015)

I agree from a libertarian perspective this is all screwy. I also would prefer a flat tax, but it would be hell to implement without some scheme for transferring the bulk of revenue generation to some other taxation scheme.  Meanwhile, on the other side there are two parties musing over childcare programs.  I'd rather let people pay less tax and make spending decisions for themselves than establish another grant program for one kind of spending.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jan 2015)

Ballz:

You have just espoused the libertarian position.  

But, unfortunately, to not make a decision is to make a decision.  By making a decision to not support the family then you make a decision that negatively impacts the family.

The current government, with which I happen to agree on this matter, feels that society is better served if its nuclear element is strong.  The position is, and I admit it is a belief as most things are, the position is that problems are best managed quickly at the source.  The further belief is that a strong, empowered, family is best positioned to manage problems before they become societal problems.

It is a belief.  It is opposable and is opposed.  That is why we have elections.


----------



## JS2218 (24 Jan 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> This is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Two adult individuals made a *choice* to engage in an agreement that involves living together, sharing expenses, etc (which is usually financially to their advantage), and a *choice* to have kids (which is usually financially to their disadvantage). The government has no business supporting or not supporting these choices. They should still have the same responsibility to pay "x" % of their income in taxes. It would be no more justified than if two bachelor's lived together and decided to buy a dog, and the government decides all willy nilly they should pay less taxes than someone without a dog.
> 
> This is a Conservative Party promoting its own social agenda at the expense of all other taxpayer's. IMO, in a free society government has no place in supporting / not supporting choices made by sovereign individuals.
> 
> The right thing to do is a flat tax rate and no biases added from the government (deduction for this, credit for that). There is a hardly a person in the country that wouldn't directly benefit from a 17,000 BPE and 15% flat tax rate on anything over that, and we wouldn't need a $7 billion CRA just to take our money.



I'm curious if your party has done any research on what it would cost the federal treasury to implement a flat tax. I agree with it, but I also agree that it could be a huge hit to revenue sources (my guess is you'd have to find data on the amounts of personal income taxes collected, according to their income bracket).


----------



## George Wallace (24 Jan 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I agree from a libertarian perspective this is all screwy. I also would prefer a flat tax, but it would be hell to implement without some scheme for transferring the bulk of revenue generation to some other taxation scheme.  Meanwhile, on the other side there are two parties musing over childcare programs.  I'd rather let people pay less tax and make spending decisions for themselves than establish another grant program for one kind of spending.



A flat tax, would probably be lower than all the various forms of tax we have, and yet generate more revenue for the government.  We have GST, HST, Provincial Sales taxes, hidden taxes in liquor and gas sales, Airport taxes, environmental taxes, and the list goes on and on; not to mention annual filing of Income Tax.  Get rid of them all and simply tax everything at a low level, say 10%.  I don't see why taxation has to be so damn complicated.  

The Government needs to have a "National Dream" and that involves "Nation Building" which means "JOBS".  The unemployed don't pay taxes per say.  They collect tax breaks, unemployment benefits, Welfare, etc.  Taxes are collected from workers, who also have disposable incomes to spend.  Those disposable incomes require items and services to be produced by businesses and industry.  Spending tax revenues on supporting the unemployed is a drain contributing to the National Debt.  

If the Liberals plan is for the spending of money; it should be spent wisely in "Nation Building", not supporting those who are unproductive and draining the nation's coffers.

But I suppose that this is just too simplistic.


----------



## ballz (24 Jan 2015)

JS2218 said:
			
		

> I'm curious if your party has done any research on what it would cost the federal treasury to implement a flat tax. I agree with it, but I also agree that it could be a huge hit to revenue sources (my guess is you'd have to find data on the amounts of personal income taxes collected, according to their income bracket).



Based off of 2013 taxes, if you implemented a 15% rate with a 17k BPE, the government would have collected around $82 billion in income tax, which is ~50 billion dollar less revenue than was collected ($130 billion). In the grand scheme, the Feds revenue was $271.7 billion, so this would mean only around $221 billion. The real question is, given $50 billion dollars left in the hands of the taxpayer's, how much revenue would be collected the next year? It's impossible to calculate, but certainly if $82 billion was the *worst*, revenues would start going up with that much money left in the hands of the consumer.

Obviously cutting $50 billion dollars all in one shot is pretty risky both politically and fiscally. The actual plan for implementing the 15% / 17k BPE being discussed, in order to "ease" the transition, is to roll it out over a few years....
Year 1) Raise the BPE to 17,000
Year 2) Eliminate the highest tax bracket (29% of taxable income over $138,58)
Year 3) Eliminate the next tax bracket (26% on the next $49,185 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $89,401 up to $138,586) )
Year 4) Eliminate the next tax bracket (22% on the next $44,700 of taxable income (on the portion of taxable income over $44,701 up to $89,401))
Year 5) End state has been achieved. 17000 BPE with a 15% flat tax rate.

Of course, the Libertarian Party would cut spending immensely. Our position on healthcare is that it belongs to the province, so the Canada Health Act (which was created in order to seize the province's ability to control its own healthcare through controlling the spending, not at all in the spirit of the Constitution) would be repealed. This would eliminate the most massive expense to the Federal gov't, and that's transfers to the provincial governments for healthcare spending. Of course, it would then be up to the provinces to decide the best way to raise revenues for healthcare spending, so despite our tax cuts you may seem some taxes raised at the provincial level. That is, in my opinion, the most effective way anyway. All this centralization at the top is not good. Delegate to the provinces, and hopefully the provinces delegate to the municipalities.


----------



## Jed (24 Jan 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> Based off of 2013 taxes, if you implemented a 15% rate with a 17k BPE, the government would have collected around $82 billion in income tax, which is ~50 billion dollar less revenue than was collected ($130 billion). In the grand scheme, the Feds revenue was $271.7 billion, so this would mean only around $221 billion. The real question is, given $50 billion dollars left in the hands of the taxpayer's, how much revenue would be collected the next year? It's impossible to calculate, but certainly if $82 billion was the *worst*, revenues would start going up with that much money left in the hands of the consumer.
> 
> Obviously cutting $50 billion dollars all in one shot is pretty risky both politically and fiscally. The actual plan for implementing the 15% / 17k BPE being discussed, in order to "ease" the transition, is to roll it out over a few years....
> Year 1) Raise the BPE to 17,000
> ...



The biggest problem with attempting to simplify the tax system to a flat rate system is not the temporary loss of government revenue. 

The big issue would be the breaking of millions of people's rice bowls and they would have to adapt by whatever means possible to earn a living.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jan 2015)

Looking at CCRA's final tables for the 2011 tax year (PDF format).

Total returns filed 26,333,940 (17,429,010 taxable and 8,904,930 non-taxable).

Total income assessed (ie. before deductions) $1,122,019,231,000.

Total taxable income assessed (ie. after deductions) $1,000,625,545,000.

Total net federal tax $116,488,627,000.  That amount is 10.38% of assessed income and 11.64% of taxable income.

So, yes, a flat tax of 10% by the numbers (obviously people will change behaviour to suit a change in taxation conditions) comes close to generating the same amount of revenue if you ignore all the credits (closer if you disallow all the deductions as well).  Of course it also bites into the after tax income of many of the 1/3 of filers who file non-taxable returns*.  What is inescapably true is that it requires a sudden and large shifting of a tax burden away from people who can afford it to many who cannot.

*"A tax return is considered taxable when the sum of net federal tax, net provincial tax, CPP contributions payable on self-employment earnings, EI premiums payable on self-employment earnings, and social benefit repayment amounts was at least $2 and non-taxable when this sum was less than $2."  (Not everyone who files a non-taxable return necessarily has a low income, so it's only an approximation to support the gist of my point.)


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jan 2015)

>All this centralization at the top is not good.

I agree as a general principle, but:

>Delegate to the provinces, and hopefully the provinces delegate to the municipalities.

There is wide regional variation in what is affordable.  If the plan is to allow people to sort themselves out (by relocating, etc), I think what you will find is that they will choose another course of action and sort you (the responsible political party) out.


----------



## observor 69 (24 Jan 2015)

Provinces administrating, raising revenue for, their own social programs. Rich provinces have good health care poorer provinces, NB and others, not so much. Explain how this is a good idea.


----------



## ballz (24 Jan 2015)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Provinces administrating, raising revenue for, their own social programs. Rich provinces have good health care poorer provinces, NB and others, not so much. Explain how this is a good idea.



Each province has its own demographic challenges for everything. Healthcare is a perfect example. Some have an aging population, some have higher rates of obesity, some have more success treating cancer, etc, etc. As it stands now, the Federal government has the province by the balls, as the Canada Health Act means they will not receive any funding for healthcare if they vary from the standard the Federal government sets. If a province wanted to do certain things certain ways, they would be stopped. How can anyone argue that the Federal government should be stopping a province from having autonomy over its own healthcare is good? How can a solution for 35,000,000 people be reached? It is clearly easy to find a better solution by region, voted by those people on what's best for themselves.

Beyond that, it's a good idea because Albertans shouldn't be paying for Quebec's daycare programs no more than I should be paying for your children's sports programs. Poorer provinces like NB are not _entitled_ to a ton of social programs. With the way NB has mismanaged itself, it doesn't _deserve_ a cent from tax-payers in other province.

If you believe in helping poorer provinces out, here's your money, you can donate it to various provincial governments on your own behalf. Please don't advocate taking my money and donating to things I don't believe in on my behalf.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> There is wide regional variation in what is affordable.  If the plan is to allow people to sort themselves out (by relocating, etc), I think what you will find is that they will choose another course of action and sort you (the responsible political party) out.



Which is exactly the reason we need a Libertarian Party of Canada. People would rather vote to have the government steal other people's money for them so they can subsidize their own laziness, and as long as political parties focus only on getting elected, and not on actually LEADING the country in a direction, the status quo will be maintained. Conservative, Liberal, NDP, they are all relatively the same. You can only lead a horse to water, you can't force it to drink. 



			
				Jed said:
			
		

> The big issue would be the breaking of millions of people's rice bowls and they would have to adapt by whatever means possible to earn a living.



Indeed!


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jan 2015)

I'd go even farther WRT healthcare, and make a provision for the establishment of "Registered Health Care Accounts", similar in intent to RRSP, TFSA and RESP accounts. Each person pays for basic healthcare out of the account (checkups, basic medications etc.), what is not spent that year rolls over into the next year, plus whatever interest or investment income is made from the principle. All Canadians should also have the option to purchase a "catastrophic" health care insurance to deal with things like critical diseases, being run over by a bus or other non routine expenses. In the US system, consumers were hobbled by having to buy health care insurance from a limited pool of providers "in State"; I would certainly not want that condition imposed on Canadians (they should be free to shop for their insurance anywhere).

What makes RHCA's or similar plans work is the idea that consumers will shop around for the best deal. So long as the market is transparent (and this is one of the areas where the Government does have a role), then consumers will be able to shop and market pressures will bring down health care costs (probably the first thing to go would be the costly bureaucracy, which does not add much, if anything, to healthcare at all). Market pressure will also help bring health care to under serviced areas, at least some doctors will decide that fighting for patients in Toronto is less lucrative than being the only provider in a northern Ontario community.

Like all other plans, there will obviously be some areas where RHSA's are not as effective, and the transition will have to be managed carefully.

Sadly, while *we* can engage in intelligent debate on the issue, I doubt that anyone outside of this thread will really speak about the issue (certainly not the leaders of the big three parities), and despite the large number of journalists who lurk on this site, I am pretty confident that _not one_ of them will write about flat taxes, RHSA's or any ideas outside the "narrative", nor ask any political leaders questions about these ideas. You already see them avoiding questions about the Liberal plan to "dip into" our retirement IOT fund Liberal election buying projects, and that is probably a far more dangerous threat to the retirement and well being of Canadians (not to mention the Canadian economy as various malinvestment balloons get inflated) than any of the plans discussed here.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Jan 2015)

Bruce MacKinnon does it again.   ;D

Halifax Chronicle Herald Cartoon


----------



## Retired AF Guy (24 Jan 2015)

Since everyone is talking about a flat-tax, an article from today's (24 Jan) National Post by Mark Milke that looks at recent comments by the new Premier of Alberta and while Alberta specific, does relate to flat taxes. Re-produced under the fair dealings section of the Copyright Act. 



> *Mark Milke: Jim Prentice is wrong on taxes*
> Mark Milke, National Post | January 24, 2015 | Last Updated: Jan 24 8:02 AM ET
> 
> Contrary to what the new Premier has said, low-income residents are taxed less in Alberta than anywhere else in Canada. After governments abandon fiscal prudence, they will soon search for any and all ways to tax people more. This is the reality playing out in Alberta where Premier Jim Prentice has floated multiple tax increase trial balloons.
> ...



 Article Link


----------



## ballz (24 Jan 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Ballz:
> 
> You have just espoused the libertarian position.
> 
> But, unfortunately, to not make a decision is to make a decision.  By making a decision to not support the family then you make a decision that negatively impacts the family.



How did I "not make a decision?" I've decided that one individual's liberty is not more important than another individual's liberty just because one made some choices that I like and the other didn't.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The further belief is that a strong, empowered, family is best positioned to manage problems before they become societal problems.



I believe that imposing your beliefs on others at their expense is immoral. By supporting a tax cut for "families," you are raising the tax burden on people who are not "families." There is a consequence to this action that affects others. I am not advocating weakening families, I am advocating staying neutral to both married people and bachelors / bachelorettes. You (and by you I mean anyone who supports income splitting), however, are advocating artificially strengthening a family by weakening the sovereignty of many individuals (relative to the rest of society).



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> It is a belief.  It is opposable and is opposed.  That is why we have elections.



 :nod:


----------



## YZT580 (24 Jan 2015)

Actually, you are making it more fair by sharing income.  Two people earning 50000 each currently pay significantly fewer taxes than one person earning 100000.  So the family that elects to have one spouse raise the kids under the current system has less disposable income than the two who are farming the kids out.  That is the extreme.  Currently it is more likely to have one income of around 75000 and the second paying 10 to 15 and hour; especially in the military where the spouse cannot always develop their career in the way they would like due to the transfers.  Even for people with a profession such as teaching or nursing the credits are not always transferrable.  So you end up with a sergeant and a gas jockey or a worker at Walmart.  All income splitting does is make those two equivalent to the original two earning 50000 each.  That isn't discriminatory it is treating families equally.  The guy making 200000 or more a year could care less.  He has lots of other tax breaks its the poor sucker in the middle that is finally getting a long overdue correction.


----------



## ballz (24 Jan 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Actually, you are making it more fair by sharing income.  Two people earning 50000 each currently pay significantly fewer taxes than one person earning 100000.  So the family that elects to have one spouse raise the kids under the current system has less disposable income than the two who are farming the kids out.  That is the extreme.  Currently it is more likely to have one income of around 75000 and the second paying 10 to 15 and hour; especially in the military where the spouse cannot always develop their career in the way they would like due to the transfers.  Even for people with a profession such as teaching or nursing the credits are not always transferrable.  So you end up with a sergeant and a gas jockey or a worker at Walmart.  All income splitting does is make those two equivalent to the original two earning 50000 each.  That isn't discriminatory it is treating families equally.  The guy making 200000 or more a year could care less.  He has lots of other tax breaks its the poor sucker in the middle that is finally getting a long overdue correction.



Your logic on what is "fair" is kind of amazing.

OC India Coy is a first year Major and makes ~100k year and has no wife and kids (or does have a wife, or does have a kid, who friggin' knows). He pays "x" taxes.

OC Hotel Coy is a first year Major and makes ~100k a year. He has a wife who looks after his two kids because they decided adequate childcare for their two kids was almost as much money as his wife would make anyway). OC Hotel Coy uses income splitting and pays substantially less taxes than OC India.

Two people, doing the same job, making 100k a year, pay substantially different tax rates because the government actively supports one person's lifestyle choices. One person is getting an awesome benefit, the other person is getting f**ked.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jan 2015)

And yet OC Hotel Coy has kids, who will presumably grow up to be taxpayers and create a larger tax base. Also purchasing more food, bigger house, clothes, etc and making a larger economic impact. Yes, OC India Coy is paying $2000 a year more in taxes, but can easily afford to put enough into RRSPs so he gains the exact same benefit as income splitting.

Are you saying you'd advocate getting rid of child tax credit, fitness incentive, exemption amounts for dependents? Should we trash the amount you can claim by paying property tax because owning a home is a lifestyle choice?


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jan 2015)

One of the huge issues is that any sort of tax system have various distorting systems on the economy and people's choices. After all, people follow incentives, and if the tax system offers enough incentives then people will change their behaviour to take advantage of that.

Given the current tax system looks like a complex geographic "range" with folded layers of sediments and incursions of volcanic rocks due to decades of tax preferences to buy voters or punish opposing voters, "unwinding" the system will cause a huge amount of dislocation(s) and be opposed by the people and organizations who benefit by the current scheme. Many of these people are well funded and well organized, so this is not a task to be undertaken lightly.

In general, tax reductions should be applauded, but broad based tax cuts should be applauded more than "boutique" tax cuts, which are designed to incentives certain behaviours and are best regarded as "bribes" for certain voting demographics, which is the point ballz is trying to make.


----------



## ballz (25 Jan 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> And yet OC Hotel Coy has kids, who will presumably grow up to be taxpayers and create a larger tax base. Also purchasing more food, bigger house, clothes, etc and making a larger economic impact.



Not only is that quite a leap, it's missing the point. The government has *no business* telling you how to live your life. By giving tax breaks to some people based on their choices, it is encouraging people to make certain choices in line with their own view, and doing it by making the tax burden higher for someone else who they disagree with. Even worse, its using other people's money to do this.

It's fine and dandy for you to argue because you AGREE with this policy, but what would you say if the government was giving a tax break for something you didn't believe in? You would be arguing that you don't want the government spending your money on something you don't believe in. The only way for the government not to spend money on something someone doesn't believe in is to remain neutral, tax everybody the same, and allow them to make their choices as they wish. 

OC Hotel CHOSE to get married and he CHOSE to have kids and he and his wife have made a CHOICE for her not work. If he is financially disadvantaged as a result of these CHOICES, that's fine because no one forced him to do it.

EDIT: Further to that, you have no idea what OC India Coy would do with that extra money or what the economic spin-offs would be. To me, that's irrelevant, but since you want to weigh hypotheticals... that game could be played all day and no one would win. Truthfully, I don't care if OC India Coy wants to use the $2000 to buy a new subwoofer for his pickup truck, and OC Hotel Coy wants to use the $2000 to invest in an RESP for his kids' university tuition... that still doesn't make it any more justifiable to tax OC I more than OC H.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Yes, OC India Coy is paying $2000 a year more in taxes, but can easily afford to put enough into RRSPs so he gains the exact same benefit as income splitting.



No, he doesn't gain the exact same benefit. Don't even try to make this argument because you know its false. He has $2000 less net income than OC Hotel does with which to live his life *the way he chooses.*



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Are you saying you'd advocate getting rid of child tax credit, fitness incentive, exemption amounts for dependents? Should we trash the amount you can claim by paying property tax because owning a home is a lifestyle choice?



Yes, yes, yes. Are you seriously going to argue that getting rid of those benefits is somehow not going to be outweighed by a $17,000 BPE with a 15% flat tax rate in the majority of cases? Or that taxing everybody at the same rate would be somehow less fair than taxing certain people more and certain people less based on their own lifestyle choices? 



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Should we trash the amount you can claim by paying property tax because owning a home is a lifestyle choice?



Well for one thing, owning a home certainly is a lifestyle choice. I see no reason the government should financially support those who want to own a home instead of renting.

But, more to the point, we should be outraged that the government will not let us own our own property and taxes us on it every year long after its been paid for. We should demand the right to own our own property and not be taxed year after year. The government has taken your ability to actually own a carrot farm from you by force and offered you a carrot in return to keep you happy, and you have settled for the carrot.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jan 2015)

I've just noticed the change in electoral boundaries for Central Nova/Sackville Eastern Shore.  Peter Stoffer has lost more ground again to Peter MacKay for the upcoming election.  Paul Martin's 2006 election changed our address to Central Nova and now it's even more of us here.  I am annoyed as we are part of the Halifax Regional Municipality and have no real connection of the Central Nova folks.  I was just about at the end of the line before and felt out of touch with my MP, Peter MacKay.  This won't change things much.  His grass roots are further east in Pictou etc, therefore that is where he understandably turns his attentions to.


----------



## Tibbson (25 Jan 2015)

And then there are those persistent rumours that the HRM bit off more then it could chew and may contract a bit to a more realistic and manageable size which may really leave you in political limbo depending upon where you are.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Jan 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> Based off of 2013 taxes, if you implemented a 15% rate with a 17k BPE, the government would have collected around $82 billion in income tax, which is ~50 billion dollar less revenue than was collected ($130 billion). In the grand scheme, the Feds revenue was $271.7 billion, so this would mean only around $221 billion. The real question is, given $50 billion dollars left in the hands of the taxpayer's, how much revenue would be collected the next year? It's impossible to calculate, but certainly if $82 billion was the *worst*, revenues would start going up with that much money left in the hands of the consumer.





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> So, yes, a flat tax of 10% by the numbers (obviously people will change behaviour to suit a change in taxation conditions) comes close to generating the same amount of revenue if you ignore all the credits (closer if you disallow all the deductions as well).  Of course it also bites into the after tax income of many of the 1/3 of filers who file non-taxable returns*.  What is inescapably true is that it requires a sudden and large shifting of a tax burden away from people who can afford it to many who cannot.



Would the loss in revenue by movement to simple, flat income tax be counter-balanced by a single, higher consumption tax (since the gist of many of our discussions focus on consumption taxes being the most effective out of the four types)?  Perhaps 10% flat tax with high BPE and a 10% GST across Canada?


----------



## JS2218 (25 Jan 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> Not only is that quite a leap, it's missing the point. The government has *no business* telling you how to live your life. By giving tax breaks to some people based on their choices, it is encouraging people to make certain choices in line with their own view, and doing it by making the tax burden higher for someone else who they disagree with. Even worse, its using other people's money to do this.



This is where conservatives and libertarians disagree. Canada has a naturally shrinking population that is only being maintained and slightly increased through intensive immigration quotas. We're replacing our dying Canadians with non-Canadians. The Government, in my opinion, does have a role to play in encouraging Canadians to have more kids so that we can regenerate our own population and rely less on immigrants. Others have already stated the benefits of having more children: more money spent in the economy, a new (eventual) taxpayer has been born, and so on. The Government is trying to make it attractive to have children so they can benefit our country.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jan 2015)

>Would the loss in revenue by movement to simple, flat income tax be counter-balanced by a single, higher consumption tax 

I don't know if it _would_ be, but it _could_ be.

Before 2000, federal rates applied to three income bands at 17%, 26%, and 29%.  Over the next 8 tax years those changed to 15%, 22% and 26%/29% where 29% used to sit (Wikipedia source).  My provincial income tax rates used to be higher.  And I remember the good old days when we paid surtaxes on our federal and provincial income taxes (you calculated your f/p tax payable, and if they were high enough you had to pay some more).

GST has dropped from 7% to 5% (2006 and 2008).

Corporate income taxes have dropped, but those only concern me indirectly as a very minor shareholder.

The point: a succession of federal governments of the two parties that matter have, in principle, created some room for tax increases.  While I would prefer not to be taxed at higher rates, what I find most objectionable are these:
1) Federal parties playing coy and refusing to be rigorously specific about which taxes they will increase, and buy how much, before they are elected.
2) Provincial governments whining that the federal government should transfer more money to provinces (ie. feds take the heat, province reaps the goodwill).  If a province wants more money, it can use the taxation space vacated by the feds.*

*Harper is Wynne's best friend.  He reduces taxes and leaves the space to be occupied.  If the NDP or Liberals govern and raise taxes, their first priority is going to be their own plans.  They won't shovel money at Wynne, and some of that tax space will be gone.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jan 2015)

Here is why child-raising parents deserve taxpayer-funded support.

One day you may live to be old.  You will need services.  Those services will have to be provided by people younger than you.  Someone will have paid the costs of raising, and perhaps educating during the early adult years, those service providers.

Are we going to have a two-tier system in which all former parents get first dibs on the availability of services for which demand exceeds supply?


----------



## ballz (25 Jan 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Would the loss in revenue by movement to simple, flat income tax be counter-balanced by a single, higher consumption tax (since the gist of many of our discussions focus on consumption taxes being the most effective out of the four types)?  Perhaps 10% flat tax with high BPE and a 10% GST across Canada?



I like what  you're thinking, and yes, a consumption tax IS more efficient than an income tax. Unfortunately, the GST only represents 11-12% of revenues and the income tax represents close to 50%, so trying to completely offset the income tax using the GST could result in a large increase to the GST (you'd basically have to triple the GST to make up an extra $52 billion of revenue). While it is more efficient by the book, it would be hard to sell politically. It would mean the poorer people are sharing more of the tax burden (because income tax is only paid by those making above the BPE, and GST is paid for by everyone) and it would harm some industries such as tourism.

The good news is, going to a 15% flat tax with $17k BPE, although it would represent a decrease in revenue in the short term, it would certainly not remain as a $50 billion shortfall. After unloading things like healthcare from the Federal gov'ts responsibility, if the budget *is* still in deficit, what I'd like to see more use of in order to get into a surplus budget at that point is more use of user fees. But certainly, a small increase in GST would be more efficient than income tax.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Here is why child-raising parents deserve taxpayer-funded support.
> 
> One day you may live to be old.  You will need services.  Those services will have to be provided by people younger than you.  Someone will have paid the costs of raising, and perhaps educating during the early adult years, those service providers.
> 
> Are we going to have a two-tier system in which all former parents get first dibs on the availability of services for which demand exceeds supply?



Which services are we talking here? The fact that we have even set up things like the C.P.P. where we incur unfunded liabilities, which is being paid for by people working *now*, instead of already having been paid for by people while they were working, is just a good example why the government can't be trusted to run anything. It is not at all acceptable that my grandfather paid into his pension his whole life and now there is no money to pay him his Old Age Pension so the current working generation is paying it to him, not able to invest in their own pensions, and have to *hope* when we are 65 to Dead that the working class at that point in time is productive and able to pay us.

I don't need someone else's kids to look after me when I'm older. I need the government to stop taking so much of my money from 16 - 65 years old so I can look after myself when I'm older. If the government stops forcing me to depend on it for everything, and I screw it up and can't look after myself when I'm older, then that's my problem.

For the record, I do plan on having kids. I don't expect taxpayers to raise my kids for me, or pay for their eduction, or their daycare. Stop making me pay for everyone else's kids, often in ways I don't support (aka paying the majority of someone's basket-weaving degree), and I'll have no problem raising my own in a manner that I do believe in.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Jan 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> Which services are we talking here?



I think Brad is saying that elderly folks require a social/medical network that is funded by the working taxpayer.  Parents have invested in that net by creating/nurturing/paying for taxpayers.  Not saying I agree, but just how I read the statement.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jan 2015)

>my grandfather paid into his pension his whole life and now there is no money to pay him his Old Age Pension so the current working generation is paying it to him

Pensions were never "paid into" as future investments.  From "go", the system relied on current workers contributions to pay retirees (the first recipients had not contributed anything meaningful by a long chalk).  That has changed a bit with pension reform, but broadly the system is still a Ponzi scheme.

I don't mean the future generation as taxpayers (although that is necessary as just explained); I mean the physical bodies.  An assisted living facility isn't much use without staff.


----------



## ballz (25 Jan 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Pensions were never "paid into" as future investments.  From "go", the system relied on current workers contributions to pay retirees (the first recipients had not contributed anything meaningful by a long chalk).  That has changed a bit with pension reform, but broadly the system is still a Ponzi scheme.



Yes, I understand this, which was my point. The government can't coordinate a two-man circle-jerk, let alone a pension fund. Now we're in a hole of unfunded liabilities and wondering (or ignoring) how in the world we're going to pay for it.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I don't mean the future generation as taxpayers (although that is necessary as just explained); I mean the physical bodies.  An assisted living facility isn't much use without staff.



Do you really think if we didn't offer deductions for dependents and subsidize BAs we would end up with no employees at a hospital?


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jan 2015)

The "shortfall" created by going to a flat or single tax can be closed quickly with some of the following prescriptions:

1. Get the Federal government out of the Province's business. Ministries and programs which infringe on Provincial responsibilities as laid out in the B.N.A cost quite a bit. May research is out of date but the last time I came across the figures I think it was $19 billion.

2. Edward has pointed out there are literally thousands of groups getting Federal funding but not producing much more than PowerpPoint slides (if that). While it isn't clear to me just how much could be saved by pruning this, it is probably billions

3. I occasionally get Spam email telling me to apply for government business grants. The kicker is these ads tell me there are over 300 different programs to provide funding for start-up business. I can only imagine how many other redundant programs there are out there. Program rationalization is another place where billions could be saved.

4. Going back to 1, tell the Provinces to stay out of Federal business. IF provincial budgets are being used to pay for things which are the prerogative of the Federal government, then as a minimum that amount of money should be deducted from any transfer funding they get. Once again, this could be billions of dollars.

And look; we have chopped spending by 20-30 billion dollars a year (if not more) without even touching healthcare or "social programs". More monies could be saved by clearly identifying just what sorts of services the Federal government is paying for with transfer payments (and insisting the payments would be equal to the per capita cost of the most efficient ie. how much per person is being spent on service "X"). About $30 billion/year is being spent on business subsidies; companies which have been profitable for the last 5 years should be cut off at once, and everyone else told to become profitable in the next five years since that is when the tap is turned off.


----------



## CougarKing (25 Jan 2015)

JS2218 said:
			
		

> *We're replacing our dying Canadians with non-Canadians*. The Government, in my opinion, does have a role to play in encouraging Canadians to have more kids so that we can regenerate our own population and rely less on immigrants.




JS2218,

If the said immigrants have gone through the long painstaking process to become Canadian citizens, they are Canadians, with the same voting rights as you or me. 

Some may have dual citizenship with their origin nation and thus see having a Canadian passport simply as a "citizenship of convenience", but many more such as myself see themselves as Canadian first.

One of the reasons why the Conservatives won the 2011 election was because of then-immigration minister Jason Kenney's outreach efforts to predominantly immigrant communities/ridings that had traditionally voted Liberal/NDP in the past.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jan 2015)

>Do you really think if we didn't offer deductions for dependents and subsidize BAs we would end up with no employees at a hospital?

"None" is reductio ad absurdum.  Between "enough" and "none" there is "not enough".  So who gets first call?  The highest bidder?  That would be ironic - the people who don't undertake the expense of raising children are more likely to have money to bid up the cost of services for which demand outstrips supply.  The couple who raised 6 kids can't afford the cost of care in the facility at which their son works...etc.

Regardless of where the income splitting discussion ends, rather than dump everything into a massive and disruptive tax reform scheme the current approach is preferable: gradually squeeze down public spending, and simultaneously squeeze down taxation.  If other parties want to go the opposite direction, press them to reveal details before they are elected.  (This would require institutional media who don't drop their panties for Trudeau and Mulcair.)


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jan 2015)

I got curious about worker:retiree (contributor:recipient) ratios.  I did not find an authoritative source.  What I did find were allegations of (approximately) a 7:1 ratio circa 1970, 5:1 circa 2000, 4:1 circa today, and predictions of 2:1 by 2050 (some by 2030, which I ignored) - roughly a drop of 1 on the left hand side each 15 years.

Naturally, the generations that can't be arsed to raise enough kids to support them in future are also sticking the kids with increasing public debts.


----------



## ballz (25 Jan 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Do you really think if we didn't offer deductions for dependents and subsidize BAs we would end up with no employees at a hospital?
> 
> "None" is reductio ad absurdum.  Between "enough" and "none" there is "not enough".  So who gets first call?  The highest bidder?  That would be ironic - the people who don't undertake the expense of raising children are more likely to have money to bid up the cost of services for which demand outstrips supply.  The couple who raised 6 kids can't afford the cost of care in the facility at which their son works...etc.



They would have 6 kids who should feel pretty obligated to help look after them... My savings/investments vs the income of 6 kids? Perhaps if we de-regulated and let nature take its course then people would actually have more kids like they used to?

We are dealing in way too many hypothetical scenarios. The important principle is individual sovereignty. Someone else's choice to have kids shouldn't cost me money just because they are voting for the government to take my money by force. It's immoral.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Regardless of where the income splitting discussion ends, rather than dump everything into a massive and disruptive tax reform scheme the current approach is preferable: gradually squeeze down public spending, and simultaneously squeeze down taxation.



Just not happening nearly fast enough in my opinion, but I understand politicians can't just "do what they want." I'm sure the 2008 recession didn't help matters. And while I'm sure it doesn't need to be said again, its also happening in a manner that I believe is biased towards advancing the government's (no matter what party is in power) social agenda.


----------



## JS2218 (27 Jan 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> JS2218,
> 
> If the said immigrants have gone through the long painstaking process to become Canadian citizens, they are Canadians, with the same voting rights as you or me.
> 
> ...



I meant nothing pejorative towards immigrants. I was simply pointing out that the Canadian-born population is not sustainable, thus requiring immigrants in order to maintain and slowly increase our population. I meant nothing negative by that in and of itself.


----------



## Remius (11 Feb 2015)

This is turning into a weird week in politics.

 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/are-stephen-harper-s-conservatives-making-inroads-in-quebec-1.2951565


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Feb 2015)

Excellent column discussing the complete lack of real opposition to the government on most fronts given the fact that 2/3 of Canadians did not vote for the Conservatives. I for one haven't seen much evidence of the "liberal media" of late. And Harper's record doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all. "How pathetic are we?" indeed.



http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/02/war-terror-security-blowing-whistle-on-harpers-dirty-politics



> Mind you, the media -- TV mainly, but not exclusively -- helps with the amnesia. The fact that Harper thinks the media are against him is a measure of his dictatorial mindset. What he means is that they're not backing him the way Russia's media back Vladimir Putin.
> 
> He has actually succeeded in shutting down all but controlled information -- propaganda, essentially -- from the federal government with little sustained protest; the media still peddle the myth of the Conservatives as great economic managers, although their central economic pillar -- the tar sands -- has collapsed; resigning foreign affairs minister John Baird was given a hero's sendoff from both media and opposition although his main policy move -- supporting "freedom fighters" in Libya and Syria that turned out to be mostly terrorists many of which went on to form ISIS -- was catastrophic. And, of course, two of the media's biggest stars -- Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin -- compromised their entire journalistic dignity to hit the trail fundraising for him.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Feb 2015)

rabble.ca is one of those sites where you should take a long hot shower after clicking on it. 

I see less biased stuff on Al-Jazeera and RT when I am looking at outlets for contrasting information sources.

And I see you and they fell for the Young Dauphin's line about the oil industry. Just as a question Kilo; what percentage of Canada's economy does the oil industry constitute? If you knew the answer then you would also know that the "excellent" colunm is total BS. Maybe you should start doing your research on Al-Jazeera and RT. Even the CBC is a better source of information (and that is setting a pretty low bar).


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Feb 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Excellent column discussing the complete lack of real opposition to the government on most fronts given the fact that 2/3 of Canadians did not vote for the Conservatives. I for one haven't seen much evidence of the "liberal media" of late. And Harper's record doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all. "How pathetic are we?" indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/02/war-terror-security-blowing-whistle-on-harpers-dirty-politics



I see, but the 10 years Chrétien was PM with about the same percentage of the popular vote- that was just fine?


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Feb 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I see, but the 10 years Chrétien was PM with about the same percentage of the popular vote- that was just fine?



Its fine because Rabble got the government they wanted.

The problem with awarding seats based on popular vote, is that you no longer get to pick the candidate to represent your riding. Seats are filled by parties. So instead of each region getting to vote for the candidate they want (and in a perfect world not for a party), you end up voting for a party and getting parachute candidates everywhere. Not really a proper form of representation, and we'll be constantly in a state of minority or coalition governments with even more political games to get what the ruling party wants.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Feb 2015)

rabble.ca is basically talking points for the left extremity of the NDP.  Anti-Harper propaganda is commonplace.

Sidebar- I do so like it when progressives note the point - which they often do - that the Conservatives formed a majority government with just under 40% of the popular vote (however they choose to express it).  Here in BC, the last two NDP governments were 1991 (40.71%) and 1996 (39.45%, less than the Liberals' 41.82%).  Undoubtedly they will be happy to climb in again without the certification of an overwhelming majority, or even a bare one.

My impression of push-back from supporters of parties other than Conservative is that there is plenty of it, starting with the PBO and opposition parties, winding down through various think tanks and media organs to the argumentariat.  The problem is that there isn't much scandal on which to hang push-back, and the other parties occasional partake of their own misdeeds.  The Canadian media collective doesn't seem to be quite as partisan as in the US, so I suppose they have more self-respect than to jump on every Conservative slip and hide all the others.  When a small-ball personal corruption scandal surfaces, it gets pumped like a leaky raft.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Feb 2015)

The people who complain about "governing with a minority" are, clearly, based upon the evidence of their own words, unfit to vote because they do not understand the basics of electoral democracy ... there are, of course, a few who do understand those democratic basics and claim "Conservatives govern without a majority" anyway: they are lying, and they know it.

No Canadian prime minister has governed with the support of 50%+1 of the voters since (Progressive Conservative) Brian Mulroney did it (with 50.03% of the popular vote) in 1984. _Saint Pierre_ Trudeau never got 50% of the popular vote: the most he managed was 45.37% in 1968. Before Mulroney the last PM to win an election with more than 50% was (also Conservative) John Deifenbaker in 1958 who won with 53.67% of the popular vote in 1958 ...  before "Dief the Chief" King won with 51% in 1940.

So, 50% "wins" are very, very rare and 35-45% are the normal "mandates" for majority governments in a three, four or five party Westminster system.

People who claim that Conservatives lack legitimacy are either fools or liars, sometimes both. If that makes some Army.ca members fools and/or liars ... well, if the shoe fits, etc.


----------



## Kilo_302 (25 Feb 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> rabble.ca is one of those sites where you should take a long hot shower after clicking on it.
> 
> I see less biased stuff on Al-Jazeera and RT when I am looking at outlets for contrasting information sources.
> 
> And I see you and they fell for the Young Dauphin's line about the oil industry. Just as a question Kilo; what percentage of Canada's economy does the oil industry constitute? If you knew the answer then you would also know that the "excellent" colunm is total BS. Maybe you should start doing your research on Al-Jazeera and RT. Even the CBC is a better source of information (and that is setting a pretty low bar).



No one here has actually engaged in what the article says about Harper's policies. Is this because the word "Conservative" is in party name? History has shown us where Harper is trying to take us. I would have thought the champions of freedom and liberty on this thread would recognize this.


----------



## Remius (25 Feb 2015)

This poll from three hundred eight dot com shows a projected Conservative minority government.  Things will change yes, I know that, but I find it interesting given recent events.  Lots to read into here.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/

Very tight results.


----------



## Kilo_302 (25 Feb 2015)

We're a laughing stock. Sure this article is biased against Harper, but the facts are all correct.  I would argue that Canada and Canadians are worse off in just about every way after 10 years of a Conservative government. If there is any way in which things have got better in Canada, someone please tell me.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/crude-awakening-how-the-keystone-veto-dashes-canadas-superpower-dreams-20150224?page=3


----------



## Cloud Cover (25 Feb 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> No one here has actually engaged in what the article says about Harper's policies. Is this because the word "Conservative" is in party name? History has shown us where Harper is trying to take us. I would have thought the champions of freedom and liberty on this thread would recognize this.



I'm game, but what is to comment on? The article is an anti Harper rant (I'm fine with that) but lacks facts and I didn't really sbee and points that are substantive and worth discussion. Summay: the article was just as vague, ideological and politically jabbing as Harper himself.  

Not that I am going to vote conservative again, but I do think the leaders of the parties are mixed up. Mulclair would be an excellent leader for the Cons. Trudeau really is an NDP. Harper is just out of credibility but I do think  most of the government agenda on is sound, with the exceptions of income splitting, TFSA limits (raise the rrsp limit instead with a non-deductible government match up to $1000 for low incomes), and of course national defence- not a single dime should be added until substantial deep rooted purge and reform is completed, after which I suspect the defence budget will be found to be more than adequate for a small and diminishing power like Canada.


----------



## Cloud Cover (25 Feb 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> We're a laughing stock. Sure this article is biased against Harper, but the facts are all correct.  I would argue that Canada and Canadians are worse off in just about every way after 10 years of a Conservative government. If there is any way in which things have got better in Canada, someone please tell me.
> 
> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/crude-awakening-how-the-keystone-veto-dashes-canadas-superpower-dreams-20150224?page=3



Well, for starters: I don' t have to register my guns. And one need not be blingual to hold a cabinet position. Quebec doesn't dictate foreign policy. Unions are going to be held accountable. I don't have to save anything on my hard drive or my mailbox because the CSE and CSIS have a copy. And I know for certain that my job and my future are entirely dependent on bad corporate head office planning, rather than interventionist central government planning. And, since I am in my late 40's, there never really was a social safety net to lose and so I get to enjoy working until the day I die. Absolute certainty makes us all better off, and that is something the Cons have delivered, and it is irreversible. Have a happy day!


----------



## a_majoor (25 Feb 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> No one here has actually engaged in what the article says about Harper's policies. Is this because the word "Conservative" is in party name? History has shown us where Harper is trying to take us. I would have thought the champions of freedom and liberty on this thread would recognize this.



Well, I did challenge you to defend your choice of article, but you sidestepped the point (again). BTW, the oil and gas sector make @8% of Canada's GDP, so if it is the "central pillar" of the Canadian economy or CPC's economic plans, then someone needs a short math primer (starting with the Young Dauphin, who started the collapsing pillar nonsense. "Nice Hair" apparently does not translate into numeracy). If you want to look at "central pillars", the manufacturing sector is @11% while real estate and rentals make up a bit over 12%. Health care and social assistance is @ 7% so is public administration. 

As an Ontarian, I have seen a general collapse of standards of living due to the actions of Queen's Park, _not_ Ottawa (and I suppose that the evil Conservatives have been running Ontario for more than a decade now?). In the sense that my Federal taxes have seen some reduction (by utilizing the various tax breaks offered by the Government), I have managed to come out a bit ahead, although I admit I would rather a general tax reduction than mining "botique" tax breaks. The main difference between now and the 1990's is the "botique" tax breaks offered in the 1990's were rarely accessable by lower and middle class Canadians.

I also applaude a foreign policy wich stands *for* individual freedoms, democracy and the rule of law, as opposed to the mealy mouthed anti-Americanism and general avoidance of principles that marked past governments.


----------



## Kilo_302 (25 Feb 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Well, I did challenge you to defend your choice of article, but you sidestepped the point (again). BTW, the oil and gas sector make @8% of Canada's GDP, so if it is the "central pillar" of the Canadian economy or CPC's economic plans, then someone needs a short math primer (starting with the Young Dauphin, who started the collapsing pillar nonsense. "Nice Hair" apparently does not translate into numeracy). If you want to look at "central pillars", the manufacturing sector is @11% while real estate and rentals make up a bit over 12%. Health care and social assistance is @ 7% so is public administration.
> 
> As an Ontarian, I have seen a general collapse of standards of living due to the actions of Queen's Park, _not_ Ottawa (and I suppose that the evil Conservatives have been running Ontario for more than a decade now?). In the sense that my Federal taxes have seen some reduction (by utilizing the various tax breaks offered by the Government), I have managed to come out a bit ahead, although I admit I would rather a general tax reduction than mining "botique" tax breaks. The main difference between now and the 1990's is the "botique" tax breaks offered in the 1990's were rarely accessable by lower and middle class Canadians.
> 
> I also applaude a foreign policy wich stands *for* individual freedoms, democracy and the rule of law, as opposed to the mealy mouthed anti-Americanism and general avoidance of principles that marked past governments.



I don't think I have a habit of sidestepping questions at all. As for the 8% of GDP, this is correct, but the point is that Harper has MADE oil and gas a central pillar of his economic policy and it has oversized impact on Canadian economic policy.

The collpase of the standards of living you refer to is largely due to the "common sense" revolution of the Harris days. These policies are directly related to our federal government's line of thinking in terms of cutting services and cutting taxes. It's no mystery that when people have less access to services, standards of living drop. The idea that "liberal" policies are the cause of this is hogwash. Taxes are not a bad thing, and I'm sorry, but you paying a marginally lower tax rate is not what I would call an overall positive trend for Canadians in general. In just about every metric Canada is worse off than we were 10 years ago. Of course, this is now harder to track because our government in it's infinite wisdom canceled the long form census. Pesky things like facts get in the way of their ideology. You might want to try desconstructing conservative thought for a change.

A foreign policy that stands for individual freedom? We're selling weapons to the Saudis, one of the most repressive regimes in the world. Our government has principles when it suits them.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Feb 2015)

The long form census which asked me about my ethnic background and how many bathrooms I had in my house? Wow, by that metric I'm doing a stellar job.

Interesting that in your universe, a government which last enacted policies in the 1990's can receive the blame for outcomes like electrical energy rates increasing since the imposition of the Green energy program, scandals like ehealth, ORNG, closing two gas plants at a cost of over a billion dollars etc; all of which took place post 2003. And the levels of service in Ontario are crap despite the constant escalation of taxes since 2003. The exit of the manufacturing sector in Ontario is pretty directly tied to the increase in taxes, energy prices and regulatory burdens post 2003, with the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. I do remember a previous government run by a premier named Mike where Ontario was _gaining_ jobs by the hundreds of thousands....

Since the real world evidently is not agreeing with you, and you hate the current government, maybe you should move to someplace more to your liking, although I'm a bit hard pressed to think of where such a place might be.


----------



## larry Strong (25 Feb 2015)

:goodpost: 



Cheers
Larry


----------



## GAP (25 Feb 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Since the real world evidently is not agreeing with you, and you hate the current government, maybe you should move to someplace more to your liking, although I'm a bit hard pressed to think of where such a place might be.



The U.S. ?


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Feb 2015)

>As for the 8% of GDP, this is correct, but the point is that Harper has MADE oil and gas a central pillar of his economic policy and it has oversized impact on Canadian economic policy.

Another way to look at it is that Harper made the most of what was strong, while it was strong.  There are plenty of governments that managed to pass the time prior to 2008 and since digging their holes a little deeper.


----------



## Scott (25 Feb 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The people who complain about "governing with a minority" are, clearly, based upon the evidence of their own words, unfit to vote because they do not understand the basics of electoral democracy ... there are, of course, a few who do understand those democratic basics and claim "Conservatives govern without a majority" anyway: they are lying, and they know it.
> 
> No Canadian prime minister has governed with the support of 50%+1 of the voters since (Progressive Conservative) Brian Mulroney did it (with 50.03% of the popular vote) in 1984. _Saint Pierre_ Trudeau never got 50% of the popular vote: the most he managed was 45.37% in 1968. Before Mulroney the last PM to win an election with more than 50% was (also Conservative) John Deifenbaker in 1958 who won with 53.67% of the popular vote in 1958 ...  before "Dief the Chief" King won with 51% in 1940.
> 
> ...



Don't confuse Kilo with facts, you'll ruin his spouting of rabble.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Feb 2015)

Another real win for Canadians. Of course the article still goes with the fiction that money in *our* pocket is somehow a "loss" to the government; it is *our* money, and the veiwpoint that it somehow does not belong to the people who ear nit is both infuriating and terrifying (especially if those people can get their hands on the levers of government and have the means to take our savings and earnings):

http://business.financialpost.com/2015/02/24/canadians-are-finally-saving-money-why-stop-now/



> *Canadians are finally saving money. Why stop now?*
> Garry Marr | February 24, 2015 | Last Updated: Feb 24 6:21 PM ET
> 
> A day doesn’t go by without Canadians being told they’re not saving enough for retirement. The endless lecturing about debt levels, from the International Monetary Fund to the governor of the Bank of Canada, reinforces this idea we have too many liabilities and not enough assets.
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Mar 2015)

A bone to the base, perhaps?


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced the Government’s intent to introduce legislation to keep Canadian families and their communities safe by ensuring that the most heinous criminals will be sentenced to life behind bars without possibility of parole.
> 
> (....)
> 
> ...


----------



## McG (4 Mar 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> the killing of police officers or corrections officers;


It would be nice to see CAF members added to that list.


----------



## cryco (4 Mar 2015)

I just heard about that on the radio. There is a possibility of getting released after 35 years, but would require the cabinet to grant him/her their release.
Sounds like you said, bone to the base.
Almost think it's more humane to execute them  instead of leaving them behind bars for what could be 50 or 60 years...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Mar 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> It would be nice to see CAF members added to that list.



..........and Peace Officers


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Mar 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> It would be nice to see CAF members added to that list.


Unless that all gets caught up, depending on circumstance, under the "terrorism" category.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> ..........and Peace Officers


I'm kind of surprised the proposal _doesn't_ go that far, actually, given the traditional Blue support for that cohort.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Mar 2015)

By using the term Peace Officer, they encompass everyone doing that sort of duty, and not limit it to a very narrow category.

The Criminal Code defines a Peace Officer as:

“peace officer” includes

(a) a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer and justice of the peace,

(b) a member of the Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,

(c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,

(c.1) a designated officer as defined in section 2 of the Integrated Cross-border Law Enforcement Operations Act, when

(i) participating in an integrated cross-border operation, as defined in section 2 of that Act, or

(ii) engaging in an activity incidental to such an operation, including travel for the purpose of participating in the operation and appearances in court arising from the operation,

(d) an officer within the meaning of the Customs Act, the Excise Act or the Excise Act, 2001, or a person having the powers of such an officer, when performing any duty in the administration of any of those Acts,

(d.1) an officer authorized under subsection 138(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,

(e) a person designated as a fishery guardian under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act and a person designated as a fishery officer under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act or the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act,

(f) the pilot in command of an aircraft

(i) registered in Canada under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act, or

(ii) leased without crew and operated by a person who is qualified under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act to be registered as owner of an aircraft registered in Canada under those regulations, while the aircraft is in flight, and

(g) officers and non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces who are

(i) appointed for the purposes of section 156 of the National Defence Act, or

(ii) employed on duties that the Governor in Council, in regulations made under the National Defence Act for the purposes of this paragraph, has prescribed to be of such a kind as to necessitate that the officers and non-commissioned members performing them have the powers of peace officers;

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-1.html


----------



## Retired AF Guy (4 Mar 2015)

> This legislation will build on the Government’s tough-on-crime measures to keep our streets and communities safe by ensuring that criminals who are convicted of the most serious murders or those who are convicted of high treason will be imprisoned for the rest of their natural lives with no access to parole. This will include a mandatory sentence of life without parole for first degree murders involving:
> 
> -sexual assault;
> - kidnapping or forcible confinement;
> ...



I know there is some overlap between offences, but I would add mass murders and serial killers.


----------



## Kilo_302 (5 Mar 2015)

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/04/andrew-coyne-no-need-for-tories-throw-away-the-key-act/


Andrew Coyne is, I think we can agree, no lover of the Liberal Party and certainly not the NDP. This proposed leglistation is political pandering, with little sense or logic behind it. It does however, appeal to emotion and the desire for retribution.

From the article:


> This is — does it even need saying? — nonsense. Not every prisoner is paroled after 25 years: only those judged at low risk of re-offending. Those designated as “dangerous offenders” can already be kept locked up for life. Parole, further, does not mean prisoners are simply set loose in the community, or released unconditionally: rather they remain, as a backgrounder by the Parole Board of Canada explains, “subject to the conditions of parole and the supervision of a … parole officer.” For how long? “For the rest of their lives.”


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Mar 2015)

David Akin offers a new _"Predictionator_:"







He says: "A batch of recent polls means I've got a new "Predictionator" seat count for your entertainment ..."

If that holds then the Liberals _could_ form a coalition with the NDP (Justin Trudeau as Prime Minister, Thomas Mulcair as Deputy Prime Minister and a left of centre programme for four years) but, unless they announced that plan before the vote, say two or three weeks before the vote, they would be accused of subverting the election, but it's what happened in the UK after their last general election.

Another prospect, given these results, is that 31 or 32 or more of the so-called Manley Liberals, the right wing of the Liberal Party - maybe led by Scott Brison who, I suspect, could not stomach the economic programme that the NDP would demand - would cross the floor as members of a *New Liberal Party* to join a CPC led coalition government. It still opens them (and the CPC) to charges of subverting the election but ...

The advantage of what is, to me, a more _natural_ New Liberal/CPC coalition is that we get closer and closer to a two party system:

     A centre right Liberal-Conservative (Alliance) Party;

     A centre left New Democratic-Liberal (Alliance) Party

     A small Quebec Nationalist Party  )
     A small Social Conservative Party  } None of which are likely to get the 12 seats necessary to achieve real party status
     A small Socialist Party                  )


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Mar 2015)

I think a deterrent to the notion of a coalition would be the example of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in Britain.  The Conservatives are struggling, in part because they did not control their own agenda, but the Liberal Democrats will be lucky to take as many seats and the Ulster NationalistsUnionists.

Would Thomas Mulcair take that gamble? Trudeau might.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Mar 2015)

I still think folks are underestimating the potential for a resurgent Bloc. The Orange Crush hasn't been the champion of Quebec people there expected.

The other factor in play is that the Liberal's current policy consists of "We're not the other guys." Not exactly the depth the electorate is looking for.


----------



## McG (8 Mar 2015)

Maybe Quebec will give the Greens a try?


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Mar 2015)

I agree with Campbell Clark's article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, Prime Minister Harper plans to stoke the flames of our fear of terrorists and ride that fear to an election victory this year:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/tories-find-power-in-the-politics-of-terror/article23353503/


> Tories find power in the politics of terror
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I wish that Canadian election could be fought on real, important issues, but I've been alive since this fellow 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 was PM and in all that time only two have campaigned in elections that were, in the main, decided on issues of real, _national_ importance:






 and


----------



## a_majoor (9 Mar 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I still think folks are underestimating the potential for a resurgent Bloc. The Orange Crush hasn't been the champion of Quebec people there expected.
> 
> The other factor in play is that the Liberal's current policy consists of "We're not the other guys." Not exactly the depth the electorate is looking for.



I thought thier policy was "Nice Hair"  ???


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Mar 2015)

> It could backfire. Voters can be turned off if they feel a party is trying to manipulate them. An opponent like Mr. Trudeau might contrast fear *with hope*, which worked for Barack Obama in 2008, when the U.S. was in two wars and an economic crisis.



And look how that turned out. If you think PM Harper is secretive, look at the Obama Administration. Probably the most secretive, obfuscating, ethically corrupt government in US history. 

President Obama learns of all events from the media at the same time as US citizens. The Hillary Clinton email scandal is the latest. She set up a_ private Server_ and conducted_* all*_ her business/emails, through several email addresses, as United States Secretary of State on that Server. The WH claim they _*never*_ received an email from her so were not aware.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2015)

The TFSA is a powerful economic tool for the individual investor, and I think the battle over giving the taxpayer more economic room or less will be one of the other defining issues in this election campaign. We already see how the "Left" is trying to warp the TFSA to their "narrative" (only the rich benefit, "losses" to the government) despite the empirical research which demolish these arguments:

http://business.financialpost.com/2015/03/10/tfsa-criticisms-miss-key-points-the-benefits-of-the-most-popular-savings-tool-ever/



> *TFSA criticisms miss key points: The benefits of the most popular savings tool ever*
> Ian C.W. Russell, Special to Financial Post | March 10, 2015 9:01 AM ET
> More from Special to Financial Post
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (10 Mar 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree with Campbell Clark's article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, Prime Minister Harper plans to stoke the flames of our fear of terrorists and ride that fear to an election victory this year:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/tories-find-power-in-the-politics-of-terror/article23353503/
> 
> ...



It's gets worse, with comparisons being made to the Jewish holocaust today in Parliament:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/03/10/holocaust-did-not-begin-in-the-gas-chamber-it-began-with-words-minister-in-defence-of-new-anti-terrorism-bill/

Now usually I would say the first person to bring up Hitler loses the debate, and this case is no exception.  What's almost amusing about this case (if it weren't so tragic and didn't have such serious consequences) is that Steven Blaney's tenuous grasp on history didn't raise any red flags when "holocaust!!" popped into his brain. Can anyone recall a time (say 1933?) when a certain politician used an attack on their parliament to suspend civil liberties and solidify their grip on power? The irony is too much.

But in all seriousness, we need to be asking questions about this legislation (and it looks like we finally are). What happens if a real attack on Canadian soil occurs? What will we be willing to give up then? And with C-51 enacted, what will the consequences for anyone suspected of uttering anything construed as "anti-government" or "anti-Canadian" be? This applies to both the right and the left. I've been to reading groups that would probably put me on a list, and I'm sure many on this site might have posted an opinion at some time or another that could get you into hot water if the right (or wrong) guy is on the case. This doesn't mean of course that people on either end of the spectrum don't love Canada.

The other elephant in the room is, what will become of Muslims after a serious attack with perhaps dozens or hundreds of civilian casualties on Canadian soil? 20 years from now, as civil institutions continue to erode and Canadians are even less engaged in the democratic process, I'm not sure there would be much to stand between the Canadian Muslim community and a government (doesn't have to be the Conservatives at all) that might want to forcibly re-locate or deport them. The framework for the laws that might allow them to do this is in C-51.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Mar 2015)

>What happens if a real attack on Canadian soil occurs?

The people who overzealously argue for civil rights will have a hard time getting a hearing.  You can't stand against everything and then whine when people in the grip of tragedy decide never to listen to you.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Mar 2015)

So, does this mean we'll have a budget come down anytime soon?


> Private-sector economists who submitted their prebudget forecasts to Ottawa this week say that with the past two months of steady oil prices there is no longer a need to delay the budget.
> 
> Private-sector forecasters had until Wednesday to submit their latest figures to the Department of Finance Canada for the coming federal budget and the results cement the view that slower growth and low oil prices are here to stay this year.
> 
> ...


----------



## JS2218 (14 Mar 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> So, does this mean we'll have a budget come down anytime soon?



My money's on April 21.


----------



## pbi (18 Mar 2015)

A Tory minority, please...

That would probably give us the best set of options:

-a fair/good track CPC record on fiscal management and pro-business outlook, and

-a solid centre/left balance to offset the more neanderthal, US Right-wing style TTPs the Tories have sunk to in the last few years, but without a willy-nilly descent into the Socialist mire; and

-a chance at a half-decent defence policy and maybe some $$$ to go with it;  and

-a much better chance at representing Quebec (yes...that still matters); and

-a counterbalance to the "second-term-itis" affliction characterized (in all incumbent Canadian parties after the first term) by arrogance, disrespect for the electorate, secrecy, flouting of the law; and trough-snuffling entitlement.

One can only hope.

-


----------



## Kilo_302 (18 Mar 2015)

pbi said:
			
		

> A Tory minority, please...
> 
> That would probably give us the best set of options:
> 
> ...




In what world has the CPC had even a passing track record on fiscal management? 

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/of-the-last-three-federal-governments-which-had-the-best-fiscal-record/

Sure, Harper had the financial crisis to deal with, but austerity as a way of balancing the budget has been proven in Europe as the worst thing you can do.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Mar 2015)

Meanwhile, over at Rideau Hall ....


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper is pleased to announce that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, has welcomed the continuance in office of His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston as Governor General until September 2017.
> 
> His Excellency has accepted the Prime Minister’s invitation to remain in office for this extended term, which will cover many of the events celebrating Canada’s 150th anniversary of Confederation ....


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Mar 2015)

>In what world has the CPC had even a passing track record on fiscal management?

Ours.  As the authors of your "evidence" state in the penultimate sentence of their article, "Of course, this analysis takes no account of the political and economic conditions each Prime Minister faced when they were in office."

Any analysis which fails to include important changes in the fiscal and economic landscape in the decade prior to the Liberals' benchmark year of cuts is no analysis at all.  And there is no evidence whatsoever to show that an alternative government would have performed better following the 2008 shakedown.

And to ignore or obscure that much of the recent Conservative spending has been the restoration and resumption of transfers and program spending the Liberals constrained and cut during the mid-90s is asinine.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Mar 2015)

I can't imagine a Conservative minority.  We will have either a Conservative majority, or a Liberal/NDP coalition majority.

I will not believe any assurances (pre-election promises) that the Liberals and NDP will not form a majority coalition if between them they hold enough seats.  If they have the seats, they will succumb to the obvious temptation.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Mar 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I can't imagine a Conservative minority.  We will have either a Conservative majority, or a Liberal/NDP coalition majority.



Mr Trudeau has ruled out a coalition. Not because he doesn't believe that it's not possible, but simply because Mr Mulcair has staked a claim to the PM chair.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I will not believe any assurances (pre-election promises) that the Liberals and NDP will not form a majority coalition if between them they hold enough seats.  If they have the seats, they will succumb to the obvious temptation.



The only validity a coalition gains is when the electorate knows up front that it's an option, and the party leaders declare it an option. Once the election is over, it seems to me at least, to be a usurpation of the electorate's wishes to form a coalition.

Succumb to temptation? Didn't work out so well for them last time. That being said, I think that the GG could quite rightly refuse to allow them to form the government, based on my prior observation.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Mar 2015)

If neither M. Mulcair nor M. Trudeau categorically rules out any sort of coalition during the campaign then _some sort_ of accommodation remains possible ...

Assume, please, a very slim CPC minority that cannot survive its first confidence vote:

     The easiest option is for one party leader, the leader of the party with the second most seats in the HoC, to go to the GG, armed with an assurance of support from the leader of the other large party (assume, please, that the two,
     together, have a slim majority) and ask for an opportunity to form a government. If we are in the first few weeks or even months (less, say, than eight months) of a new parliament and the party with the most seats cannot secure
     the confidence of the House then the GG_ should _ give the opposition leader a chance to try to govern; or

     The better option is that two leaders, who, together, have a majority, go to the GG with a formal proposal for a coalition - a "unity" government. In that case, unless we are two or more years into a parliament, then I _think_ that
     the GG _must_ allow the coalition to govern.

I actually _*fear*_ a Liberal/NDP coalition on economic grounds. I believe it would be fiscally irresponsible and I think it would do serious, long term harm to our country. I think a Conservative/NDP coalition is a practical (philosophical) impossibility; they are of different species - a _liger_ is a biological possibility (a Liberal/NDP coalition would be a liger) but mixing the CPC and the NDP would be like trying to crossbreed a lion with a bear ~ they're both large land animals but they cannot interbreed.

I would favour a formal Conservative/Liberal coalition - led by either party but with Conservative fiscal values and Liberal social values.

It _seems to me_ that, constitutionally, that the GG has great* latitude in ensuring that the country either has an effective government or is in the process of electing one. Coalitions, formal or informal, are a legitimate part of the process.

_____
* But not unlimited; remember the "King-Byng thing" in 1926 - it still matters a lot


----------



## a_majoor (20 Mar 2015)

What would be interesting to watch (from a safe distance) is if the combined Liberal/NDP seat count is sufficient to form a government, but the NDP has the most seats, Liberals still coming in third.

Would the Young Dauphin allow himself to be sidelined as Deputy PM? I think his preening sense of self importance will sabotage any moves in that direction, more importantly, the movers in the Liberal backrooms might not apprieciate being permanently sidelined either.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Mar 2015)

Interesting piece on the "Middle Class" from the Financial Post. We should be primed for the "help the middle class" meme going into the election becasue that will probably be one of the key planks in everyone's platform. But should it be?

http://business.financialpost.com/2015/03/19/peter-foster-why-helping-the-middle-class-is-misguided/



> *Peter Foster: Why ‘helping’ the middle class is misguided*
> Peter Foster | March 19, 2015 5:38 PM ET
> 
> It is human capital — within the context of constant innovation and shifts in the market — that determines personal outcomes, not class struggle
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Mar 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If neither M. Mulcair nor M. Trudeau categorically rules out any sort of coalition during the campaign then _some sort_ of accommodation remains possible ...
> 
> ( .... )
> 
> ...


I wonder how many here would feel about a coalition that didn't _run_ as a coalition - seems a LOT of folks opposed any non-declared-during-the-election coalitioning here a few years ago.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Mar 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I wonder how many here would feel about a coalition that didn't _run_ as a coalition - seems a LOT of folks opposed any non-declared-during-the-election coalitioning here a few years ago.



And I'm willing to bet that most of us will be just as angry if they try that crap again this time. Coalitions are possible and allowed under our system, but the voters must be told that they are voting for a coalition. Yelling "Surprise" after the fact is not on.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Mar 2015)

>Succumb to temptation? Didn't work out so well for them last time.

They got spanked last time because Harper was able to block them and because the Bloc was a partner (regardless how they tried to de-emphasize it); the former fact shaped the field for voters to express an opinion and the latter fact shaped the opinion.  If the Liberals and NDP hold a combined majority (new caveat: and the Liberals are the major partner*), the rationalization hamster will spin as long as necessary to find excuses.  The next scheduled election will be too far away for any politician to seriously worry about broken promises.  Rely on all of the media not favourable to Harper to flood the zone with well-sourced articles arguing the law (constitutionality) in order to erase any memory of promises and drown out any protestations of mere propriety (they certainly made the effort last time).

*If Trudeau allows the LPC to play second banana in a NDP/LPC coalition, his and the LPC's political fortunes will take a long holiday.  I expect saner heads in the party to prevail.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (21 Mar 2015)

I am confident that Harper talked to potential candidates for Governor General prior to his appointment and chose someone whose basic belief is that the Governor General should follow the Prime Minister's advice.  Also notice the 2 year term extension.  My bet - the defeat in the House of a Conservative minority would be followed by an election.  There has been no precedent in 148 years.  The King-Byng affair was different in that the Liberals actually lost the election and refused to quit.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Mar 2015)

Another interesting idea is that a declared coalition option might actually work in the Conservative's favour. Think about the effect it would have on blue Liberals. In addition, there could be considerable vote splitting as both the NDP and Liberal supporters jockey to have their man occupy 24 Sussex, with the Torries coming up the middle.


----------



## JS2218 (22 Mar 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Another interesting idea is that a declared coalition option might actually work in the Conservative's favour. Think about the effect it would have on blue Liberals. In addition, there could be considerable vote splitting as both the NDP and Liberal supporters jockey to have their man occupy 24 Sussex, with the Torries coming up the middle.



 :nod:

Especially with a 5-way left-wing vote split in Quebec (NDP-Liberal-Bloc-Green-and whatever this new "Force Democratique" is).


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Mar 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is an interesting bit of speculation or prognostication, if you will:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/why-stephen-harper-may-call-an-election-earlier-than-planned/article10337226/
> 
> ...




It has been almost two years since John Ibbitson pondered a Spring 2015 election and I am bringing the idea back because we are fast approaching the day (early April) when the writs must be dropped for a May election.

     Prime Minister Harper has a few things - e.g. _fear_ of Islamic extremism ~ going for him right now and a few ~ e.g. the economy and the Duffy trial ~ which may be problematical but, on balance, things
     are unlikely to get better in the spring and summer. The Middle East has, neatly, backed the Liberals into a corner, which suits both the Conservatives and the NDP. 

     He can afford to let C-51, the anti-terrorism bill, die on the order paper: it's a good campaign issue in that it ties into the fear factor and it also shows M. Trudeau is another ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







                                                          Mister Dithers (plural)

     The economy is stumbling but Mr Harper is still regarded, in the polls I've seen, anyway, as the best choice for fiscal management. If he goes to the polls before he brings down a budget he can campaign on vague promises ...

     Sen Duffy IS a problem ... but, by now, the CPC can paint itself as the _prosecutors_ of all wrongdoers and they can drag Mr Harb into the campaign, too, plus it's not too late to mention NDP spending issues.

     He has dropped some of his (losers) Rob Anders, for example, and he can, right now, still mention Liberal MPs being expelled from their party for sexual harassment.

On balance there is atil a good case for a spring election.


----------



## observor 69 (23 Mar 2015)

Scary possible...he's showing his face around the GTA a lot, minus his glasses.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Mar 2015)

While the chattering classes of the Parliamentary Press Gallery might like this line of conversation, I suspect the PM will surprise us all by... letting the Federal Election go forwrad in October, as scheduled.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Mar 2015)

Lysiane Gagnon offers some interesting comment on two issues, the apparently enduring popularity of the NDP in Quebec (which is something that many of us, me included, did not expect back in 2011/2012) and the unreliability of polls in recent elections, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/in-quebec-the-tories-love-orange/article23596416/


> In Quebec, the Conservatives love orange
> 
> LYSIANE GAGNON
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




I understand that Prime Minister Harper has made life harder for M. Trudeau by playing on issues like the war against IS and the _niqab_* and I agree that, while the NDP is formally opposed to the CPC's policies, he is, simultaneously, making live somewhat easier for M. Mulcair by not calling him on remaining quiet on these issues in Quebec.

I reiterate that, in my opinion, M. Trudeau must defeat M. Mulcair in Quebec if is to have any chance at forming a government in 2015. Right now the NDP has 54 of Quebec's 78 seats, the Liberals have only 7, the CPC has 5, there are 9 _others_ (_Bloc Québécois_, _Forces et Démocratie_ and Independents) and three are new seats for the 2015 election. Lets assume Mlle Gagnon is correct and the the CPC might make some very small gains, say to 6 seats and the NDP is _solid_ in, say, 40 of its Quebec seats ... that leaves only 32 seats for the Liberals to contest, and it is likely that some (maybe a half dozen) will go to independents and _nationalists_ and the NDP might beat them in a few, so, maybe, the Liberals can win 25 seats in Quebec. That's a big gain for them, but the Liberals won 36 Quebec seats in 2000, 21 in 2004, 13 in 2006, 14 in 2008 and only 7 in 2011 so the trajectory has been downwards in the 21st century. If M. Trudeau is held to fewer than 40 seats in Quebec then I think that a Liberal government, even a weak minority with, say, 130 seats, is out of range and even Leader of the Opposition may be difficult to achieve if he is held to, say, 20 seats.

_____
* We should be clear about what a _niqab_ is, vice, say, a _hijab_


----------



## a_majoor (25 Mar 2015)

While I am not really surprised with the NDP hold on Quebec (philosophically, the voters have exchanged a National Socialist party for a Democratic Socialist one; the only effective change is the conception of _who_ the State redistributes the wealth to), I wonder how this is going to play out in the ROC?

IF the NDP can maintain its hold on Quebec, their most effective COA is to hammer the Liberals in Urban Ontario to raise their seat count and change the preception of which party is "National" and is truely the "Government in waiting". Instead of a cage match in Quebec; Mulcair could work to take Liberal seats in Toronto, London, Windsor etc. The Liberals would then have a three front war to fight; trying to retake Quebec; trying to make a breakthrough into the 905 belt (both needed to build their seat count in Parliament) and holding their existing seats in the urban ridings (lose them and they are dramatically reduced in their seat count and influence).

Barring unexpected events, it looks like the CPC and the NDP are poised to close the jaws of the trap on the Liberal Party; squeezing them from both the political Left and Right and meeting in the political "center".


----------



## Rocky Mountains (25 Mar 2015)

As the polls now show, the Conservatives are likely to pick up 10 seats in Quebec.  The NDP and Liberals will split most of the rest.  It appears no-one will win the election based on what's happening in Quebec with a serious 4 way vote split.  The battleground will still be Ontario, likely urban Ontario.  That is where a majority will be won or lost.  The campaign will get interesting when the Conservatives return to the hardball approach during the campaign and Trudeau's only campaign issue of nice hair is going to come up short.  The Conservative attack adds were dropped when they weren't working so they laid back and let Trudeau's own words attack himself.  During the campaign I suspect we will see a regurgitation of a lot of Trudeau's lesser than stellar performances.  The Conservatives can read the polls on issues and the Trudeau and Mad Dog Mulcair are fighter over the same rag-tag leftist votes who tend not to actually show up to vote.  Blue Liberals do see ISIS as a serious world threat that won't be disarmed by sticking a rose in their gun barrel.  The liberals are giving up the middle ground where all elections are won or lost.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Mar 2015)

Giving up the middle or being forced out? I'm leaning more towards being squeezed out like tothpaste from a tube....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 Mar 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _____
> * We should be clear about what a _niqab_ is, vice, say, a _hijab_



You know what I find interesting in this table?

The constant repeat that " … is Arabic for …;… is Arabic for …… is Arabic for …;" Burqua does not have indication, but if you search the term you will see that it is "arabicized persian word for "veil or cover" ".

And that is, in my opinion, the "anti-women culture" the PM was referring to in the Commons last week. The culture is ARAB culture, not Islam, which only require that  men and women (equally) dress and behave "modestly" when in public. And funny enough, all these extremist views of Islam that seek to impose those "veil" on women seem to originate in the form of Islam being exported by Saudi Arabia around the world with oil money.

Just my 2c.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Mar 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You know what I find interesting in this table?
> 
> The constant repeat that " … is Arabic for …;… is Arabic for …… is Arabic for …;" Burqua does not have indication, but if you search the term you will see that it is "arabicized persian word for "veil or cover" ".
> 
> ...




Agreed, OGBD, 100%.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Mar 2015)

A useful inforgraphic taken from  an article (about voter disinterest/mistrust of politicians) in the _Ottawa Citizen_:






In my opinion politicians, especially Conservative politicians are already basing their platforms on the wishes of the 34 to 75% voter cohorts. The wishes and views of the 18 to 34 year old cohorts _should_ matter, but since they don't vote their views don't really count all that much.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Mar 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And funny enough, all these extremist views of Islam that seek to impose those "veil" on women seem to originate in the form of Islam being exported by Saudi Arabia around the world with oil money.



The majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.  Therefore, invade Afghanistan and Iraq.


----------



## Infanteer (25 Mar 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi.  Therefore, invade Afghanistan and Iraq.



However, the wahhabi/salafist inspired ideology of AQ only sees and speaks to Dar-al-Islam and Dar-al-Harb, so your western logic based upon western imposed state lines does not work.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Mar 2015)

I'm looking at it more from the perspective of state sponsors of activity.  Cut off the water, and the tree will wither.  While the ideology may well remain, it's more difficult to have any significant effect without money.


----------



## DBA (26 Mar 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In my opinion politicians, especially Conservative politicians are already basing their platforms on the wishes of the 34 to 75% voter cohorts. The wishes and views of the 18 to 34 year old cohorts _should_ matter, but since they don't vote their views don't really count all that much.



I think that is overstated, their views do count - they cast 20% of the votes in the previous election and are 28% of the eligible population.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Mar 2015)

An example of the Pareto principle in action. The amount of effort needed to get that last 20% is disproportionate to the results expected, while the same effort placed in other demogrraphics (which are collectively more numerous _and_ more inclined to vote) produces a much greater result.

This is sometimes known as the 80-20 rule, or the "Law of the vital few"


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Mar 2015)

> being squeezed out like tothpaste from a tube....

Squeezed out like something from something, in any event...


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Mar 2015)

Remember this, from two years ago?



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _National Post_ is reporting on a poll that predicts a Liberal majority in a 308 seat HoC if an election were held today and if Justin Trudeau were leading the LPC.
> 
> The poll results are:
> 
> ...



Journalist David Akin just _posted_ to sets of current poll results:



> Latest polls from Abacus Data and Ekos Research find identical Conservative Party of Canada - Parti conservateur du Canada and NDP support. But Abacus has Liberal Party of Canada | Parti libéral du Canada at 33 vs Ekos 29.[/img]



                And



> In commentary accompanying his firm's latest poll, Frank Graves writes: "The Liberals are now below 29 points for the first time in a long time and the long-term trend is not positive.
> The Conservatives, while down from a high of 35 points, now enjoy a small but statistically significant lead based on the Liberal decline.
> 
> The real story here, however, may be a gradual but significant rebound in NDP fortunes, who have climbed from below 18 points to just over 23 and they now trail the Liberals by just five points." Plus there's this interesting response:



I still believe that the CPC, led by Prime Minister Harper will form the next government. I think he has two things going _for_ him:

     1. The expansion of seats in the suburbs where the 35+ and socially conservative immigrant community is centred; and

     2. The "two front war" which M. Trudeau and the Liberals must wage against both Prime Minister Harper and Opposition Leader Mulcair.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Mar 2015)

While Tom Mulcair can run circles around the Young Dauphin in any debate or discussion of political platforms, philosophies or proposed courses of action, his biggest disadvantage is the cone of silence the media has placed over him. The few times I have been able to see him in action is actually quite scary (as in scary smart), which would work to scuttle the Liberals in the urban Ontario ridings that the LPC need to grow outside of Quebec.

This makes it very difficult for the NDP to score points, and reduces them to trying for the knockout blow in the debates (remember "You had a choice, sir!"), which in reality is much harder to accomplish.


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Mar 2015)

Yes, I think the debates might actually mater a great deal this time. Mr Harper really just has to control himself and look Prime Ministerial, while letting the others petulantly whip themselves into a frenzy.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Mar 2015)

A petulant frenzy?

Not safe for sensitive and/or aggrieved folks.  "Honey Don't You Want A Man Like Me" (3:18)


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Mar 2015)

Graeme MacKay, editorial cartoonist of the  _The Hamilton Spectator_, comments on the LPC's defence policy:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Mar 2015)

:goodpost:

This


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Apr 2015)

The Finance Minister, Joe Oliver, will bring down his budget on Tue, 21 Apr 15.

Mercedes Stephenson _tweeted_ that "Oliver says 2 basic truths: govt can't spend more than it earns and can't tax self out of problems."

This will be the CPC's electuion year budget and based on Mr. Oliver's signbals we can safely assume that:

     1. It will be a *balanced budget*, with not too much slight of hand to make that happen;

     2. There will be *tax breaks*, mostly for middle aged, middle class suburbanites;

     3. There will be _*no major tax increases*_; and

     4. Therefore, _*defence spending will continue to stagnate*_, at best, but there will be announcements about new things to come - to be made in Canada - in the not too distant future.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Apr 2015)

So when it is time to get off the X for the election, it is the Disco era all over again:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-den-tandt-the-budget-and-the-liberal-response-to-it-will-yield-the-ultimate-ballot-question



> *Michael Den Tandt: The budget — and the Liberal response to it — will yield the ultimate ballot question*
> Michael Den Tandt | March 29, 2015 | Last Updated: Mar 31 2:08 PM ET
> More from Michael Den Tandt | @mdentandt
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Apr 2015)

OK, it is election year so polls are _starting_ to matter ... 

_iPolitics_ has published the results of a large _Ekos_ poll:






And






Two things leap out at me:

     1. While the Liberals have chewed into the CPC's support (especially in Atlantic Canada), they have really done a number on the NDP, but;

     2. Even in Quebec the CPC outpolls the Liberals, as they do everywhere except in Atlantic Canada which has 32 of 338 seats.  



> _Methodology:
> 
> This study was conducted using High Definition Interactive Voice Response (HD-IVR™) technology, which allows respondents to enter their preferences by punching the keypad on their phone, rather than telling them to an operator. In an effort to reduce the coverage bias of landline only RDD, we created a dual landline/cell phone RDD sampling frame for this research. As a result, we are able to reach those with a landline and cell phone, as well as cell phone only households and landline only households.
> 
> ...


----------



## McG (2 Apr 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This will be the CPC's election year budget ...


And according to a Nanos poll, it is still economy that voters are giving the most weight when judging prospective governments.  90% will base thier vote on a party's economic plan, in contrast to only 4% who will base their vote on terrorism.  Clearly, the government knows this and it will spend $7.5 million to advertise the budget in the coming year.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Apr 2015)

I would be surprised if the Liberals don't do better here in Atlantic Canada.  There is deep mistrust and hatred towards the CPC if what I hear on the talk radio call in sessions and letters to the editor are correct.  You can hear the crickets chirp mostly when it comes to approval for the Harper camp.  I would expect that Peter MacKay will have a hard battle ahead of him this round if he runs once more.  It won't be a shoe in this time.


----------



## FSTO (3 Apr 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I would be surprised if the Liberals don't do better here in Atlantic Canada.  There is deep mistrust and hatred towards the CPC if what I hear on the talk radio call in sessions and letters to the editor are correct.  You can hear the crickets chirp mostly when it comes to approval for the Harper camp.  I would expect that Peter MacKay will have a hard battle ahead of him this round if he runs once more.  It won't be a shoe in this time.


Atlantic Canadians are still smarting over Harper's "culture of defeat" comment. 
Anyway, the only MP's that matter are the ones from the golden horseshoe and the major cities. The rest of the MP's in the regions are only useful as trained baboons!


----------



## Rocky Mountains (3 Apr 2015)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Atlantic Canadians are still smarting over Harper's "culture of defeat" comment.
> Anyway, the only MP's that matter are the ones from the golden horseshoe and the major cities. The rest of the MP's in the regions are only useful as trained baboons!



The Liberals can't do much better in Atlantic Canada.  They have almost all the seats.

As a Westerner, the source of the culture of defeat stories are from Newfies, Spuds, Bluenosers, and Herringchokers who come out here to work.  They don't have a lot of respect for their poor cousins back home.  The world is still waiting for the first example of a society become rich through receiving welfare.  Everyone on the entitlement train seems to get buried deeper into the economic mire.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Apr 2015)

In this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, Jason Fekete looks at Justin Trudeau's travels and concludes a bit about his election strategy:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/trudeaus-travels-liberal-leader-intensely-focused-on-gta-and-montreal


> Trudeau's travels: Liberal leader intensely focused on GTA and Montreal
> 
> JASON FEKETE, OTTAWA CITIZEN
> 
> ...




It looks like M. Trudeau is confident of his ability to (nearly) sweep Atlantic Canada (_I'm guessing_ he can get 19 or 20 of the 32 seats there) and that he recognizes that he will have trouble in the West (_my guess_ is that he will campaign, hard, in MB, SK and BC in September and October and my guess is that he can get 10 to 15 seats in the West. But _I think_ that _*he knows*_ that he must defeat Thomas Mulcair's NDP in ON and QC is he even wants to be opposition leader. My current _guesstimate _is that he cannot do it, not well enough, anyway, and that he will get 40-45 seats in central Canada for a total of about 75 seats, nationally, about the same as _I guess_ the NDP will get.

(My current _guesstimate_ is:

BQ or other Quebec _Nationalists_:            8
Conservatives:                                    169
Greens:                                                 5
Liberals:                                              75
New Democrats:                                   75
Independents and Others:                      6)


----------



## George Wallace (6 Apr 2015)

Is he making a calculated assumption that he does not need to visit the Maritimes and Newfoundland Labrador, or a mistake?


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Apr 2015)

I believe JT is pretty safe here in Atlantic Canada, for much the same reason you don't see the PM paying much attention here.  SH will not gain much if any ground come the election and I believe will lose more than they presently enjoy at present.  If anything is a real threat here to the Liberals it will be the NDP, not the CPC.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Apr 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Is he making a calculated assumption that he does not need to visit the Maritimes and Newfoundland Labrador, or a mistake?




I think he's being smart (or, at least, I think Gerald Butts, his _guru_, is being smart). He must overtake the NDP, first, only then can he go after Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. He needs a firm base; traditionally the Liberal's base has been in Central and Atlantic Canada (the last time the Liberals won most of the West was in 1953 when Louis St Laurent defeated George Drew's Conservatives); he has to regain than base, which is now in NDP and Conservative hands, first.

As the article says, urban Montreal ought to be easy pickings, but the rest of Quebec will be harder. The Conservatives will fight very, very hard in suburban Ontario and BC, so M. Trudeau's first target must be the NDP in urban Toronto and Vancouver.

He'll have to go back and shore up Atlantic Canada, personally (his campaign will be all about personality, not policy), but, for now, he is very strong there (40%+ according to recent polls) and he can afford to leave it to good lieutenants like Scott Brison and Dominic LeBlanc.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Apr 2015)

The 39th General Election was held on 23 Jan 06. Stephen Harper won a minority, unseating Paul Martin.

Stephen Harper has been prime minister of Canada for over nine years. That, not anything about Thomas Mulcair or Justin Trudeau or their policies (or lack of policies), may be the biggest problem facing the Conservative Party of Canada in 2015.

(Macdonald was PM for 18 years (in two different ministries split (1873-78) by Mackenzie), Laurier was PM for 15 years; Borden was PM for nine years; King was PM for 22 years (in three separate ministries); St Laurent for 9 years; Trudeau for 15 years (in two separate ministries); Mulroney for 9 years and Chrétien for 10. The modern _trend_ is for shorter (9 or ten years or even fewer) mandates.)

Canadians my decide that Stephen Harper has been PM long enough; that he's "stale," out of ideas; and that, very simply, it's time for a change.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Apr 2015)

That knife probably cuts both ways Edward. The voters may decide, during these unsettled and troubled times, finance and terrorism, etc to stay with the Captain that's led them through storm after storm and kept them off the rocks and reefs. At least till they move into a sheltered bay. Then, without looking back and becoming bored with the idle life, they turf the one that led them there, overboard.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Apr 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That knife probably cuts both ways Edward. The voters may decide, during these unsettled and troubled times, finance and terrorism, etc to stay with the Captain that's led them through storm after storm and kept them off the rocks and reefs. At least till they move into a sheltered bay. Then, without looking back and becoming bored with the idle life, they turf the one that led them there, overboard.




Very good point and, _I suspect_, a large part of the CPC's campaign.

Maybe something like: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




                                   The Conservative's 1891 election poster


----------



## upandatom (9 Apr 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >f so, then the next time Quebeckers ask why they’re a part of this country, what will the rest of us tell them?
> 
> Because we have a stronger dollar than the Quebec franc (or whatever) can ever hope to be, and the nation of Quebec will not include Ungava.



Dont forget that major portions under control of Native Americans have clearly stated they will not seperate from Canada.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2015)

Shaping the battlespace: the CPC version. Can't wait to hear how the NDP is planning to shape the battlespace for their campaign (we already know the LPC's shaping campaign is "Nice Hair </snark>)

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/terence-corcoran-is-joe-oliver-leading-a-tax-revolt



> *Terence Corcoran: Is Joe Oliver leading a tax revolt?*
> Terence Corcoran | April 9, 2015 1:40 PM ET
> More from Terence Corcoran | @terencecorcoran
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Apr 2015)

“The federal deficit did indeed begin to pile up under the Liberal Government of Pierre Trudeau, but the Conservatives continued the trend in the 1980s as Brian Mulroney operated even deeper in the red. It was the Liberal governments of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin who eventually brought Canada back into surplus territory. After the recession of 2008, the country went back into deficit under the Harper Government.”

Misleading bullshit underlined.  (Actually, my first thought was, "you lying fu<k", but I doubt the quoted person wrote the copy, and strictly speaking Brian's team was "in the red" although it did not "operate in the red" if you distinguish between "operating" and "net" balance.)  Here we go again, from 2014 Fiscal Reference Tables (in millions of dollars):


YearOperatingPublicNet BalanceBalanceDebtCharges1984–85-12,28024,887-37,1671985–86-5,73227,657-33,3891986–87-1,12428,718-29,8421987–882,20631,223-29,0171988–897,58535,532-27,9471989–9012,10341,246-29,1431990–9111,13545,034-33,8991991–9211,54243,861-32,3191992–932,31341,332-39,019

Operating balance is (revenues - program expenses). Notice that it is mostly a surplus, and is a net surplus over the period shown - the government took in more than it spent.  The reason for the (big) net deficits is the cost of servicing all the debt run up in the prior years.  No prize for guessing who created that debt.

To repeat what I've written many times: the government that spent in deficit is responsible for creating the total cost of servicing that debt until the debt is discharged.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Apr 2015)

"...is that spending deficits today are necessary to make sure the government has balanced budgets in the future."

Really?  [Note: statistically, we are probably nearing the next recession.]  Then that would make this the Liberal position: spending deficits are necessary during a recession, after the recession ends, during the interval of recovery/growth between the immediate aftermath of a recession and start of the next one (where we are now), and then during the new recession...

Bunts.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Apr 2015)

And Justin Trudeau's _tactical_ decisions come back to haunt his election _strategy_, in the form of Eve Adams, as explained in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-latest-angst-its-all-about-eve-adams/article23887309/


> Liberals’ latest angst: It’s all about Eve Adams
> 
> JANE TABER
> TORONTO — The Globe and Mail
> ...




I remain convinced that the Tories will want to keep reminding Ontarians about Justin Trudeau and Kathleen Wynne ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          ... but I guess Ms Adams is a bonus.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Apr 2015)

> ...Mr. Soudas, who helped broker her move to the Liberal Party...



Beware of Greeks bearing gifts...


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Apr 2015)

Saw the article and couldn't help but wonder if Soudas is still working for the Conservatives....


----------



## cavalryman (11 Apr 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Saw the article and couldn't help but wonder if Soudas is still working for the Conservatives....


I'm not sure our political class has the depth to play that kind of game, but it sure would be funny if it's a false flag operation  :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Apr 2015)

Good new for the Liberals in this story which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/federal-liberals-poised-to-make-great-election-gains-in-ontario-poll-finds/article23892369/


> Federal Liberals poised to make great election gains in Ontario, poll finds
> 
> ADAM RADWANSKI
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




The key issue, I think, is the _"efficiency"_ of the Liberal vote, whatever it is. An 'efficient' vote is one which is "just enough" in many, many ridings; an 'inefficient' vote (which Liberals have had, in recent years, in Toronto and Montreal, especially) is where you have lots of votes but they are concentrated in a few places. One wants to win a many races with, say, 35% of the vote, while three or four _opposition_ candidates split the other 65% between them; some parties (Liberals in Montreal and Toronto, Conservatives in many Alberta ridings) win with 60% or more of the vote: very _inefficient_.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Apr 2015)

There are still many out there that will equate the federal party with McWynnety's provincial one and vote against on that reason alone.

Pollsters will poll the area that will give them the results, i.e. the 905 belt, and we know where their priorities lie already.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Apr 2015)

So, the _Supremes_ have shot down another Conservative pet (but seriously flawed)* policy, mandatory minimum sentences for illegal gun possession are unconstitutional.

I don't think this does any harm to Prime Minister Harper, in fact, as with Senate reform he can say to the _'law and order'_ segment of his base, "Sorry, I tried, I tried hard, but the _Supremes_ have said 'No!' and I must respect their decision. The issue is now off the table." 

____
* I don't like political intrusions into purely judicial matters. There are, properly, sentencing _guidelines_ in the Criminal Code that reflect society's _general_ views on the nature and seriousness of crimes (as expressed by society's representatives in parliament). But the guidelines are just that: guidance for judges who have, as I believe they must, considerable discretion to make the punishment fit both the crime and the criminal.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (14 Apr 2015)

I understand the reasoning in that one consequence of minimum sentences could be a 5 year sentence for what is essentially a licensing infraction.   But - Canadians have 3 times elected a government that campaigned on law and order issues.  Harper should have used his melon a bit more on judicial appointments and chosen people with a conservative viewpoint.  I could have given him a list of lawyers that would have filled the bill.  Perhaps he's learned.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Apr 2015)

I think this may actually be a bit of a double win. He can say to his base that he tried, but he can also say to the gun control crowd that he tried. He actually gets to eat his cake and have it in this instance.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (14 Apr 2015)

Two points here: First, Harper has now appointed the majority of the Supremes, so he has the court he allegedly "wanted".

Second, this case is a bit on the special side: What was found invalid under the charter is not the minimum sentence (3 to 5 years) that was in the law - in fact the Court of Appeals and the Supreme both concluded that in this case, the 3 years sentence was appropriate for the criminals at bar and sustained that punishment - no, the problem was that the act could be prosecuted as a summary conviction, in which case it carried a punishment of maximum one year. If the sentence had been the same for both type of infraction (wether pursued as a criminal act or a summary offence), there is a good chance it would have survived the legal challenge to its validity.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Apr 2015)

This is the internet.  Stop inserting thoughtful comment and analysis.


And where are the cute cat pictures?


----------



## upandatom (14 Apr 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> This is the internet.  Stop inserting thoughtful comment and analysis.
> 
> 
> And where are the cute cat pictures?


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Apr 2015)

I was thinking of putting this in a "joke" thread, but, apparently, it's true ... reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-says-hed-be-more-open-to-coalition-with-ndp-if-mulcair-wasnt-leader/article23959663/


> Trudeau says he’d be more open to coalition with NDP if Mulcair wasn’t leader
> 
> The Canadian Press
> 
> ...




That's right, boys and girls, Thomas Mulcair, a proven, veteran politician who is rolling out real policy ideas is "old style." It ALL about style, isn't it M. Trudeau?









                                                                      Style                                                                                                                                           Substance








                                                                      Style                                                                                                                                            Substance





                                                       Prime Minister of Canada?


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Apr 2015)

Who needs cattle when he has such an awesome hat?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Apr 2015)

M. Trudeau is, clearly, the hands down winner when "likability" or "niceness" are being measured. Neither Prime Minister Harper nor M. Mulcair is overly likeable, neither is, really, a nice person.

It is important, therefore, to take "like" and "nice" off the table. Competence and policies must be made the campaign issues.

Canadians like M. Trudeau because he is, truly, a nice young man, but the questions needs to be: _Is he the best person to lead Canada in uncertain times, and do the Liberals have the best policies?_


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Apr 2015)

I read the subtext of Trudeau Fils' comments as "I don't want to share the reins with someone smarter than me", but I can go with the above as well  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Apr 2015)

_I think_ the subtext is a message *to* Liberals: _"We're doing well, gang; we can beat the NDP and we have a realistic shot at beating the Conservatives, too, and forming a government. We can take *power *again if you all get out there and work harder and harder, and, mainly, send more money._


----------



## a_majoor (15 Apr 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I read the subtext of Trudeau Fils' comments as "I don't want to share the reins with someone smarter than me", but I can go with the above as well  ;D



That's an _awesome_ campaign slogan! 

Put it under the Young Dauphin's picture and print it on t-shirts. The LPC shold be paying us for this stuff.....


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Apr 2015)

*U.S., Saudi firms to buy former Canadian Wheat Board*

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/us-saudi-firms-to-buy-former-canadian-wheat-board/article23966156/

Once again, (in addition to the pathetic attempt to balance the books by selling off the government stake in GM, something every serious economist said was a loss for the Canadian taxpayer) Harper sells off Canadian interests, this time to an unholy alliance of Saudi and US business partners. We're selling away our assets to the same people who are financially supporting the other people we're bombing in Iraq and Syria. Anyone who votes for Harper in the next election is a pylon, pure and simple.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Apr 2015)

So, what is your solution?

Follow Tom Mulcaire, nationalize everything and follow Venezuela down the Socialist yellow brick road (try buying toilet paper there, for example).

Follow the Young Dauphin, who has not articulated a plan about anything at all?

Come on, we're all waiting.......


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Apr 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> That's an _awesome_ campaign slogan!
> 
> Put it under the Young Dauphin's picture and print it on t-shirts. The LPC shold be paying us for this stuff.....


Howziss?







			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> *U.S., Saudi firms to buy former Canadian Wheat Board*
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/us-saudi-firms-to-buy-former-canadian-wheat-board/article23966156/


I suppose this may be good for the libertarian base, but opitcally, this won't look very "Canadian".


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Apr 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So, what is your solution?
> 
> Follow Tom Mulcaire, nationalize everything and follow Venezuela down the Socialist yellow brick road (try buying toilet paper there, for example).
> 
> ...



You ARE aware that Canadian farmers offered to buy the CWB's assets at fair market value right? They were turned down outright, with no reason being given. In fact the government didn't even review the proposal. Never mind nationalizing, if you believe in the fantasy that is the "free market" (no such thing, private monopolies intervene all the time), why not at least sell it to a *CANADIAN* company?! $250 million is nothing, so the short term gain is useless compared to the long term tax revenue.  But in answer to your question, you're goddamned right I would nationalize the CWB. You've heard of Statoil? Norway isn't doing too badly in direct comparison to the free-for-all that Alberta became. 

But you're right, let's continue selling Canadian assets to foreign owned companies. You do realize that the Chinese firms working in the oil patch and buying up farmland in Saskatchewan (as a result of the dissolution of the CWB in the first place) ARE controlled by the Chinese government?  The Chinese were just itching to have us dissolve the CWB. These guys are laughing at us. While we espouse "free markets" and "private ownership" they're moving in and buying up all the assets because these companies are *arms of their own government*. The Saudi interest in this deal was created by the Saudi Royal family to ensure that Saudi Arabia can import wheat when the world food system goes to crap. We are selling ourselves down the river in the name of free enterprise, and we are selling to *state controlled groups from foreign countries.*  

Is Harper paying you? You have to be suffering from some serious cognitive dissonance to think throwing away our assets is in our national interest. And if you believe that strongly in the free market, why even have a military? If nothing is above privatization or foreign ownership, let's just turn the CF and RCMP into security guards for the foreign interests that will inherit Canadian public assets and be done with it.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Apr 2015)

I'm sure the effort is wasted ... but I have some spare time available.

Nationalization 
- potential investors - 1
- potential pool of shareholders - 30,000,000
- potential market - 30,000,000

Commercialization
- potential investors - manifold
- potential pool of shareholders - 7,000,000,000
- potential market - 7,000,000,000

Nationalization results in exclusion from markets - Meet the Dairy and Poultry Marketing Boards and the APEC discussions.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Apr 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Howziss?



Looking good. I might have gone for the picture with the cowboy hat, but this is fine.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Apr 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Is Harper paying you? You have to be suffering from some serious cognitive dissonance to think throwing away our assets is in our national interest.



Watch the personal attacks.

---Staff---


----------



## a_majoor (15 Apr 2015)

In addition to a rather poor grasp of economics and opportunity costs, Kilo, you also have a hard time understanding the concept of property and property rights.

Simply saying an asset is "ours" does not make it so; ownership has a very clear meaning, and you and I do not "own" things like the Wheat board any more than we "own" that nice house just down the road from where we live. Since the owner of the property has the unencumbered rights to the property, the owner can choose (as Kirkhill points out) from a manifold of potential buyers, and make a transaction for whatever reason meets the owner's needs.

The one thing I agree with you is that the State is not a good steward of property. There should be some pretty severe limitations in what should actually be "owned" by the State (and therefore the State's portfolio should also be *very small * and limited in scale and scope).


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Apr 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> In addition to a rather poor grasp of economics and opportunity costs, Kilo, you also have a hard time understanding the concept of property and property rights.
> 
> Simply saying an asset is "ours" does not make it so; ownership has a very clear meaning, and you and I do not "own" things like the Wheat board any more than we "own" that nice house just down the road from where we live. Since the owner of the property has the unencumbered rights to the property, the owner can choose (as Kirkhill points out) from a manifold of potential buyers, and make a transaction for whatever reason meets the owner's needs.
> 
> The one thing I agree with you is that the State is not a good steward of property. There should be some pretty severe limitations in what should actually be "owned" by the State (and therefore the State's portfolio should also be *very small * and limited in scale and scope).




A poor grasp of economics? As someone who seems to be praising the selling of Canadian assets to state-owned foreign interests I would suggest it's you who has a very poor grasp of economics, the actors involved here, and the motiviation behind these ludicrous policies. The amazing thing about this government is at every level they claim an ideological purity (free markets , ISIS is an existential threat, we need to protect Ukraine from evil Russians, the list goes on), and upon elementary examination every policy is undercut by another that achieves the exact opposite. So you have us selling state assets to a country that funds the very people we are fighting in Iraq and Syria. Forget about economic theory, this is INSANE. If you want to contort yourself like a yoga teacher to have all of this fit into your very fragile ideological box, go ahead. But it holds zero water in a real world.

And going theoretical is a clear sign that you are unable to address any of my real world examples. Yes, it is true that when a government owns an asset "we" as in Canadian citizens do not technically own it. This is so obvious I am unsure as to why we are even discussing it. 

However, when a government "owns" an asset, and receives revenue based on the ownership of that asset, this is a benefit to the citizenry as the government then uses that money to pay for services, invest in the economy or dare I say it, military spending?. Again, Statoil is a perfect example of a sensible nationalization policy that has paid out billions into a soveriegn wealth fund. The Norwegian government is reinvesting that money wisely and it shows in Norway's quality of life, the future propects of diversification of their economy and so on and so on. Yes, there are numerous examples of government corruption, but there are far more examples of privatization leading to higher costs, lower efficiency, because the benefits are going to corporate leadership and stockholders.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (15 Apr 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Yes, there are numerous examples of government corruption, but there are far more examples of privatization leading to higher costs, lower efficiency, because the benefits are going to corporate leadership and stockholders.



Simply untrue.  The efficiency of private enterprise outperforms socialized enterprises in all cases.  No need for discussion.  And your Wheat Board example - farmers have done significantly better than ever before since the demise of the Wheat Board - don't know whether axing the Wheat Board caused it but it is food for thought.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Apr 2015)

In fact, it was the farmers themselves that called for the end of the Wheat Board. They were tired of the artificially low prices the Board was setting and the restrictive, authoritarian way the Board acted. Individual farmers were transporting their own product to the States and receiving a better price on the open market, even after transportation costs, instead of it being stored in silos and sold when the Board decided.

The Government didn't go far enough though. They should have dismantled the egg and dairy monopoly in Ontario and Quebec while they were at it.

The Government can support industry without dictating commerce.


----------



## GAP (15 Apr 2015)

> The Government didn't go far enough though. They should have dismantled the egg and dairy monopoly in Ontario and Quebec while they were at it.



They will have to to get into the TPP....but after the election....


----------



## Retired AF Guy (15 Apr 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> M. Trudeau is, clearly, the hands down winner when "likability" or "niceness" are being measured. Neither Prime Minister Harper nor M. Mulcair is overly likeable, neither is, really, a nice person.
> 
> It is important, therefore, to take "like" and "nice" off the table. Competence and policies must be made the campaign issues.
> 
> Canadians like M. Trudeau because he is, truly, a nice young man, but the questions needs to be: _Is he the best person to lead Canada in uncertain times, and do the Liberals have the best policies?_



You have a very good point and the first thing that jumped into my mind was this quotation by one of the greatest [realistic] political thinkers of all time: 



> “And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.”
> ― Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince


----------



## a_majoor (15 Apr 2015)

Kilo, I am going to pass on a word of advice from Col Dave Grossman: do some deep breathing and get a grip on your emotions.

Second, look again at your post. You specifically called the remains of the Wheat Board (and by implication everything else owned by the State) as "our" assets, so accusing me of going theoretical is a bit disingenuous, to say the least.

Thirdly, Kirkhill answered the question of economics before I did in a very clear and succinct manner. 

Finally, the question still stands: what is _your_ solution?


----------



## TCBF (16 Apr 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> A poor grasp of economics? As someone who seems to be praising the selling of Canadian assets to state-owned foreign interests I would suggest it's you who has a very poor grasp of economics, the actors involved here, and the motiviation behind these ludicrous policies. The amazing thing about this government is at every level they claim an ideological purity (free markets , ISIS is an existential threat, we need to protect Ukraine from evil Russians, the list goes on), and upon elementary examination every policy is undercut by another that achieves the exact opposite. So you have us selling state assets to a country that funds the very people we are fighting in Iraq and Syria. Forget about economic theory, this is INSANE. If you want to contort yourself like a yoga teacher to have all of this fit into your very fragile ideological box, go ahead. But it holds zero water in a real world.
> 
> And going theoretical is a clear sign that you are unable to address any of my real world examples. Yes, it is true that when a government owns an asset "we" as in Canadian citizens do not technically own it. This is so obvious I am unsure as to why we are even discussing it.
> 
> However, when a government "owns" an asset, and receives revenue based on the ownership of that asset, this is a benefit to the citizenry as the government then uses that money to pay for services, invest in the economy or dare I say it, military spending?. Again, Statoil is a perfect example of a sensible nationalization policy that has paid out billions into a soveriegn wealth fund. The Norwegian government is reinvesting that money wisely and it shows in Norway's quality of life, the future propects of diversification of their economy and so on and so on. Yes, there are numerous examples of government corruption, but there are far more examples of privatization leading to higher costs, lower efficiency, because the benefits are going to corporate leadership and stockholders.



- Distasteful though it may sound, I do not see ISIS as a threat to Canada on this side of the pond. In fact, I think over the next few decades the changes and counter changes brought about by ISIS may serve Canadian long term (50 - 100 years) interests. For now, we should let them be.

- Norway is a country and a nation. Since separating from Sweden in 1905, they have remained a largely close-knit society. Canada could not hope to accomplish such a feat, held together as it is through the economic bribery of regions to each other.

- The new NATO is unworkable. It should never have moved east of the Oder. Why die for Danzig?

- The old Canadian Wheat Board was de-facto the Western Canadian Wheat Board: If you grew wheat in Ontario or Quebec, you could sell your wheat anywhere you bloody liked. If you did that west of Lake of The Woods, you went to jail. Could you imagine a reverse of that system? Where we could do something in western Canada that would get Quebeckers and Ontarians thrown in jail? No. Neither could western farmers. We still can use A wheat board. We just don't need to force farmers to use it or end up under the jackboots of the Eastern Army of Occupation (the RCMP).


----------



## dimsum (16 Apr 2015)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Norway is a country and a nation. Since separating from Sweden in 1905, they have remained a largely close-knit society. Canada could not hope to accomplish such a feat, held together as it is through the economic bribery of regions to each other.



Don't forget that Norway also has a population of about 5 million, or just less than the GTA.


----------



## TCBF (16 Apr 2015)

- My point still holds: GTA lacks the cultural unity that Norway has. Those Vikings have been there for over a thousand years. There are 'hoods in the GTA where you can hardly find a person who thinks themselves a Canadian first. We are a passport of convenience.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Apr 2015)

Try this grasp of economics:

1) Sale of Wheat Board in exchange for $250 M (2015 dollars) (Conservative Party).

2) Cancellation of helicopter contract with $478 M (1993 dollars) penalty in exchange for nothing (Liberal Party).

We're still ahead with the Conservative Party in charge.

Some of us pure and simple pylons are not single-issue voters.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (16 Apr 2015)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - My point still holds: GTA lacks the cultural unity that Norway has. Those Vikings have been there for over a thousand years. There are 'hoods in the GTA where you can hardly find a person who thinks themselves a Canadian first. We are a passport of convenience.



This guy, Anders Breivik, exemplifies Norwegian cultural unity. He unified the 77 people he killed from the threat of multi-culturalism. I'm sure that you'll just say that he's the exception, not the rule, but Norway/Sweden/Denmark have growing levels of racism and xenophobia due to the rising levels of foreigners moving to those nations.

There is also the reality that the small scandinavian countries benefit greatly from the US paying for their collective defence freeing up money (and taxing like crazy) to fund social programs. Canada could go to a socialist model like that but we would have to accept that we would forever have the same level of international influence (ie- none) as those nations and no ability to push our nice little social programs that we're so proud of.


----------



## Zartan (16 Apr 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> This guy, Anders Breivik, exemplifies Norwegian cultural unity. He unified the 77 people he killed from the threat of multi-culturalism. I'm sure that you'll just say that he's the exception, not the rule, but Norway/Sweden/Denmark have growing levels of racism and xenophobia due to the rising levels of foreigners moving to those nations.
> 
> There is also the reality that the small scandinavian countries benefit greatly from the US paying for their collective defence freeing up money (and taxing like crazy) to fund social programs. Canada could go to a socialist model like that but we would have to accept that we would forever have the same level of international influence (ie- none) as those nations and no ability to push our nice little social programs that we're so proud of.



Norway spends more of its GDP on defence than any country in Europe. Its military is the same size as ours. Sweden and Finland have bigger militaries. Their insignificance has to do with geography and population size (kind of like us, only even smaller).


----------



## McG (17 Apr 2015)

... and now that we've completely gone down a rabbit hole, let's leave Scandinavian politics and return to Canadian elections.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Apr 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> ... and now that we've completely gone down a rabbit hole, let's leave Scandinavian politics and return to Canadian elections.



You'd make one hell of an Adj. - Miseriguts.  ;D


----------



## larry Strong (17 Apr 2015)

Kernewek said:
			
		

> Norway spends more of its GDP on defence than any country in Europe. Its military is the *same size as ours*. Sweden and Finland have bigger militaries. Their insignificance has to do with geography and population size (kind of like us, only even smaller).



Norway has an active force of 23,000 men were as Canada has an active force of approx. 92,000. Norway has one each Infantry, Armoured and Artillery Battalion.....The same size as us......not quite.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=norway

http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=canada



Cheers
Larry


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Apr 2015)

Leaving Scandinavia, if we may, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, is an interesting look at what M. Trudeau did when he disavowed a coalition:

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/in-coalition-chicken-trudeau-throws-away-his-steering-wheel


> In coalition chicken, Trudeau throws away his steering wheel
> 
> Peter Loewen
> 
> ...




I agree with Prof Loewen that M. Trudeau must campaign very, very hard for _strategic votes_, convincing those who really want to vote NDP that they need to vote Liberal in order to unseat the Conservatives.

I still think he has a steep climb to unseat M. Mulcair as opposition leader and a real mountain of a task to pass both the NDP and the CPC and form a government.


----------



## Rifleman62 (17 Apr 2015)

> Trudeau needs to hope that those voters are once again willing to vote strategically for his party, following their heads and not their hearts



I expect people with the same head as Trudeau will vote for him. Scary. But look at the mess in Ontario, the province that is a glutton for punishment or some other word that starts with s which describes the Liberal voters.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Apr 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I expect people with the same head as Trudeau will vote for him. Scary. But look at the mess in Ontario, the province that is a glutton for punishment or some other word that starts with s which describes the Liberal voters.



Let's just get one thing straight before we go any further; it was the people in the 'Center of Stupid', in Area Codes 416, 647, and 437, who brought back the Liberals.


----------



## dimsum (17 Apr 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Let's just get one thing straight before we go any further; it was the people in the 'Center of Stupid', in Area Codes 416, 647, and 437, who brought back the Liberals.



I've been away a few years, but where are 437 and 647?


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Apr 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I've been away a few years, but where are 437 and 647?









437 was added to Toronto and 365 to the Golden Horseshoe in early 2013.


----------



## dimsum (17 Apr 2015)

Wow.  

<tangent> I wonder how Australia manages to get away with having only state (and one mobile) code then.  For example:

04 = Mobile - AKA you never have to change your mobile if being posted (which is a brilliant idea)
02 = NSW and ACT
03 = VIC
07 = QLD

Phone numbers have a total of 10 digits (except that some businesses get away with 6 for some reason which I could never understand), so it's not like there are more digits compared to North America   ???

</tangent>


----------



## dapaterson (17 Apr 2015)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Norway has an active force of 23,000 men were as Canada has an active force of approx. 92,000. Norway has one each Infantry, Armoured and Artillery Battalion.....The same size as us......not quite.
> 
> http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=norway
> 
> ...



The Canadian military figures are utterly spurious, so I'd take anything on that site with a large, large, large grain of salt.


----------



## larry Strong (17 Apr 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The Canadian military figures are utterly spurious, so I'd take anything on that site with a large, large, large grain of salt.



Nit pick all you want, the bottom line is we have more than 20K under arms in the regular force, and that was my point.......


K, 68K, better than 3 times greater

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-reports-pubs-report-plan-priorities/2015-endnotes.page

As Norway only ahs 16K reg force

http://mil.no/organisation/personnel/Pages/personnel.aspx



Cheers
Larry


----------



## George Wallace (17 Apr 2015)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Nit pick all you want, the bottom line is we have more than 20K under arms in the regular force, and that was my point.......
> 
> Cheers
> Larry



Yes; and they are spread all across the country (with the ability to vote in any location they have declared as their Riding).  As a block that would influence any election; it would be safe to say that it would never happen.


----------



## larry Strong (17 Apr 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes; and they are spread all across the country (with the ability to vote in any location they have declared as their Riding).  As a block that would influence any election; it would be safe to say that it would never happen.



Must have missed something....your point is?


Cheers
Larry


----------



## George Wallace (17 Apr 2015)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Must have missed something....your point is?
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Larry



My point?

Although the numbers may be roughly 20K; they do not, as I said, constitute a block that will affect any election.


----------



## larry Strong (17 Apr 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> My point?
> 
> Although the numbers may be roughly 20K; they do not, as I said, constitute a block that will affect any election.



No different than us!


Larry


----------



## Rifleman62 (17 Apr 2015)

Quote from: Rifleman62 on Today at 17:10:16

    I expect people with the same head as Trudeau will vote for him. Scary. But look at the mess in Ontario, the province that is a glutton for punishment or some other word that starts with s which describes the Liberal voters.


George Wallace: 





> Let's just get one thing straight before we go any further; it was the people in the 'Center of Stupid', in Area Codes 416, 647, and 437, who brought back the Liberals


.  

I sit corrected 

I expect people with the same head as Trudeau will vote for him. Scary. But look at the mess in Ontario, the province that is a glutton for punishment which describes the Liberal voters in the 'Center of Stupid', in Area Codes 416, 647, and 437, who brought back the Liberals.


----------



## TCBF (19 Apr 2015)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Nit pick all you want, the bottom line is we have more than 20K under arms in the regular force, and that was my point.......
> 
> 
> K, 68K, better than 3 times greater
> ...



- but the Norgies are all fit, hail and hearty, whereas our troops are pregnant, broken, or old.

 ;D

Go Vikings!


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Apr 2015)

OK, something not Scandinavian ...

Lawrence Martin, no friend to the Conservatives, worries that the Liberals have picked a bad time to waffle and, as he suggests, "too much caution grips the Grits," in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-sagging-liberals-need-a-shakeup/article24031310/


> The sagging Liberals need a shakeup
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




I agree with Mr Martin that M. Trudeau has a half year to recover, but:

     1. Prime Minister Harper has the _initiative_ now; his decisions are driving all campaigns; everyone is reacting to him;

     2. _I think_ the Liberals are relying too heavily on Duffy. The only real story is: what will Nigel Wright say? I know what Mr Wright will say: "I saw a man, a colleague of the PM, with an ethical problem and
        lacking the financial resources to solve it. I believed that the best way to solve the problem was to give Mr Duffy some money, to help him to do the right thing. It was an entirely personal choice for me, while I understand that $90K
        is a lot to most Canadians it is not "big money" to me. I tried to help Mr Duffy and, simultaneously, to defuze a political problem. My good intentions failed." Mr Wright will not be shaken from that narrative ... mainly, _I think_
        it's pretty much the truth, the whole truth and so on ... there is no "smoking gun" in the PM's hand; and

     3. There is still time for a late spring (June) election if the PM thinks it will be advantageous.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Apr 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is a useful look at the _downstream_ political impact of the 2015 budget:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/budget-paints-opposition-into-a-red-corner/article24050484/


> Budget paints opposition into a red corner
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Two points:

     1. "Shrinking the tax base" has been what the CPC is all about since 2006 ~ that, not electoral politics, is why the cuts to the HST GST were made. Put simply: you cannot spend what you don't have unless you either -

          a. raise taxes, which no one wants, or

          b. borrow, go into the red, a COA of which Canadians, generally, disapprove;

     2. While programme spending is a record low levels but it is, still, high, and the Conservatives, if they win the next election, have only one reasonable COA ~ to, finally, begin "shrinking government," itself. Whole programmes will, eventually,
         have to but cancelled. Branches in departments, even whole departments, will have to be closed, activities which have "cheering sections" in the population will have to end.

If either the Liberals or, gods forbid, the NDP form a government then they will face the unpalatable choices Konrad Yakabuski suggests: raise taxes or run deficits. I think neither course is open to the CPC as currently self described (as the "good management" party). _I suspect_ that people around the political/bureaucratic 'centre' (PMO, PCO, Finance, Treasury Board and the 'party office' (people like Dustin Van Vugt, Executive Director of the CPC, and Fred DeLory, Director of Political Operations)) are, already, starting the exercise of "discarding losers" (in bridge playing terms) - identifying those programmes that are not, in fact, useful or which serve only constituencies which are, mostly, unavailable to the CPC on either an age, status or regional basis (young, underemployed, women in Quebec and Atlantic Canada, for example).


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Apr 2015)

I agree, broadly and generally, with this _Globe and Mail_ editorial and the opinion piece by John Ibbitson which follows; both reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/this-budget-was-designed-to-win-an-election-and-it-could-work/article24051964/


> *GLOBE EDITORIAL*
> This budget was designed to win an election, and it could work
> 
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




                                        And

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/in-cutting-federal-deficit-harper-covers-his-ears/article24054746/


> In cutting federal deficit, Harper covers his ears
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I agree with "many respected economists" that: "Growth is sluggish. Interest rates are at historic lows. Infrastructure, from sewers to subways, is rundown. Investing now in early-childhood education, for example, would pay off in improved productivity later." That's all true, in so far as it goes, but I am also one of those who "believe that it is wrong – even immoral – for governments to be adding to the debt during times of growth." And the economy is growing ~ sluggishly, to be sure, but this is not the time for Keynsian _stimulus_. The budget does offer some "good" stimulus, as reported (_Ottawa Citizen_): "The new Public Transit Fund will — eventually — make good on demands by cities and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities for the federal government to invest $1 billion a year on urban transit. The fund gets off to a slow start, by only providing a total of $750 million until 2019, but permanently commits $1 billion annually thereafter." To quote the late US Senator Everett Dirksen, "A billion here, and billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money." And that's "good," long term money which many economists think is required for both practical (building needed new and repairing existing infrastructure) and _ideological_ grounds (it can be switched off if the economy is getting overheated, as John Maynard Keynes said it should be).

Many commentators have noted, and I agree, that Prime Minister Harper's overarching aim has been to change Canada in a quite fundamental way. He wants to make us as _conservative_ as we were during the administration of Louis St Laurent. We were, in the 1950s and 60s, cautiously socially _liberal_, but we believed, firmly, in hard work and self reliance; we were in the 1950s and well into the 60s, _active internationalists_ but reluctant to overspend on defence; we were in the 1950s careful, prudent if you like, with the public purse. That all changed, starting in 1960 and coming to something of a climax in the 1970s when, apparently, we (well, 40_ish_% of us, anyway) came to believe that money grew on trees, that we were "entitled" to almost everything our hearts might desire and that budgets would, eventually, balance themselves ... somehow or other, presumably with the aid of the tooth fairy.

This budget is a well aimed election manifesto. It's targets are middle aged and older Canadians, especially, middle class families, and new Canadians from Asia who are, as John Ibbitson says, "more economically and socially conservative than many native-born Canadians." 

The _Globe and Mail_'s editorial board says that "The Harper government is making government smaller." Not quite, but it wants another term in office to start doing that. "But," says the _Good Grey Globe_, "even more importantly, it is changing its shape. It spends less in the traditional manner – through actual outlays of cash on projects and programs – and more through what are known as tax expenditures: targeted tax credits to people, businesses or activities." The editorials conclude that "Many voters rather like this approach. The Liberals and NDP will have to lay out a compelling vision of how to do things differently, or face four more years of Conservative government." Spot on!


----------



## McG (22 Apr 2015)

According to the latest Nanos numbers, the Conservatives have fallen behind the NDP.  The results come from pre-budget polling, so it will be interesting to see where they go from here.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/nanos-on-the-numbers/liberals-score-highest-on-nanos-index-as-west-drives-negative-trend-for-tories-1.2337969


----------



## Rocky Mountains (23 Apr 2015)

The NDP are ahead of the Conservatives after the numbers are massaged.  The raw numbers are Lib 34% Con 29% and NDP 25%.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-6BIj7kEo7KE/VTkOCITFjrI/AAAAAAAAV7s/G9lrr-zSQIY/s1600/Polls.png

There is also the question of whether Nanos is pushing an agenda because its polls usually have Liberals doing better than the rest of the polls.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Apr 2015)

Throw away the narrow, focused polls of 1000 people and concentrate on the larger, broader and further reaching numbers 3-4000 and, in most cases, the CPC is polling higher.

Polls are a mugs game anyway. They prove nothing and have been extremely wrong the last few years predicting wins that turn out to be massive failures.

“There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics.” 
― Benjamin Disraeli

 “Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.” 
― Mark Twain


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Apr 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Throw away the narrow, focused polls of 1000 people and concentrate on the larger, broader and further reaching numbers 3-4000 and, in most cases, the CPC is polling higher.
> 
> Polls are a mugs game anyway. They prove nothing and have been extremely wrong the last few years predicting wins that turn out to be massive failures.
> 
> ...




For reasons I'm not at all sure I understand, political polls have become suspect. I'm told, by people who should know, that consumer/audience polls are still highly reliable but political polls have two problems:

     1. Apparent inconsistency ~ too many (public) polls are biased and produce results that only further confuse the general public. We should, for example, not be surprised when a polling firm with a long history with _Party A_
         produces a poll that differs substantially from that produced by another firm with a long history with _Party B_. The media makes it worse by failing, normally, to explain polling to viewers/readers; and

     2. Public disenchantment with politics. Canadians, likie Australians, Brits, Chileans and Danes and so on are disenchanted with politics and mistrust politicians so they tend to treat political polling calls as a chance to "hit back"
         and they flat out lie to the pollsters.

The two trends feed upon each other.

My wholly unscientific _guess_ is:

     Now, nearly six months out -

          Conservatives have a firm 20%± of the vote, even if the damned economy collapses and the PM is caught in some sort of scandal they'll get at least 17.5%;

          Liberals have a firm 20%+ of the vote, even if Justin Trudeau makes a series of HUGE gaffes they'll get at least 20%;

          The New Democrats have a firm 15±% of the vote, no matter what goes wrong they'll get at least 12.5% of the vote; and

          All the Others have a firm grip on 10% of the vote.

That means that, between now an voting day, 40% of the vote can be shifted from one camp to any of the others.

In a three+ party system a comfortable majority can be had with 40% of the popular vote. Both the Conservatives and Liberals are, almost automatically, half way there when they start. (Remember than even in 1993, when the PCs were, effectively, wiped out, reduced to the status of just two "independent members," they got 16% of the popular vote.) Which brings up a second point: vote efficiency is just as important as vote strength. It is far, far better to win many seats by small margins than a few seats by very large numbers, as the Conservatives do in many rural areas and the Liberals do in urban Montreal and Toronto.


Edit: typo


----------



## Infanteer (23 Apr 2015)

After the BC 2013 Provincial election, I don't believe pollsters at all.  Just sayin'


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Apr 2015)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a bit of a _cri de coeur_, but I share Konrad Yakabuski's concern that discourse about ideas, policies and even _strategy_ has all but disappeared, replaced by _big data_ and so on:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-lost-art-of-political-persuasion/article24101210/


> The lost art of political persuasion
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I'm pretty certain that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has some Big Ideas but _I'm guessing_ that he has decided, on the advice of professional campaign directors, not to share them with us because each might _disturb_ one _slice_ of the electorate. Ditto, _I think_, for M. Mulcair ~ except _my suspicion_ is that he fears alienating the hard left part of the NDP's base. For all I know M Trudeau may have some big ideas, too ... but his political _manager_, Gerald Butts, is one of those who worships at the shrine of the Obama campaign and he, and many Liberal insiders, are convinced they (like the CPC) can "slice and dice" the electorate and use social media, especially, to reach increasingly more narrowly defined _slices_ of that electorate.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Apr 2015)

"...the Conservatives have driven federal revenues to their lowest level in 50 years. They now hover at barely 14 per cent of gross domestic product, down from 16 per cent a decade ago and about 18 per cent in the years prior to that."

Here are recent revenues (in millions of dollars and %GDP) from the government's fiscal reference tables.

2006-07 238,397 16.0
2007-08 245,525 15.7
2008-09 237,286 14.4
2009-10 222,103 14.2
2010-11 240,840 14.5
2011-12 249,107 14.2
2012-13 256,635 14.1
2013-14 271,677 14.4

The point: pundits can make a case either way: revenues are increasing (in absolute terms) or decreasing (in relative terms).  Pay attention to the units of measure they attach to their claims.

On the other side of the ledger, some writers grind axes complaining that the Conservatives have been a "big-spending" government, while others complain spending is too low.

Many of the people complaining about the tricks used to balance the budget have only themselves to blame.  They complained about the Conservatives' reluctance to increase spending as the 2008 recession arrived.  They complained about the "Conservative deficits" ever since.  They would undoubtedly be happy to dine out politically if the Conservatives failed to meet the repeatedly stated commitment to balance the budget.

Hypothesis: the economy isn't "weak", it is "normal".  The economy in the decade prior to 2008 wasn't "normal", it was "strong".

Fiscal policy should be tethered to "normal".


----------



## Retired AF Guy (26 Apr 2015)

Breaking news, re-printed under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act.



> Outgoing Toronto Police chief Bill Blair will run for federal Liberals
> 
> By The Canadian Press — The Canadian Press — Apr 26 2015
> 
> ...



 Article Link


----------



## CougarKing (26 Apr 2015)

Another piece that makes it sound like the "Dauphin" Trudeau has "all the cards" including great hair...  :

David vs David political column/Yahoo News



> *Canada's election: Harper lacking full support, but still likely to triumph*
> By David T Jones | David vs. David – Fri, 24 Apr, 2015
> 
> Upwards of 60 per cent of the Canadian electorate doesn’t support him. This lack of support ranges from glum tolerance of the consequences of the democratic process that has made him prime minister since 2006 to active distain, even hatred regarding his very existence in Canadian politics by some Canadians. It is difficult to determine why an intelligent, honest, family values-espousing, moral man generates such animus, but he does, and this attitude is a basic element of current Canadian politics.
> ...



Perhaps it underestimates Mulcair compared to Trudeau?



> The NDP’s Thomas Mulcair has a different problem.
> 
> Although widely recognized for effective parliamentary performance, nobody is watching Parliament’s QP or listening to Mulcair’s speeches. He has not been in the hustings, connecting with Tim Hortons voters. *Moreover, he is chained to Quebec in a death battle to retain NDP seats from prospective Trudeau/Liberal inroads. He must hold them to have any chance of gaining a federal victory (or even second place). Likewise, Trudeau must have them, too.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Apr 2015)

Back in May of last year I posted this in the _Ontario Election_ thread:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> David Parkins, in the _Globe and Mail_ has summed up the first week +, I think, in this cartoon:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then, in July, I posted:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I _think_ that just as Premier Wynne campaigned against Prime Minister Harper in the recent Ontario election, Prime Minister Harper is going to campaign against her in the lead up to 2015, as explained in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:
> 
> http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/07/03/kelly-mcparland-joe-oliver-channels-jim-flaherty-in-telling-ontario-to-quit-whining-and-solve-its-own-budget-problems/
> Next year, at budget time, Ontario is going to have to signal its firm intention to reduce spending, social spending, in order to balance the budget by 2017/18. That will mean breaking its 'promises' to most of its constituencies and I expect the Conservative Party of Ontario to tie Premier Wynne very, Very, VERY closely to Justin Trudeau and paint him as equally untrustworthy ...
> ...




Now, as we begin to think about a _national_ campaign, John Ibbitson muses that I may be right in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ontario-premier-wynne-may-have-a-starring-role-in-federal-election/article24147805/


> [size=14pt]Ontario Premier Wynne may have a starring role in federal election





> JOHN IBBITSON
> The Globe and Mail
> 
> Published Monday, Apr. 27 2015
> ...




I take issue with one point. In the second sentence John Ibbitson says "Premier Kathleen Wynne will be a key combatant, whether she wants to be or not" ~ look at the top of this post: she wanted this fight a year ago, she needed this fight a year ago ... well, now it is Prime Minister Harper's turn to hit back.

The key to victory is Ontario and the key to Ontario is the GTA, and those "suburban voters who need help with the commute to work" (who like that part of Premier Wynne's agenda) will be reminded, over and over again, the the federal Conservatives have budgeted billions and billions for transit and that they share the broadly _socially conservative_ views of New (Asian) Canadians while Trudeau-Wynne, demonstrably, do not.

(Remember, please, that Asian _social conservatism_ is not a good fit with the _Christian Right_ ... there are some overlaps (a distaste for _public_ gay rights _expressions_, for example) but many BIG areas of disagreement (e.g.abortion).)


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Apr 2015)

This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, certainly doesn't need comment beyond saying that:

     1. Justin Trudeau is a hypocrite; and

     2. The Liberal Party of Canada's _philosophy_ (power at any cost) never changes.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/recruiting-bill-blair-for-the-liberals-is-a-quizzical-tactic-by-trudeau/article24160164/


> Blair recruitment shows Trudeau's passion for civil liberties has limits
> 
> ADAM RADWANSKI
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I know that some members here plan to vote for M Trudeau's Liberals and that's all well and good; it's your right.

I know that some members here want to vote against Prime Minister Harper for a variety of reasons and that, too, is all well and good; it's also your right.

_I suspect_ that some members her are going to vote without giving serious thought to the real, big, long term issues ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Apr 2015)

And some of us, such as myself, have (almost) always voted PC and now find themselves between the devil and the deep blue sea.  I don't quite honestly like any one of the players enough to decide.  I may just sit this one out.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Apr 2015)

While that is also your right, I always remind people who think that way that if they _don't_ vote, they have no right to complain about how things turn out....


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Apr 2015)

That is true, but voting and bitching afterwards isn't so satisfactory either.  It's a lose-lose in that regard.  We're all along for the ride regardless if we like the ride or not.


----------



## Scott (29 Apr 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And some of us, such as myself, have (almost) always voted PC and now find themselves between the devil and the deep blue sea.  I don't quite honestly like any one of the players enough to decide.  I may just sit this one out.



Yup.

I can't quite come to terms with a vote that will land behind Trudeau, because I still can't take him seriously - and trust me, this last year I have tried. Then again, I live in Peter MacKay's riding...and while I really do like David MacLeod, I think Jesus Christ himself could run against MacKay here and still lose in a landslide.

I won't sit out, but I'm certainly not happy with any of the choices left to me - more than in any election before.


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Apr 2015)

Yeah, we're in the same riding...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Apr 2015)

I don't vote based on what I think of the leaders. None of them have ridings in my area.

I vote on what's in the platform for Canada and also for what it means for me and mine (heavy on the me & mine.)


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Apr 2015)

Yes, but the leaders have a great deal to do with what's one the platform.  You cannot cut them out of the equation, not to mention that your flavour of choice may be a lame duck.  If you're a dyed in the wool Liberal for instance, good luck with being happy in Calgary, for example.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Apr 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Yes, but the leaders have a great deal to do with what's one the platform.  You cannot cut them out of the equation, not to mention that your flavour of choice may be a lame duck.  If you're a dyed in the wool Liberal for instance, good luck with being happy in Calgary, for example.




You're very right. It seems to me that there are several factors we ought to consider:

     1. The platform ~ what is each party _promising_ to do for, to and about us all?

     2. Track record ~ how have parties been over a reasonable period, say the last 15± years, at keeping their promises and at managing the country or some provinces?

     3. The leader ~ how does (s)he implement policies and manage the team?

     4. The team ~ who are the candidates across the party/country? Do we really want all these people in power?

     5. The issues ~ what bothers YOU most, what are parties promising to do about the issues about which you care?


----------



## ballz (29 Apr 2015)

I know a lot of people will say "that's a waste of a vote" but if you look at how many people are saying "I might not even vote," or "I don't like any of these options," it's certainly not a waste to vote for a non-mainstream party. To me, voting Liberal / Conservative is semantics, neither offers any real meaningful change, and I think the country does need meaningful change.

I am voting Libertarian despite the fact that I know they we will probably not win a seat. We may, however, run a full slate of candidates (I don't think so, but 250-300 is my guess) for the first time ever, and I am guessing we will finish 6th behind the Greens with more than 1% of the popular vote. The Greens got 1 seat last time with 3.91%.

While most look at 1% as insignificant, it is the growth that counts. To go from .04% to 1% and a full slate of candidates would be a big deal, especially considering the historical evidence that shows that when 10% of a population adopts an unshakeable belief (which I believe Libertarianism is), the rest of society follows quickly. We only need ~140,000 votes, or around 400 per riding, to accomplish this. This is not unachievable, and anyone that does believe that they are overtaxed and the government plays too large of a role in our lives, I ask you to seriously consider it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Apr 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> I know a lot of people will say "that's a waste of a vote" but if you look at how many people are saying "I might not even vote," or "I don't like any of these options," it's certainly not a waste to vote for a non-mainstream party. To me, voting Liberal / Conservative is semantics, neither offers any real meaningful change, and I think the country does need meaningful change.
> 
> I am voting Libertarian despite the fact that I know they we will probably not win a seat. We may, however, run a full slate of candidates (I don't think so, but 250-300 is my guess) for the first time ever, and I am guessing we will finish 6th behind the Greens with more than 1% of the popular vote. The Greens got 1 seat last time with 3.91%.
> 
> While most look at 1% as insignificant, it is the growth that counts. To go from .04% to 1% and a full slate of candidates would be a big deal, especially considering the historical evidence that shows that when 10% of a population adopts an unshakeable belief (which I believe Libertarianism is), the rest of society follows quickly. We only need ~140,000 votes, or around 400 per riding, to accomplish this. This is not unachievable, and anyone that does believe that they are overtaxed and the government plays too large of a role in our lives, I ask you to seriously consider it.




Good for you, ballz! It is a thoughtful, principled vote which will put you in a tiny minority on voting day.

Some Canadians, sadly not a majority, will think about _*why*_ they are voting; some others, again far from "most," will vote based on some principles; a few, like ballz, will do both. Most will vote based on unhealthy biases, their responses to carefully crafted advertisements or, worse, from habit.


Edit: typo


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Apr 2015)

That, is an intersting proposal ballz.  I don't know what options, if any, from the usual suspects I'll have to choose from in the next election.  

Well, I've had a look and they're not running a candidate in my riding.  Interesting party though, I'll keep an eye out for them down the road.  It still leaves me with not much of a voting choice right now.


----------



## George Wallace (30 Apr 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Good for you, ballz! It is a thoughtful, principled vote which will put you in a tiny minority on voting day.
> 
> Some Canadians, sadly not a majority, will think about _*why*_ they are voting; some others, again far from "most," will vote based on some principles; a few, like ballz, will do both. Most will vote based on unhealthy biases, their responses to carefully crafted advertisements or, worse, from habit.
> 
> ...



Anything is possible.  The appearance of Reform into the equation and their success in attaining seats in the House is one such example.  That they felt then needed to merge back with the Conservative Party is another thing altogether.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Apr 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> For reasons I'm not at all sure I understand, political polls have become suspect. I'm told, by people who should know, that consumer/audience polls are still highly reliable but political polls have two problems:
> 
> 1. Apparent inconsistency ~ too many (public) polls are biased and produce results that only further confuse the general public. We should, for example, not be surprised when a polling firm with a long history with _Party A_
> produces a poll that differs substantially from that produced by another firm with a long history with _Party B_. The media makes it worse by failing, normally, to explain polling to viewers/readers; and
> ...




Please note that polling six months before an election is a mug's game, but it will impact on the campaigns, and, Abacus Data suggests that the carefully crafted Conservative budget has done it's job, it has _moved_ the polls off the 'dead heat' mark ...







... now, the Liberals have been _trending_ down (or have been flat) since Christmas while the Conservatives have been flat to trending up in the same period, but the Apr 15 results (polls taken after the 21 Apr 15 budget) show a marked change.


----------



## observor 69 (30 Apr 2015)

Show me your numbers and I'll show you mine.   

http://www.threehundredeight.com/


----------



## Rocky Mountains (30 Apr 2015)

What you see is the conglomeration of the last 14 polls weighted by recency, size, and historical accuracy.

The last 2 polls show a Conservative lead, as do many others.

The Forum Poll of April 21/22 shows Conservatives at 35 % and the Ekos Poll of April 15/21 shows them at 32 %

The last poll showing a Liberal lead was Nanos Poll of April 17 at 34 % but that was a recent high for the Liberals.

The methodology is shown further down the page.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Apr 2015)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Show me your numbers and I'll show you mine.
> 
> http://www.threehundredeight.com/



The barest possible majority government requires 169 seats and that means that either _*a)*_ the speaker is not from the governing party; or _*b)*_ if he is then one independent agrees to vote with the government. So, if the data the soon to be misnamed threehundredeight.com is using is correct then Prime Minister Harper has to keep his current best case and add at least five more seats to it. That's _doable_ in six months but _I think_ two things must happen:

     1. The CPC must mount a better ad campaign than they have had in the past. The sort of _dirty_ attack ads that worked against Dion and Ignatieff are unlikely to work against M. Trudeau, who is, really, a quite likeable young man; and

     2. One of -

        a. the Liberals must make a significant policy or campaign gaffe ~ something that is not at all improbable, or

        b. the CPC must find an issue/policy that really appeals to a broader cross section of Canadians, or

        c. the NDP must get its act together and mount an effective campaign against the Liberals.


----------



## observor 69 (30 Apr 2015)

2. One of -

        a. the Liberals must make a significant policy or campaign gaffe ~ something that is not at all improbable, or

                Equally it is possible that the PC's make a gaffe
  
       b. the CPC must find an issue/policy that really appeals to a broader cross section of Canadians, or

               I can't think of any major issue/policy they haven't already  made their position clear on.  

      c. the NDP must get its act together and mount an effective campaign against the Liberals. 

           Aren't the Liberal and NDP platforms fundamentally so close that it leaves little room for a significant issue debate.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Apr 2015)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> 2. One of -
> 
> a. the Liberals must make a significant policy or campaign gaffe ~ something that is not at all improbable, or
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Apr 2015)

Some observations of mine:

1. Neither the NDP, nor especially the Liberals can form the government without winning Quebec. The Conservatives have no such limitation. 

2. The Conservatives have to fight what is effectively a one front war, where the NDP and Liberals have to fight a two front war - three front if you count a potentially resurgent Bloc in Quebec.

3. The NDP and Conservatives have a decent head start in promoting their policies to the electorate. The Liberals have yet to say anything of note; save that they will reverse many of the budget initiatives that directly benefit seniors - the largest voting block.


----------



## ballz (30 Apr 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That, is an intersting proposal ballz.  I don't know what options, if any, from the usual suspects I'll have to choose from in the next election.
> 
> Well, I've had a look and they're not running a candidate in my riding.  Interesting party though, I'll keep an eye out for them down the road.  It still leaves me with not much of a voting choice right now.



We are adding candidates every week. There are 58 on the site, but that is a fraction of the applications we have (I won't go into specifics here) which are being processed and interviewed (its a long process that relies on a lot of volunteer work by every day people with lives that get in the way), and there is still 5-6 months until an election. I will be sure to let you know if a candidate from Halifax is announced.

But Atlantic Canada and Quebec are certainly the hardest places for us to recruit candidates. I have an easy guess as to why, but its still just a guess after all.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Apr 2015)

Thanks ballz, however, my riding is Central Nova.  I'm in Peter MacKay's territory.  I am posted (IR) to Ottawa this July, so will have to vote remotely and as such I won't be necessarily in touch with what's going on at home turf.  Please let me know if the party is running in the riding should they choose to do so this time.


----------



## Halifax Tar (4 May 2015)

> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-plan-taxes-top-1-to-cut-taxes-boost-benefits-for-middle-class-1.3060323
> 
> Justin Trudeau has unveiled the Liberal alternative to the Harper government's economic plan: hike taxes for the wealthiest one per cent to pay for more generous child benefits and an across-the-board income tax cut for the middle class.
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 May 2015)

Interesting I am seeing statements by people pissed about the closing of Kits Coast Guard base, they say "they voted and/or donated to CPC, but due to the handling of this file they will not repeat that". Another point was the absolute silence by the 2 MP's on the subject. I only got a response when I stuck my letter into a donation envelope. Last election I volunteered and donated and voted, this election I might still vote for them, only for a lack of better choice, but if many do just the bare minimum then they will not b able to organize enough to get the undecided vote or get people to the polls to vote for them.

I am 100% behind them on the foreign policy area, the firearms bills are just barely adequate (I think they overestimate any concern about revamping the Act properly) The handling of the Public Service is no different than the way the Liberals treated gun owners and in their rush to write laws and regulations they make a hash of it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 May 2015)

As with every other country that has tried to make the rich support the rest, all they do is make the rich move to a more desirable area. Of course the social programs will never die, so the middle class gets to pick up the cost anyway.

Someone left their bag of idiots open.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 May 2015)

In my estimation, the Liberals have given the Conservatives the key to victory. They intend to repeal income splitting and TFSA doubling. This will punish both groups the Liberals need to court in order to win - seniors, and the real middle class. These groups may just punish the Liberals for their stupid policies. Canadians vote with their wallets.


----------



## dapaterson (4 May 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> In my estimation, the Liberals have given the Conservatives the key to victory. They intend to repeal income splitting and TFSA doubling. This will punish both groups the Liberals need to court in order to win - seniors, and the real middle class. These groups may just punish the Liberals for their stupid policies. Canadians vote with their wallets.



https://twitter.com/davidreevely/status/595328794816323584


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 May 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> In my estimation, the Liberals have given the Conservatives the key to victory. They intend to repeal income splitting and TFSA doubling. This will punish both groups the Liberals need to court in order to win - seniors, and the real middle class. These groups may just punish the Liberals for their stupid policies. Canadians vote with their wallets.




I suspect this is actually aimed at the potential _strategic_ voters, normally in the NDP's camp, but open to being persuaded to vote Liberal to get rid of the Conservatives.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (4 May 2015)

Running with tax increases usually loses elections.  Tax cuts seem to work better.  As a Conservative - thank you Justin.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 May 2015)

Income splitting alone saved me from not having a refund this year for the first time in my working life.

Trudeau's true colours have finally come out. He's a tax and spend guy trying to pay off families with an even bigger child tax credit. If I have a third child, under his plan, the feds will pay me $15,000 a year just because? That's a 20% pay increase tax free. Where the heck does that money come from? The people with money are the people smart enough to hide the money in tax loopholes or simply just move away.


----------



## ballz (4 May 2015)

Ah hell, just because the topic is tax savings  ;D

http://tax.libertarian.ca/

The CRA costs $7 billion a year just to operate. That's $7 billion a year that we pay just to take our money from us. For comparison's sake, the DND's budget is around $20 billion, so we are paying 35% of the DND's entire budget just to administer the tax system.


----------



## Remius (4 May 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> https://twitter.com/davidreevely/status/595328794816323584



That was funny.  But yeah, no way vader only makes 100 000 a year...


----------



## dapaterson (4 May 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> That was funny.  But yeah, no way vader only makes 100 000 a year...



I don't know.  After the loss of the first Death Star I'm sure the Empire had to start cutting to free up funds for the second one; personnel costs are an obvious place to start.

And notice that the first Death Star was destroyed in 1977, yet the second one was operational (but not complete) in 1983 - only six years later.  Meanwhile, the NSPS was announced in June of 2010, almost five years ago...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 May 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Income splitting alone saved me from not having a refund this year for the first time in my working life.
> 
> Trudeau's true colours have finally come out. He's a tax and spend guy trying to pay off families with an even bigger child tax credit. If I have a third child, under his plan, the feds will pay me $15,000 a year just because? That's a 20% pay increase tax free. Where the heck does that money come from? The people with money are the people smart enough to hide the money in tax loopholes or simply just move away.



Like this tweet says:

lg666 ‏@Lorne666  · 5h5 hours ago  
@JustinTrudeau @cafreeland-really?UR going to tax us, in our 60's-to subsidize 2people making 100k/yr 4k every year!-dumb before, dumber NOW


----------



## TCBF (4 May 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> Ah hell, just because the topic is tax savings  ;D
> 
> http://tax.libertarian.ca/
> 
> The CRA costs $7 billion a year just to operate. That's $7 billion a year that we pay just to take our money from us. For comparison's sake, the DND's budget is around $20 billion, so we are paying 35% of the DND's entire budget just to administer the tax system.



- Seven billion is how much of a percentage of our national budget? Not much. Try getting a famous charity - like Greenpeace - to operatate with that low of a fundraising budget.


----------



## ballz (4 May 2015)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Seven billion is how much of a percentage of our national budget? Not much. Try getting a famous charity - like Greenpeace - to operatate with that low of a fundraising budget.



This comparison to a charity doesn't make much sense to me. Those charities use money to make money, much more comparable to a private business. Also, I can choose whether or not I want to pay money into a charity. The government takes money by force. If I give money to a charity that continues to suck and fail, that's my own fault.

How many charities would cease to exist if they ran a deficit for decades at a time? Or in the case of the Conservative government, have averaged a negative balance of (I'm guessing) around 10% per year, since coming to power in 2006. Greenpeace has more money than the church and the Government of Canada is operating in the red.


----------



## TCBF (4 May 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> This comparison to a charity doesn't make much sense to me. Those charities use money to make money, much more comparable to a private business. Also, I can choose whether or not I want to pay money into a charity. The government takes money by force. If I give money to a charity that continues to suck and fail, that's my own fault.
> 
> How many charities would cease to exist if they ran a deficit for decades at a time? Or in the case of the Conservative government, have averaged a negative balance of (I'm guessing) around 10% per year, since coming to power in 2006. Greenpeace has more money than the church and the Government of Canada is operating in the red.



- Moot.

- My point was on the percentage used to GET the money, not the morality or justice of it. My point stands.


----------



## ballz (5 May 2015)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Moot.
> 
> - My point was on the percentage used to GET the money, not the morality or justice of it. My point stands.



Well I'm glad you declare "moot" like you are the authority or something. I didn't realize that's how this works.

Your point is based on a comparison that makes no sense. It's apples to melons. The money is collected through legislation. The CRA's budget is used to administer the money collected. Your comparison would be correct if you were comparing how much Greenpeace pays in accounting expenses. It would still be irrelevant, however, because you are comparing a charity to a government which is just bananas. But comparing a charity's cost of raising revenue to a governments cost of raising revenue is RTFO 'er.

Try comparing the Swiss Federal Tax Administration budget to the CRA as a percentage of each country's revenue for a fair comparison.

But you keep going with your point, I'm not sure what it is yet. Are you trying to argue that our tax system is efficient or that a flat tax wouldn't be lightyears cheaper to administer? I'm dying to hear.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 May 2015)

"■The 22-per-cent tax rate for anyone with a taxable annual income between $44,701 and $89,401 would be cut to 20.5 per cent."

That's worth $670 (per year).

"■The Conservatives' income-splitting tax credit would be scrapped."

I suppose for many of those who benefit from it, the value is more than $670 per year.

"■The near doubling of the tax-free savings account contribution limits announced in the federal budget would be cancelled."

If I can contribute an extra $5K per year over the next 10 years, in instruments returning 5%-7% (easily achievable), that would be worth $2,500 to $3,500 per year at that point.  But the break-even for 5% (the compounded growth versus the $670 per year) occurs just a little after 4 years in.  I'd much, much, much rather have the higher contribution limit than the tax cut.

The arithmetic needs to be thrown back in the Liberals' faces, loudly and repeatedly.  It is certain they ran the numbers themselves and are fully aware of the likely effects; it is equally certain they put this together deliberately to pay for new spending.

Also, the more progressive (imbalanced against higher income earners) the tax system, the more vulnerable revenues are to a sharp drop during economic downturns.  Increased fiscal instability is not good.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 May 2015)

Lawrence Martin makes an interesting observation in a column in the _Globe and Mail_ regarding the _potential_ impact of an NDP victory in Alberta (if that happens) on the federal election:


    "... good showings by provincial parties don’t often translate to better results for the federal party in the province in question. Often the opposite is the case. In Ontario, the opposite is almost always the case.

     All that said, a win by Ms. Notley today in the Alberta election would be a major boost for Mr. Mulcair and the federal party – and one that comes at a critical time.

     Should the leftists do the gobsmackingly unthinkable in what is still considered Canada’s most right-wing province; should they topple one of the most formidable political dynasties in our history, the NDP brand will be strengthened
     across the board just months before a federal election.

     This won’t translate into a big harvest of seats for the federal party in Alberta. Prime Minister Stephen Harper isn’t fumbling away his base there like the provincial Conservatives are. But it will provide a shot of credibility and
     momentum for the New Democrats. Voters who have paid little attention to them or who have been caught up in old stereotypes – Bolsheviks! No thank you – will give the party a new look. If the NDP isn’t too scary for Albertans,
     who is it too scary for?
     ...
     A victory by her would be grim news for both the federal Conservatives and Liberals, but worse for Justin Trudeau’s Liberals. Mr. Harper would loathe seeing the NDP at the controls of the province that is his base and his party’s base.
     But he’ll likely hold his Alberta seats. Across the country, he knows that a rise in New Democratic fortunes comes mainly at the expense of the Liberals. The more vote-splitting among progressives the better. If the two main
     opposition parties are neck and neck, Mr. Harper’s chances of winning are enhanced."

I _believe_ that _strategic_ voting will be a factor in 2015: M Trudeau needs to persuade voters who normally favour the NDP to abandon that ship and join him in defeating Prime Minister Harper. M Mulcair needs to do the same. Prime Minister Harper needs to _encourage_ each of them to attack the other.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 May 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> Ah hell, just because the topic is tax savings  ;D
> 
> http://tax.libertarian.ca/
> 
> "They" say The CRA costs $7 billion a year just to operate.


FTFY - paperwork CRA prepares for Parliament says the CRA costs closer to $4B a year to operate, out of a total budget of between $230B and $240B/year.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 May 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Coipyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is a useful analysis* of M Trudeau's socio-economic policy initiative:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/if-youre-in-the-right-tax-bracket-trudeau-has-a-platform-for-you/article24247698/


> If you’re in the right tax bracket, Trudeau has a platform for you
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




This, _in my opinion_, is the key:

     First: "Mr. Trudeau and his team of advisers believe that the real crisis of our time is the concentration of wealth among upper-income earners at the expense of the distressed middle. Their proposed solution is to expropriate a portion of
              that wealth and deliver it, not to the oppressed, but to the suburbs, to two-income, white-collar commuters who wonder why they work so hard and never get a raise. This tax cut’s for them;" and

     Second: " Also, a $60,000 income in Trois-Rivières delivers a much greater level of affluence than a $60,000 income in the Lower Mainland. Using income to define the middle class defies economic geography."

I agree with John Ibbitson that:

     "... Mr. Trudeau has clearly decided to ignore the NDP. If they want to tailor policies for lower-income workers, if they want to guarantee subsidized daycare spaces, if they want to fight climate change, the Liberals are happy to let them ...
       It can be exceedingly dangerous to turn your back on Thomas Mulcair. But Mr. Trudeau clearly sees this election as a contest between himself and Mr. Harper;" and

     "The Prime Minister has dedicated his entire political life to understanding, representing and defending the suburban middle class. He will fight Justin Trudeau to the political death over them."

I think M Trudeau has made two blunders, neither of which may be overly serious: 

     1. He's defined the "middle class" in too narrow a range; and

     2. He's leaving his left flank, where M Mulcair has strength, open.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 May 2015)

And, in this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, Jeffrey Simpson builds on the notion that M Trudeau has made a blunder and is dancing to Prime Minister Harper's tune:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/on-tax-cuts-trudeau-shouldnt-play-on-the-tories-turf/article24254907/


> [
> On tax cuts, Trudeau shouldn’t play on the Tories’ turf
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> ...




I think Mr Simpson "gets" the Conservatives when he says: "Conservatives say time and again: Taxpayers not governments know best how to spend “hard-earned dollars.” If you want collective action to achieve social goals, vote for someone else ... The Conservatives election pitch will be simple: lower taxes, smaller government and keeping Canadians safe."

He goes on to say, "Now, the Liberals have essentially signed off on the first two Conservative slogans, while suggesting they would achieve these goals somewhat differently."

Unless M Trudeau has yet another tax increases in his hip pocket or unless he plans to cut, _discretionary_ spending ~ things like defence and veterans' benefits ~ then there is no money for much, Much, MUCH needed infrastructure _maintenance_ and repair, nor for expanded mass transit ... Premier Wynne and big city mayors will not be pleased.


_Edited to add:_

But, on the plus side, M Trudeau has ventured, at long last, into the realm of policy and we must all welcome that. Good for him.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 May 2015)

Equally it is "good" that the Jeffrey Simpsons of the country have been forced to self-identify both themselves and "their" Liberals as tax-payer funded social engineers.

It is great fun playing games on somebody else's nickel.


----------



## ballz (5 May 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> FTFY - paperwork CRA prepares for Parliament says the CRA costs closer to $4B a year to operate, out of a total budget of between $230B and $240B/year.



Wow, I rarely take info at face value and this is why. Mea culpa.

My point to the original post, however, remains the same. 

1. You will all probably save more money under the Libertarian proposed tax system than any other system.

2. We are paying billions of dollars for administer the tax system. A flat tax system with very few credits (four more than I would like but that's another issue) can leave money in the taxpayer's pocket and reduce the financial burden of administering taxes. If it costs $4 billion to administer our current system, I think its relatively conservative to bet that a flat tax would cost less than $2 billion to administer. $2 billion is big savings. Would the net revenue - costs be a positive balance? No. But the government shouldn't be in the business of maximizing profit.

This is all besides the fact that a flat tax is much more fairer than a progressive tax. Not as fair as a lump sum tax (nor as efficient), but that would be utopian thinking.

Edit: To expand the post.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 May 2015)

1. Agreed.
2. Agreed.

Both of those things are trivially true - or very nearly so - and nice.  But there remains the unaddressed problem of the very large shift of the relative shares of the revenue burden from higher income earners to lower income earners.  "Spending cuts" won't fix it.  Whether or not people who already have a reasonable income get to keep more of it isn't where the focus of the flat tax discussion should lie.


----------



## ballz (5 May 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> 1. Agreed.
> 2. Agreed.
> 
> Both of those things are trivially true - or very nearly so - and nice.  But there remains the unaddressed problem of the very large shift of the relative shares of the revenue burden from higher income earners to lower income earners.  "Spending cuts" won't fix it.  Whether or not people who already have a reasonable income get to keep more of it isn't where the focus of the flat tax discussion should lie.



Well I don't see how it is trivial at all.

The "burden" is currently unfair. People don't like people that have more money than them, I understand that (well I understand it to be true, I don't understand the mentality at all), but how that is justification for another person to pay more money for the same services is well beyond me. If you look at it objectively, there is nothing fair about a progressive tax system. Only if you look at it from a "I'm not wealthy so I want wealthy people to pay more money because I don't like them" standpoint can you justify it as "fair." Sometimes medicine tastes bad, but you have to swallow it anyway.

Yes, a flat tax would "shift the burden." It is important to point out that "shift the burden" doesn't mean "make the wealthy pay less and the middle class pay more" which is the way it is advertised. Someone making 100k would still have a higher tax burden than someone making 20k, it just wouldn't be as heavy as it currently is. It would shift it to a way that's closer to fair (again, just because people don't like people who have more wealth than them doesn't make the current system fair in any sense). 

However, under the Libertarian tax plan, it wouldn't just be "people who already have a reasonable income" who get to keep more of it. Our plan was deliberately laid out to ensure that every single tax payer would end up paying less federal taxes. That includes people only making 15-20k a year.


Yes, I am all about talking about the economics of a flat tax, but I feel the need to openly disagree with the whole "shifting the burden on the poor/middle class" stuff, as I find it principally untrue.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 May 2015)

How is it principally untrue?

There aren't many options on the table.

1) Set the flat tax rate to increase income tax revenues.  I gather this option is not even open for consideration.

2) Set the flat tax rate to maintain current income tax revenues.  This option definitely ensures people with lower incomes will have to contribute a greater share of those revenues than they currently do.

3) Set the flat tax rate to ensure "every single tax payer would end up paying less federal taxes".  This option definitely ensures income tax revenues will fall, and we move to the second set of options:

A) Raise other taxes.  By how much?

B) Cut spending.  Where, and by how much?

C) Deficit financing, indefinitely.


----------



## TCBF (6 May 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> Well I'm glad you declare "moot" like you are the authority or something. I didn't realize that's how this works.
> 
> Your point is based on a comparison that makes no sense. It's apples to melons. The money is collected through legislation. The CRA's budget is used to administer the money collected. Your comparison would be correct if you were comparing how much Greenpeace pays in accounting expenses. It would still be irrelevant, however, because you are comparing a charity to a government which is just bananas. But comparing a charity's cost of raising revenue to a governments cost of raising revenue is RTFO 'er.
> 
> ...



- It would appear that I was unintentionally rude. Apologies.
- My point was that seven billion, at first glance, did not strike me as excessive for CRA. My allegory of a charity may have been chosen hastily. I have no idea what the Swiss do.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 May 2015)

Consumption taxes, like the HST/GST are _flat taxes_; they are reasonable simple to collect and rebate to government; and they are, within limits, _discretionary_: consume less and you pay less in taxes.

I agree that tax codes ~ especially America's, but Canada's, too ~ are too complex but I'm not sure how we, anyone, will find the political will to fix them. Our tax system reflects a firm belief in the macroeconomic theory that the tax code can _push_ us to make "better" decisions. _Sin taxes_ on alcohol and tobacco are classic examples. Raise the price, through higher and higher taxes, and two "good" things will result, the theory says: _a)_ lower usage of "bad" products; and _b)_ higher revenue from those to _weak_ to change their behaviours. Of course we also know that a third, unintended consequence results: bootlegging and tobacco smuggling with the attendant, low risk, benefits for criminals. But everything from supply management to the old, unlamented R&D tax credit and so on, nearly _ad infinitum_, resulted from the fact that macroeconomics is fairly simple in the classroom but hideously complex in the marketplace. It is the simple theory that attracts politicians and voters and the complexity that baffles even the best bureaucrats.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 May 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> According to the _Globe and Mail_'s front page banner the results were:
> 
> PC: 27.8%   Wildrose: 24.2%   Liberals: 4.2%    NDP: 40.6%   Others: 3.2%




I'm going to go _waaaaay_ out on a limb here, before much real analysis is done, and suggest that the _Alberta NDP_ won 53 of 87 seats (60% of the seats) with only 40% of the popular vote because their vote was very, vert _*efficient*_. I'm guessing that in many, many ridings the conservatives (_Wildrose_ and _PC_ ~ who, between them, got 52% of the popular vote) split the vote, getting, say, 25-30% each and allowing the _NDP_ to "come up the middle" and win with, say, 35%.

That's what Prime Minister Harper needs in the 2015 federal general election.

Let's say that he (the _CPC_) has a solid base of, say, 45 to 50 (of 338) seats, seats that he almost cannot lose (the worst _recent_ 'conservative' result was in 1993 when the _conservatives_ (Reform and PC) were held to a total of 54 (of only 295) seats, and the _Liberals_ and _NDP _ also have about the same base: 75 to 100 _secure_ seats. That means that 120 to 150 (of 338) seats are "given" and 185 to 220 are "up for grabs."

The _Conservatives_ have to win 70 to 90 of those 200_ish_ 'open' seats (40%) and that means they need a very _efficient_ vote with the _Liberals_ and NDP splitting the _liberal/progressive_vote in many, many ridings, with 30% each while the _CPC_ candidate polls 35%.

That means Prime Minister Harper has to be careful in _*how*_ he attacks the opposition parties in each riding.


Edit: typo


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 May 2015)

I wonder where the usual commentariat is this morning after the Aberta NDP won with 40 percent of the vote...you know, that ones that call for proportionate representation because the federal Conservatives keep winning with 39 percent of the vote. Which is undemocratic, don't you know?


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 May 2015)

:goodpost:

Oh, that doesn't apply here, of course ... their _right_ favourite side won so it's all good.


----------



## GAP (6 May 2015)

> The Conservatives have to win 70 to 90 of those 200ish 'open' seats (40%) and that means they need a very efficient vote with the Liberals and NDP splitting the liberal/progressivevote in many, many ridings, with 30% each while the CPC candidate polls 35%.
> 
> That means Prime Minister Harper has to be careful in how he attacks the opposition parties in each riding.



I listened to the CPC radio ad about Justin Trudeau's policy this morning........

The one thought that struck me (I can only afford one at a time), is maybe they are attacking the wrong group, what with the NDP win in Alberta.....Trudeau may become irrelevant if this gives a boost to Mulclair....


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 May 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> I listened to the CPC radio ad about Justin Trudeau's policy this morning........
> 
> The one thought that struck me (I can only afford one at a time), is maybe they are attacking the wrong group, what with the NDP win in Alberta.....Trudeau may become irrelevant if this gives a boost to Mulclair....




This will give a big boost to Mr Mulcair and a smaller one to M Trudeau ... both will be buoyed by the thought that the CPC can be beaten in Alberta. Mr Mulcair has to hope that Ms Notley governs prudently and well for the next few months. 

This, from an article in the _Globe and Mail_ caught my attention:

     "... the New Democrats were led by someone who captured the public’s imagination. At some point during the campaign, almost a cult of personality developed around Rachel Notley. People became increasingly attracted to her character,
      the easy, accessible way in which she expressed her views. In the process, she differentiated herself from the other party leaders, all men, who lacked the charm and natural salesmanship abilities that she possessed.

      Ms. Notley was the NDP campaign, and unquestionably elevated herself above her party’s brand.

      The unprecedented New Democrat surge in Alberta was certainly abetted by a Conservative regime that looked out of touch and, frankly, acted like a dysfunctional family that needed counselling. And if it required any additional proof,
      the campaign demonstrated the price a politician can pay for imprecise language. The smallest of phrases can have the largest of impacts and consequences.

      Before the election was even called, Progressive Conservative Leader Jim Prentice said in an interview that when it came to the fiscal mess in which the province found itself, Albertans needed to “look in the mirror.” Those four simple words
      infuriated a public that felt Mr. Prentice was blaming them for a problem created by a succession of PC governments."

Two lessons:

     1. Personality matters, and, like Ms Notley, M Trudeau's greatest strength is that he is a genuinely nice young man;

     2. The government's record matters: Canadians have to like what Prime Minister Harper has done _for_ them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 May 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This will give a big boost to Mr Mulcair and a smaller one to M Trudeau ... both will be buoyed by the thought that the CPC can be beaten in Alberta. Mr Mulcair has to hope that Ms Notley governs prudently and well for the next few months.
> 
> This, from an article in the _Globe and Mail_ caught my attention:
> 
> ...




And, in this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ Alberta political scientist and (conservative) political insider Prof Tom Flanagan suggests how Ms Notley can succeed:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/how-notley-can-avoid-becoming-a-one-term-wonder/article24281617/


> How Notley can avoid becoming a one-term wonder
> 
> TOM FLANAGAN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




Two things screwed Bob Rae in Ontario:

     1. An economy in trouble ~ not his fault, but a bad time for the second problem;

     2. The _ideological left wing_ of his party.

There is no reason why a socially _liberal_, modestly free spending government cannot succeed. Tommy Douglas did, in Saskatchewan, in the 1940s and '50s. He paid off a large public debt, introduced several new social programmes and left saskatchewan with a budgetary surplus. Douglas did not have _big labour_ in the 1940s and '50s; he led a CCF government - solid urban and rural folks steeped in the _co-op_ movement ...









I suspect that Ms Notley will get an (unearned) break in oil prices ... _Financial Times_: May 5, 2015 6:30 pm. *Oil reaches $68 as Saudi raises selling prices* and that will allow her to introduce a sane budget, IF she can keep the loony-left _ideologues_ at bay.

Edited to add:

If she can do that then she makes the NDP much less scary and gives Thomas Mulcair a _national_ break at M Trudeau's expense.


----------



## GAP (6 May 2015)

Ms. Notley has a huge job ahead of her in rooting out the PC people infrastructure that was built up over the last 40 years......there have been many articles about the appointments that were made, only if they were beholding to the PC's when the time came.

I suspect there will be many changes on a lot of boards, committee's, etc.....


----------



## Kirkhill (6 May 2015)

GAP:

So Ms Notley will have to govern against the Bureaucrats and the Courts .....

and maybe the Press and the Unions.  Some of the first socialist supporters to bail are the Unions.


----------



## ballz (6 May 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> FTFY - paperwork CRA prepares for Parliament says the CRA costs closer to $4B a year to operate, out of a total budget of between $230B and $240B/year.



I went to find the bastard that gave me the wrong info to give me a source. The Department of Finance numbers indicate that the total cost of the CRA was $7.7 billion in 2013, while a annual report by the CRA to Parliament from 2012/2013 had numbers in the realm of $4 billion. I'm now less concerned about which one is right and which one is wrong and more about why the discrepancy?

http://www.fin.gc.ca/tax-impot/2013/2013-eng.pdf found on Page 16



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> - It would appear that I was unintentionally rude. Apologies.


No biggie, could have been me being oversensitive, it is the internet after all.



			
				TCBF said:
			
		

> - My point was that seven billion, at first glance, did not strike me as excessive for CRA. My allegory of a charity may have been chosen hastily. I have no idea what the Swiss do.



Maybe its not a large percentage, I've been trying to find the Swiss numbers ever since saying that, just because it would be a more apples to apples comparison and the Swiss are a very "small government" country. Going to be hard to find considering what I just found out our own numbers.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> How is it principally untrue?



I guess what I find untrue about it is the way its advertised. It makes people think the taxes are being raised on the middle class or that the middle class will be paying a higher tax rate than upper class. The fact is, a flat tax would still result in the upper class paying a very high proportion of all the taxes.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> There aren't many options on the table.
> 
> 1) Set the flat tax rate to increase income tax revenues.  I gather this option is not even open for consideration.
> 
> ...



Option 5 (B) please... At the federal level, cut spending almost every where. The federal government should be limited to protecting life, liberty, and property of the country. All this social spending should be decentralized to the provinces, and even better, to the municipalities. One because its more efficient to do this, and two because it gives the person affected by that social spending a more powerful vote. It also holds the province more accountable to not spend itself into oblivion. If you can't afford a certain social program, or your citizens don't think the juice is worth the squeeze to raise the taxes in order to pay for it, then you shouldn't have it. You certainly shouldn't be able to have $7/day daycare because other provinces are paying for it for you, meaning now they can't afford it.

I would rather pay $1000 total taxes and see $100 go to the federal government while $900 goes to the province, than pay $1000 in taxes and see a 50/50 split. But the truth is, if we decentralized (lowered federal taxes and raised provincial taxes, with the expectation that the province will pay for more than they used to because the feds are only worried about life, liberty, and property) we'd probably find that once the tax rates evened out, I'd be paying $800 or $900 total instead, and receiving better services than before.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 May 2015)

>This will give a big boost to Mr Mulcair and a smaller one to M Trudeau

I believe otherwise.  The election of Liberal parties in BC and ON and NDP in AB strengthens the likelihood voters will go Blue in the federal election in those provinces, and those are all important provinces for the CPC.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 May 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm going to go _waaaaay_ out on a limb here, before much real analysis is done, and suggest that the _Alberta NDP_ won 53 of 87 seats (60% of the seats) with only 40% of the popular vote because their vote was very, vert _*efficient*_. I'm guessing that in many, many ridings the conservatives (_Wildrose_ and _PC_ ~ who, between them, got 52% of the popular vote) split the vote, getting, say, 25-30% each and allowing the _NDP_ to "come up the middle" and win with, say, 35%.
> 
> That's what Prime Minister Harper needs in the 2015 federal general election.
> 
> ...




And, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, Adam Radwanski takes issue with _tacticians_ like me, who are moving 'seat counts' around a spreadsheet (like Ops Clerks move 'markers' on a _bird table_) and suggests that we get out of the CP bunker and take a good look at the ground:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/the-lesson-for-politicians-underestimate-voters-at-your-peril/article24287580/


> The lesson in Alberta for politicians: underestimate voters at your peril
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I am, indeed, making assumptions about electoral politics and they may well be very wrong.

My _sense_ of the "ground," as far as I can see it, and how the issue will play out, still leaves me persuaded that the suburbs and small cities in Ontario, Alberta and BC matter most. _I don't think_ the CPC is going to make many big gains in downtown Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver. _I don't think_ either M. Mulcair or M Trudeau is likely to make a breakthrough in rural/small-town Alberta, etc. _I believe_ that the _vital ground_ is the suburbs and smaller cities in "New Canada," that vast region West of the Ottawa River.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 May 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >This will give a big boost to Mr Mulcair and a smaller one to M Trudeau
> 
> I believe otherwise.  The election of Liberal parties in BC and ON and NDP in AB strengthens the likelihood voters will go Blue in the federal election in those provinces, and those are all important provinces for the CPC.




I really don't understand BC politics.  :

I agree that, generally, Ontarians have voted _against_ their provincial governments and that bodes well for Prime Minister Harper, but they can vote against the Liberals, because they are fed up with Premier Wynne, and then vote for the NDP, instead of the Tories.

I doubt the NDP victory in Alberta will do serious harm to the CPC, but I will not be surprised if the Liberals and/or NDP pick up a seat or two in Edmonton.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (6 May 2015)

Only five months until the federal election.  It will probably take a year and a half for the socialists to totally destroy the Alberta economy, even from the sad state it is in currently.  Alberta will elect a few Bolsheviks.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 May 2015)

I think Radwanski over-reacted to what is basically a textbook vote split - the kind with which BC is well acquainted.  If Wildrose had gone into the night the most people would be talking about would be a surprisingly strong NDP showing and how much discontent it represented.  Number crunching and analysis are still important.


----------



## GAP (6 May 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Only five months until the federal election.  It will probably take a year and a half for the socialists to totally destroy the Alberta economy, even from the sad state it is in currently.  Alberta will elect a few Bolsheviks.



A lot will depend on their first budget. They won't make major changes to the tax base until the second or third budget.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 May 2015)

Parties usually try to make their big unpopular changes within the first two years.


----------



## stealthylizard (7 May 2015)

Big, scary words....... socialist and communist  :  The PC's screwed up too much too often, and frankly after 44 years in power it was time for them to go.  The biggest boost for Rachel Notley came from the debate.  Brian Jean would not and did not stray from one phrase the whole time... lower taxes.  The voters need more than that.  

Rachel is an Albertan, and knows the oil and gas sector feed the province.  She isn't going to bite that hand.  Yes, I voted for the NDP.  I compared the platforms of the Wild Rose party, Progressive Conservative party, Liberal party, NDP, and the Alberta party.  The only one that stood out was the NDP.  

The one main thing that grabbed my attention and my vote was upgrading/expanding domestic refining.  I don't think it will make an impact on prices, but there is no reason for Alberta not to refine more of our fossil fuels. here, at home.  The second issue that solidified my vote, came about from the political compass test (it said I was aligned with the PC's), and that was mandatory vaccination.  The NDP and Alberta Party were the only ones to support mandatory vaccination for school children (currently, it's a parental decision).

It isn't the end of Alberta, it's the start of a new chapter.


----------



## GAP (7 May 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Parties usually try to make their big unpopular changes within the first two years.



In this case, I suspect the big bearded brother is whispering that she should not rock the boat until after the federal election......


----------



## Remius (7 May 2015)

Not trying to take anyone on a tangent and maybe I'm wearing my tin foil hat but when we look at the Alberta results and combine that with election results in every single province except Saskatchewan we see a large country wide rejection of conservative parties.  Not a rejection of _Conservatism_ per se but it seems that Conservatives on the whole have been either unable or unwilling to get their message across to Canadians.  Or that Canadians seem to reject what those parties are offering despite facing some terrible incumbents (Ontario comes to mind).  Defeats in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec (the PQ is/was a loose coalition of separatist conservatives and leftists), New Brunswick etc etc

I realise that in many cases like Ontario and Alberta that voters voted against something rather than for something but it just seems like it is becoming more of a trend.

Will this translate federally?  I'm not sure since there are so many fundamental differences between federal and provincial politics but it will be interesting to see where this might end.


----------



## George Wallace (7 May 2015)

I am not sure that it is actually a rejection of _Conservatism_, as much as having candidates who ran very weak and poorly thought out campaigns.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 May 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Not trying to take anyone on a tangent and maybe I'm wearing my tin foil hat but when we look at the Alberta results and combine that with election results in every single province except Saskatchewan we see a large country wide rejection of conservative parties.  Not a rejection of _Conservatism_ per se but it seems that Conservatives on the whole have been either unable or unwilling to get their message across to Canadians.  Or that Canadians seem to reject what those parties are offering despite facing some terrible incumbents (Ontario comes to mind).  Defeats in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec (the PQ is/was a loose coalition of separatist conservatives and leftists), New Brunswick etc etc
> 
> I realise that in many cases like Ontario and Alberta that voters voted against something rather than for something but it just seems like it is becoming more of a trend.
> 
> Will this translate federally?  I'm not sure since there are so many fundamental differences between federal and provincial politics but it will be interesting to see where this might end.




I think the biggest threat facing the CPC is time ... they've been in office for nine years and Canadians are tired of them because they, the Conservatives, are tired of governing: they have too few new, good ideas.

It may well be that one or the other opposition party can offer *change* ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





               ... in an attractive, new package (that would, most likely, be M. Trudeau).









Or, maybe, it's just time to ...

                    
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




                           ... throw the rascals out.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 May 2015)

Interesting review of Minorities and Coalitions by the Hansard Society of the UK.

http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/A-Numbers-Game-Hansard-Society.pdf

Their view on two critical points:

The government does not have to have the largest party although it helps.

It is not enough that the Prime Ministers party is defeated in the General Election, nor even that he and his party are defeated in the House.  The Queen must not be deprived of council until there is a replacement.   Accordingly the other parties not only have to demonstrate that the PM does not command the House but that one of them can.

It is the UK society but as all Westminsters are linked I think it fair to assume that a similar rationale would apply over here.

Could Trudeau and Mulcair find enough common ground policies - that would not taint either one in the long term - that they could co-operate?  And how long would such a minority government last?

We know that Harper can manage a minority without a formal coalition.  Mulcair is probably bright enough to manage it.  Would Trudeau be bright enough to either do it himself or let Mulcair do it?  Jury's out, here.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 May 2015)

>In this case, I suspect the big bearded brother is whispering that she should not rock the boat until after the federal election......

Since it's only a few months away and nothing happens over summer, I am compelled to agree.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 May 2015)

>I'm not sure since there are so many fundamental differences between federal and provincial politics but it will be interesting to see where this might end.

With NDP in AB, Liberals in ON and QC, and either a Lib minority or Lib/NDP coalition in Parliament?  Probably a new NEP at the least.  Such an alignment of opportunity is unlikely to occur again anytime soon.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 May 2015)

Matthew d'Ancona - The Guardian  (Not normal for me to peruse that Rag - but at least I didn't have to pay for it).



> *This is a vindication of Lyntonisation*
> 
> Boris Johnson MP (again) said at his count that we didn’t need “fancy constitutional experts” to tell us what the election signifies. But that will not stop pundits, pollsters and political scientists sifting through this unexpected result more obsessively than any since 1992.
> 
> ...



Change? Change? You don't want Change.  Look at what Change gets you in Alberta (Cue Ms Drever's 15 minutes of fame).  Look at what Change gets you in Europe and the US.  And we'll not be 'avin' none of that artsy-fartsy VISION nonsense.

A decent day's pay for a decent day's work and we'll leave you alone to spend it as you will.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 May 2015)

Well, in the UK, the polling was wrong and _conservatism_ lives on. More likely, just a strong distaste for the loony-left 'economics' of the SNP, especially, and an even greater distaste for the idea of the Scots tail wagging the English dog through a Labour/SNP coalition, led to a working Conservative majority.*

The polls are still suspect, despite Alberta, _in my opinion_, and, as Alberta showed, _united conservatives_ still command a great deal of respect or, at least, support.

_____
* Although a _real_ majority requires 326 seats (out of 650) the fact is that _Sinn Fein_ never take their (four, again) seats in Parliament so the HoC is really 646 seats so a working majority is 324, including the speaker.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 May 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Well, in the UK, the polling was wrong and _conservatism_ lives on. More likely, just a strong distaste for the loony-left 'economics' of the SNP, especially, and an even greater distaste for the idea of the Scots tail wagging the English dog through a Labour/SNP coalition, led to a working Conservative majority.*
> 
> The polls are still suspect, despite Alberta, _in my opinion_, and, as Alberta showed, _united conservatives_ still command a great deal of respect or, at least, support.
> 
> ...




Agreed on all points - current standings give the Tories 329 and a clear, if slim majority.

The Aussie played the Scots like a fiddle.  The SNP eviscerated Labour AND performed nobly in uniting the English - always at their best when facing a common foe.

There is some discussion about whether Cameron will deal with the Scots or the Europeans first.  My bet is he will play both together.  Scots may enjoy the odd punch up with the English but are they really thrilled about becoming Europeans dancing to the tune of Spanish and Belgian Tories (Tories on the basis that Europe's aristocrats long ago figured out there were two ways to survive: run to Britain or becomes leaders of the proletariat).

My guess is that while the Scots don't like being 10% of Brits they will detest the idea of being 1% of Europeans. The SNP followers really envy those cousins that ruled the Highlands and Islands for the best part of a thousand years - The Norwegians.  And the Lowlanders, like the Northern English - have more in common with the Danes.

Neither the Norwegians nor the Danes make good Europeans.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 May 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I wonder where the usual commentariat is this morning after the Aberta NDP won with 40 percent of the vote...you know, that ones that call for proportionate representation because the federal Conservatives keep winning with 39 percent of the vote. Which is undemocratic, don't you know?




And the UK election will add fuel to the fire:  :

     1. The Conservatives won a slim but serviceable majority with less than 37% of the vote;

     2. The SNP won 8% (56) of the seats with 4% of the popular vote; and

     3. The UKIP got three times as many votes as the SNP, more than ⅓ of Labour's vote, and got only 1 seat (against 56 for the SNP and 232 for Labour.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 May 2015)

I wonder if there are lessons in the recent UYK election for the Conservative Party of Canada ... this aricle, about Prime Minister Cameron's campaign manager, Lynton Crosby, called the "Wizard of Oz" for his tactical acumen, is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Mail Online_:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3073850/The-Wizard-Oz-Cameron-s-sweeping-success-Election-guru-Lynton-Crosby-credited-winning-campaign.html


> The 'Wizard of Oz' behind David Cameron's sweeping success: Election guru Lynton Crosby is credited for winning campaign
> *+ Australian election campaign manager credited with resounding victory
> + The Tories stunned their political opponents to win 331 seats and majority
> + Lynton Crosby is famed for his brilliant campaign strategies and tactics
> ...



I also read that the centrepiece of Mr Crosby's campaign strategy was to focus on only those seats that were competitive (a two or three way race) and in which Tories had a fighting chance to win. He ignored the sure "losers" (bridge players will understand that) and paid scant attention ot the sure winners.

So, lessons:

     1. Personality (passion about issues) matters ~ that's easier for M Trudeau than it is for Messers Harper and Mulcair, but Prime Minister Harper can (has in the past) shown some "passion" for some issues. He needs to do so, again;

     2. Fight where you can win ~ that's the suburbs and small cities/towns for the CPC;

     3. Well crafted, well timed attack ads work ~ damned well, sometime; and

     4. People's biases and fears are fair game ~ go for it.


----------



## CougarKing (12 May 2015)

Pre-election debate in the news:

Ottawa Citizen



> *Conservatives say Harper won’t participate in traditional election debates run by broadcasters*
> 
> THE CANADIAN PRESS  05.11.2015
> 
> ...



Plus, a former Tory candidate who was simply "messing with the party" for an "art project"?  

Ottawa Citizen

*Conservative opponent in Justin Trudeau’s riding resigns after admitting he was just in it as an art project*



> Lloyd, a performance artist originally from Saint John, N.B., has a blog called Dear PM in which he details his long-running project of communicating with the prime minister daily.
> 
> The biography on the blog lists his occupation as “secret agent” and his interests as conservative politics and art.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (12 May 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And the UK election will add fuel to the fire:  :
> 
> 1. The Conservatives won a slim but serviceable majority with less than 37% of the vote;
> 
> ...



Apparently Labour won a majority in 2005, under Blair with 35% of the vote.

UKIP and the SNP are problems - for different reasons.

As you note UKIP is radically under-represented.  

Conversely, and more dangerously, the SNP is over-represented.  With 1.4 million supporters getting out to vote is now claims to represent 4 million registered voters.  In UK terms those 1.4 million supporters now claim to set the agenda for 45 million registered UK voters.

Tail truly wagging dog.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (12 May 2015)

> Conservatives say Harper won’t participate in traditional
> election debates run by broadcasters



I don't know about you guys, but I've always considered TV debates to be a waste of time. To me it just looks like a bunch of children in a sandbox throwing crap at each other.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (12 May 2015)

The debates are really childish and pointless and few watch them but all await the verdict of the Media Party to tell us who won.  It isn't always the person who I think won because I prefer substance over shrill.  Debates, once we are told who won, sometimes seem to make a difference.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 May 2015)

Justin Trudeau... the gift that keeps on giving:

"...benefiting every single family isn't what is fair...


You know that soundbite is going to play during the election.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 May 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Justin Trudeau... the gift that keeps on giving:
> 
> "...benefiting every single family isn't what is fair...
> 
> ...




But I think this could have been the first _sound_ thing he has said if he had rephrased it slightly as: "... benefiting every single family doesn't make good, fiscal sense ..."

There was a huge debate in the late 1960s about "means testing" (which was the norm until then) versus _universality_ which was the mantra of the left. The point of _universality_ was that "means testing" somehow singled out the poor and stripped away their dignity. The tax system, it was argued, could "claw back" benefits from the rich ... two problems: "means tests" are much, much cheaper than "claw backs" so social programmes are more expensive than they need to be; and, more problematic, some _marginal_ families (just on the wrong edge of the "claw back" income line) overspent and the "benefit" became, in fact, an impediment at tax time.


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 May 2015)

Here are a couple HIGHLY critical articles from tradtionally conservative Canadian papers. The question remains, why the hell is ANYONE voting for the Tories in the next election? What the Globe and Mail piece describes is pure Stalinism.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-a-telling-24-hours-in-stephen-harpers-world



> The point is, this was all in the space of 24 hours. If one were to draw up an indictment of this government’s approach to politics and the public purpose, one might mention its wholesale contempt for Parliament, its disdain for the Charter of Rights and the courts’ role in upholding it, its penchant for secrecy, its chronic deceitfulness, its deepening ethical problems, its insistence on taking, at all times, the lowest, crudest path to its ends, its relentless politicization of everything.
> 
> But you’d think you would need to look back over its record over several years to find examples. You wouldn’t think to see them all spread before you in the course of a single day.




http://www.theglobeandmail.com//news/politics/omnibus-budget-bill-alters-history-to-clear-rcmp-of-potential-criminal-charges/article24417074/?cmpid=rss1&click=sf_globe




> The retroactive changes in the budget bill leave access-to-information experts aghast.
> 
> “I find this provision almost Orwellian,” said Fred Vallance-Jones, an associate professor at the University of King’s College in Halifax and an expert in access to information law.
> 
> “It seeks to rewrite history, to say that lawful access to records that existed before didn’t actually exist after all, and that if you exercised your quasi-constitutional right of access to those records, well too bad, you’re out of luck.”


----------



## ModlrMike (13 May 2015)

So you're saying our choices are either Stalanism or Marxism?


----------



## GAP (13 May 2015)

Andrew Coyne is and always has been a Liberal shill.....

and the other example is some associate professor......you might as well gotten a quote from the associate french fry maker at McDonalds.....


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 May 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> Andrew Coyne is and always has been a Liberal shill.....
> 
> and the other example is some associate professor......you might as well gotten a quote from the associate french fry maker at McDonalds.....



Right, a Liberal shill that writes for the National Post and has been highly critical of everything the NDP and the Liberals do (with the exception of the NDP coming out against C-51). The ideological committment to a political party you're displaying here is truly inspiring, mainly because it's clear you don't comprehend what the second article is about. I'm confident you're pro-gun rights, in fact I am certain you are. Read the article and try again. 




			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So you're saying our choices are either Stalanism or Marxism?



You must mean Stalinism. I'm not sure what political entity in Canada is Marxist outside of the actual Marxist Party. The NDP has never even been a socialist party, it's a social democratic party. They've always embraced regulated capitalism as the way to go. The Liberal Party's fiscal policy is very similiar to the Tories. 

When I say Stalinism, I am referring to the way this government is literally deleting history to suit its agenda. In this case, it's to aid the RCMP in maintaining records of firearms ownership while publicly saying they've scrapped the long gun registry. I would imagine you as well are someone who is opposed to law enforcement in Canada having records of gun ownership. Our current government has ditched the long form census, because too many facts and information get in the way of ideology. This move around Access to Information is yet more evidence of their disdain for democracy and the democratic process. Madness.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (13 May 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The NDP has never even been a socialist party, it's a social democratic party. They've always embraced regulated capitalism as the way to go.



You might want to read this little ditty and get educated.  You might understand why I call them Bolsheviks.

"We aim to replace the present capitalist system, with its inherent injustice and inhumanity"

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Regina_manifesto


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (13 May 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> Andrew Coyne is and always has been a Liberal shill.....
> 
> and the other example is some associate professor......you might as well gotten a quote from the associate french fry maker at McDonalds.....



An Associate professor at the University of King's College, one of the most left wing universities in Canada (800 total enrolment, mostly private school kids from Ontario doing philosophy degrees, etc), at that!


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (13 May 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Right, a Liberal shill that writes for the National Post and has been highly critical of everything the NDP and the Liberals do (with the exception of the NDP coming out against C-51). The ideological committment to a political party you're displaying here is truly inspiring, mainly because it's clear you don't comprehend what the second article is about. I'm confident you're pro-gun rights, in fact I am certain you are. Read the article and try again.
> 
> 
> You must mean Stalinism. I'm not sure what political entity in Canada is Marxist outside of the actual Marxist Party. The NDP has never even been a socialist party, it's a social democratic party. They've always embraced regulated capitalism as the way to go. The Liberal Party's fiscal policy is very similiar to the Tories.
> ...



Andrew Coyne wrote an article in MacLeans magazine saying that he was going to vote for the Liberals and Michael Ignatieff during the last election, so I dont think he's been thhhhhhaaaaatttt critical of them, or at least not so much that he wouldn't vote for them.


----------



## TheHead (13 May 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> You might want to read this little ditty and get educated.  You might understand why I call them Bolsheviks.
> 
> "We aim to replace the present capitalist system, with its inherent injustice and inhumanity"
> 
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Regina_manifesto



Which they replaced with the Winnipeg Deceleration, which was replaced by the Statement of Principles.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (13 May 2015)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Which they replaced with the Winnipeg Deceleration, which was replaced by the Statement of Principles.



The quote was "The NDP has never even been a socialist party"

Winnipeg Declaration - that's way better:

"Capitalism Basically Immoral

Economic expansion accompanied by widespread suffering and injustice is not desirable social progress. A society motivated by the drive for private gain and special privilege is basically immoral."

http://www.socialisthistory.ca/Docs/CCF/Winnipeg.htm

Statement of Principles - note the S-word - socialist

"...cooperation and mutual responsibility prevail over private gain and competition as the guiding principles of social and economic life. We seek a compassionate and caring society, servicing the needs of all. The New Democratic Party is proud to be part of that great worldwide movement of democratic socialist parties..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statement_of_Principles_%28NDP%29


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 May 2015)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Which they replaced with the Winnipeg Deceleration Declaration, which was replaced by the Statement of Principles.



TFTFY

If Winnipeg was any slower it'd be going backwards.


----------



## TheHead (13 May 2015)

Thank you,


----------



## GAP (13 May 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> TFTFY
> 
> If Winnipeg was any slower it'd be going backwards.



Hey ! Hey!...backwards is a direction.....


----------



## CougarKing (13 May 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Justin Trudeau... the gift that keeps on giving:
> 
> "...benefiting every single family isn't what is fair...
> 
> ...



Wasn't "The budget will balance itself" enough of a sound byte?  ;D

Or does he have to "whip out some (doves) to show how big he is"?  ;D


----------



## CougarKing (13 May 2015)

To think the polls actually predicted a BC NDP win in the previous provincial election...only to be disappointed.  

And now they're predicting this for the federal NDP in BC?

:

Vancity Buzz



> *Support is up high in British Columbia for federal NDP: survey*
> BY
> BEHDAD MAHICHI
> 4:40 PM PDT, WED MAY 13, 2015
> ...


----------



## Valhrafn (14 May 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> When I say Stalinism, I am referring to the way this government is literally deleting history to suit its agenda. In this case, it's to aid the RCMP in maintaining records of firearms ownership while publicly saying they've scrapped the long gun registry. I would imagine you as well are someone who is opposed to law enforcement in Canada having records of gun ownership. Our current government has ditched the long form census, because too many facts and information get in the way of ideology. This move around Access to Information is yet more evidence of their disdain for democracy and the democratic process. Madness.


The purges and executions are right around the corner...


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 May 2015)

Glen McGregor, of the _Ottawa Citizen_, tweeted an interesting (and unnamed) poll showing a tight (within the margin of error), essentially a _tied_ three way race after: _a)_ the Alberta election; and _b)_ the vote on Bill C-51:







Edited to add:

In it's own story the _Ottawa Citizen_ says: "The poll, conducted from May 6 to 10, appears to be from national polling firm EKOS."


Further edited to add:

David Akin posted a better version of the poll and confirms it is from EKOS:







It looks like the CPC and the Liberals have been in a state of _graceful degradation_ (a way we used to describe a failing radio network) since February 2015 while the NDP have been trending up in the same period. _*But*_, the trends are not very _steep_: only 6% ↓ for the CPC and Liberals and (a much better) 11% ↑ for the NDP.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 May 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Ezra Levant is reporting Ms Notley has appointed Mr. Brian Topp as her CoS.  Ezra is claiming he is rabidly against the Sands and Pipelines.  Not good news for the future if true.




It's not good news for the federal NDP either.

Thomas Mulcair, like Jack Layton before him, has been trying to move the NDP into the centre ~ where _*most*_ Canadians want their government to be ~ and I suspect that he was counting on a _centrist_ Alberta NDP government to help him. If Mr Topp holds true to his _reputation_ he will take a _leftward_ tack ... but, he (Topp) is a seasoned political tactician and he understands Canadian voters' desires very well.


----------



## Infanteer (14 May 2015)

I think the situation does not bode well for either the Liberals or the NDP as the opposite situation exists as did in Alberta.  In Alberta, the NDP benefited from split voting on the right between the PC and Wildrose.  Federally, the NDP competes with the Liberals on the left.  As ERC pointed out, the Conservative election strategy would do best to promote both the NDP and the Liberals as the best chance to beat them, marginalizing both at the polls.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 May 2015)

David Akin (Sun News) has been looking at races across Canada and has published _estimates_ in something he calls the "Predictinator;" this is how he _guesstimates_ the outcome right, now, five months out:







That would be just about the worst possible outcome ...

My current, five months out, _sense_ is that the CPC is old and stale; it hasn't shown us anything new and interesting ~ things like the TFSA matter, they're good policies, but they're hard to "sell," they're _streak_, not _sizzle_. Old, stale parties usually lose. We Canadians don't, usually, vote _*for*_ anyone, we vote to "throw the rascals out."

If we're in a mood to do that (throw the Tories out) then my preferred outcome would be something like this:

BQ (or other Quebec nationalists):  8
CPC:                                          117
Greens:                                         6
Liberals:                                      64 
NDP:                                          140
Others:                                          3

That would give us a slightly left of centre NDP government, sustained, for 18 months or so, by the centre Liberals. It would give the CPC time to develop new ideas and get a new leader. I think M. Trudeau, if he keeps the party mired in third place, will move on and make way for a better leader. (Bear in mind, I have said, several times, that I want the Liberals to survive and prosper because we always need an alternative to the government of the day. My problem with the LPC in 2015 is its leader. I do not believe that Justin Trudeau is in any way suited to lead a G7 nation.)


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 May 2015)

>When I say Stalinism, I am referring to the way this government is literally deleting history to suit its agenda. In this case, it's to aid the RCMP in maintaining records of firearms ownership while publicly saying they've scrapped the long gun registry.

The article I read explained "The Harper government moved to retroactively rewrite Canada's access to information law in order to prevent possible criminal charges against the RCMP, The Canadian Press has learned."  How that can be interpreted as deleting history or aiding the RCMP to maintain records is puzzling.  Apparently the RCMP started withholding/destroying records before the legislation to end the registry passed.  The new language is to protect the RCMP from legal action based on premature action.  No-one is pretending that lawful access to information did not exist before.

This matter is not Orwellian, although I understand the rewriting-of-history analogy which was improperly deployed.  What is Orwellian is government keeping information about persons.

I approve of governments zealously destroying information they should not have.  I don't care whether it is about a person's political associations, sexual habits, or possessions.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (15 May 2015)

Retroactive laws for criminal offences are prohibited under Section 11(g) of the Charter.

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...

    (g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations; 

If the law changes the lesser punishment applies under Section 11(i) and I assume no punishment is lesser punishment.

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...

    (i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment. 

Retroactive legislation is sometimes used in tax matters and in civil law and has been upheld.  In the case of the gun registry law, retroactivity is really irrelevant if what was done is no longer an offense.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 May 2015)

Interesting poll results (attached) re:  the Duffster's troubles - highlights mine ....


> *Canadians assign more responsibility to Duffy and Harper than Wright *
> 
> Canadians assign more responsibility to Duffy and Harper in the personal cheque Senate controversy than Nigel Wright. Also of note, Canadians believe Prime Minister Stephen Harper's track record in creating jobs is most important in terms of his performance.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 May 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> David Akin (Sun News) has been looking at races across Canada and has published _estimates_ in something he calls the "Predictinator;" this is how he _guesstimates_ the outcome right, now, five months out:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Just a couple of days later, but based on some addtional polling data, Davoid Akin has updated his _Predictinator_:






The CPC is unchanged but the NDP have overtaken the Liberals to move into second place: a shift of nearly 15% of the 200+ seats in contention for the two parties.


----------



## a_majoor (16 May 2015)

This is probably the way the CPC likes it; the two "left" parties close enough to split the vote. Some subtle messaging to keep the NDP a bit ahead of the LPC is probably all that is needed for now...


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 May 2015)

Bruce Anderson of _Abacus Data_, who self-describes as non partisan but who has a strong Liberal history, talks about the two front war in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the [ui]Globe and Mail[/i] ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/in-the-federal-election-liberals-and-tories-will-be-fighting-a-two-front-war/article24453286/


> In the federal election, Liberals and Tories will be fighting a two-front war
> 
> BRUCE ANDERSON
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...



... but I think he gets it (partially) wrong.

I agree with Mr Anderson that it is too soon to tell if the NDP's surge in Alberta portends a new _Orange Crush_, but Prime Minister Harper must _*hope*_ it does and M. Trudeau must fear that it does.

As Bruce Anderson suggests a "two front war" is _normal_ for the NDP but it poses two distinct problems for the others:

     1. Prime Minister Harper must _play_ for good _splits_ in many, many, many ridings: Liberals and NDP gaining 30+% each and the CPC "coming up the middle" with 35+%. That's hard but manageable and it is, really, a 
         problem to be addressed riding by riding by good, locally _aware_ tacticians. Sometimes, in some ridings the CPC will "go easy" on the NDP to help them and in others they will "go easy" on the NDP, in each case to split the vote;

     2. M. Trudeau must campaign hard against Prime Minister Harper and the CPC for the _centrist_ (mushy middle) vote but he must, simultaneously, woo the centre left and left of centre "slices" of the electorate away from the NDP.
         That's going to be a neat trick, being a prudent fiscal manager and a big spender at the same time.

There is another aspect of the "two front war:" Quebec vs Ontario. M Trudeau's route to 24 Sussex Drive is, _I am certain_, through Quebec: if he cannot take 30+ Quebec seats away from Thomas Mulcair and the NDP then _I think_ he is toast. He can do well in Ontario, even very well, but it will not swing, massively, as it did for Prime Minister Chrétien in 1993, '97 and 2000. The CPC will not produce leaders of such outstanding unpopularity or unelectability in Ontario as Kim Campbell, Preston Manning and Stockwell Day. So he must do well in both Quebec and Ontario but _my guess_ is that he will not do well in Ontario unless he is seen to be winning Quebec. Ontario has, traditionally, sought national leaders who will  "keep Quebec in its place:" French Canadians who are strong federalist do well in Ontario, those who appear to want to _appease_ Quebec (with real political or economic influence rather than just money) do less well.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 May 2015)

I too think Mr Anderson has it somewhat wrong.

Each party has to fight a two front war. That being said, the Conservatives only have to account for one opposing ideology, where the Liberals and NDP have to account for two. The end result will be that while each party fights on two fronts, I think the Conservatives have the better tactical position.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 May 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I too think Mr Anderson has it somewhat wrong.
> 
> Each party has to fight a two front war. That being said, _the Conservatives only have to account for one opposing ideology, where the Liberals and NDP have to account for two_. The end result will be that while each party fights on two fronts, I think the Conservatives have the better tactical position.




Yes, that's it! The CPC holds pretty much everything from the moderate _centre-right_ all the way to real, tooth and claw _right wing_, but they want to fight against all comers for the centre and even for a few centre-left votes; the Liberals are, traditionally and generally, a _centrist_ party so they must fight for all of the centre: centre-right and centre against the CPC, and centre left and even some of the left of centre against the NDP. The NDP used to be able to fight a one-front war but Jack Layton and Thomas Mulcair also aspire to be a _centrist_ party and they need to hold the left of centre and fight, against the Liberals, for the centre-left and centre and, maybe, even a few centre-right votes, too. So the Liberals and NDP must both fight to hold the _centre_ against the CPC, and to hold it and the centre and left against one another.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 May 2015)

In an article which I posted in another thread David Akin of _Sun Media_ challenges political leaders to make defence spending an issue in the forthcoming election.

We should all tell our MPs and candidates that we demand to hear what they will do about our national defence.


----------



## dimsum (19 May 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In an article which I posted in another thread David Akin of _Sun Media_ challenges political leaders to make defence spending an issue in the forthcoming election.
> 
> We should all tell our MPs and candidates that we demand to hear what they will do about our national defence.



I agree, but as you've posted numerous times in this forum, support for Defence is a mile wide and an inch deep.  If said MPs/Candidates say they'll support Defence at the exclusion of *insert social benefit here*, they'll lose.


----------



## GAP (19 May 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I agree, but as you've posted numerous times in this forum, support for Defence is a mile wide and an inch deep.  If said MPs/Candidates say they'll support Defence at the exclusion of *insert social benefit here*, they'll lose.



Candidates won't touch defense with a 10 foot pole lest they be labeled as war mongers......we're peace keepers don't cha know? The Liberals and ignorant have got that message across very well. 

As long as not too many were killed in Afghanistan they could tolerate it, but they want the military to be way, way in the background.....

They equate the CF with all the American fighting scenes daily on the TV.....they know no better.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 May 2015)

Maybe the emphasis should be no what every good hooker knows - you sell "tail" not "teeth"  >

Think about it for a minute.

Most of the woes that I hear about come from a lack of logistics and support, or tail.  You could at least cover off those expenses in an increased defence by arguing that it is those very capabilities that enable the forces to assist usefully in civil and humanitarian crises at home and abroad.

The fact that having sufficient logistics on hand to permit a 24 hour response time domestically and 72 hour response time internationally could also be tailored on the basis of supporting deployed forces (light brigades, naval task groups, air expeditionary wings) would be purely a useful coincidence.

I believe that the provinces get charged when the CAF gets called out domestically.  Does Foreign Affairs get charged when the CAF if called out on a humanitarian mission internationally?

Here's another thought - Is there a way to present the budget in such a way as to "minimize" the cost of providing a lethal force?

I know it goes against the military culture where lethal force is the raison d'etre.  But, if that doesn't sell in Canada can the emphasis be switched to the sunk cost of maintaining a standing body of 58,000 +/- Canadians ready and able to assist in all situations?   One of the situations, the primary situation, has to be the provision of lethal force and they need to properly equipped for that.   But the cost of arming them is only a fraction of the cost of maintaining them.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 May 2015)

The challenge with that approach is that it creates the condition for rust out of our big ticket items. No one is going to believe that a jet fighter or a destroyer is a non-lethal asset.


----------



## Eland2 (22 May 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> Candidates won't touch defense with a 10 foot pole lest they be labeled as war mongers......we're peace keepers don't cha know? The Liberals and ignorant have got that message across very well.
> 
> As long as not too many were killed in Afghanistan they could tolerate it, but they want the military to be way, way in the background.....
> 
> *They equate the CF with all the American fighting scenes daily on the TV.....they know no better.*



Absolutely, and that is the crux of the problem when it comes to how squeamish many Canadians are when it comes to defence spending. They haven't yet wrapped their heads around the concept that just because you have a truly combat-capable military, it does NOT mean you automatically must participate in every war, or, more particularly, every misadventure the Americans get themselves into. 

The problem, though, is that Canada is so heavily dependent on trade with the US, it has tended to have little choice in whether to go in with the Americans - it's a case of either cooperating, or losing a lot of trade and living with restricted access to US markets. Even the Germans demanded that we supply reasonably capable military forces in Germany. Indeed, the way Chancellor Helmut Kohl rather bluntly put it, "No tanks, no trade." Like it or not, realpolitik sucks sometimes.

If you look at how the Swiss and the Swedish have handled defence, they have armed themselves to the teeth, yet maintain a neutral stance. Their militaries operate as the big stick that can be pulled out if, God forbid, diplomacy fails and an enemy - any enemy - invades or otherwise physically threatens the sovereignty of their countries. At the same time they maintain some capacity to participate in peacekeeping (where there actually is a peace to keep) or in humanitarian missions or aid to civil power scenarios. They also don't stick their noses in other people's business, so you don't seem them engaging in adventurism just because they have a military that can actually shoot back.

The way I see it, the first job of any military is defence of the country and its sovereignty, full stop. Anything over and above that is gravy. By maintaining combat capable forces, you gain three major benefits:


You can maintain sovereignty and at least a relatively independent foreign policy.

You can participate effectively in alliances like NATO and thereby live up to your treaty obligations. This opens up considerable trade and diplomatic benefits.
If you are attacked, you can rely on your allies to come to your aid because you honoured your obligations to them, and thereby reduce your defence expenditures a little bit.

It is wanton and immoral in the extreme to insist that your closest allies defend you without at least making a good, solid attempt at covering your share of the load. I have always liked what John Manley (a former Liberal cabinet minister) once said - that you can't just get up from the table and go to the washroom when the defence bill is presented.
[/list]


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 May 2015)

Eland2 said:
			
		

> Absolutely, and that is the crux of the problem when it comes to how squeamish many Canadians are when it comes to defence spending. They haven't yet wrapped their heads around the concept that just because you have a truly combat-capable military, it does NOT mean you automatically must participate in every war, or, more particularly, every misadventure the Americans get themselves into.
> 
> ...
> 
> It is wanton and immoral in the extreme to insist that your closest allies defend you without at least making a good, solid attempt at covering your share of the load. I have always liked what John Manley (a former Liberal cabinet minister) once said - that you can't just get up from the table and go to the washroom when the defence bill is presented.




I agree that some people look at it like that, but ...

My _sense_ of the electorate, at large, is that many, many, many Canadian vote their pocketbook and the calculation is less philosophical. I _suspect_ that most Canadian look at spending in etrms of concentric circles around themselves:

     Spending on ME is good;

          Spending that directly benefits my family is pretty good;

               Spending that indirectly, but visibly/measurably benefits me, my family and my community (e.g. some infrastructure) is OK;

                    Spending that benefits others or is for a somewhat nebulous "common good," like defence (or symphony orchestras), is wasteful.


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 May 2015)

Tis human nature as a rule, I'll admit I am somewhat guilty of this myself.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 May 2015)

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, John Ibbitson returns to the notion that Canadian politics are drifting towards a two party (centre-left vs centre-right) system and that the battle in 2015 will be (between the Liberals and NDP) to be that centre-left alternative:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/albertas-political-polarization-should-worry-justin-trudeau/article24574701/


> Alberta’s political polarization should worry Justin Trudeau
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




I have said before that _I believe_ the Liberals are the _natural_ parry of the centre-left and that the NDP's political _genes_ make it the home of the left of centre and left which is a faction that I _think_ (_hope_) is in decline. But, both Jack Layton and, now, Thomas Mulcair, have tried to drag the NDP to the centre and, perhaps, we may end up with something more akin to a modern UK Conservative-Labour split than a mid to late 20th century US Democrat-Republican one.

In any event, a more polarized electoral landscape benefits only two parties: the CPC and either, but not both of the Liberals OR the NDP.

Whichever one wins the war for the hearts and minds of the centre-left, I wish them well because Canada always needs a government in waiting.

(I would _like_ to see the centrist Liberal base led by M Mulcair ...)


----------



## Kirkhill (23 May 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, John Ibbitson returns to the notion that Canadian politics are drifting towards a two party (centre-left vs centre-right) system and that the battle in 2015 will be (between the Liberals and NDP) to be that centre-left alternative:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/albertas-political-polarization-should-worry-justin-trudeau/article24574701/
> 
> ...



With respect to the UK split between Labour and the Conservatives:

I think it could be fairly argued that the UK is morphing from the "Western Dichotomy" that Mr. Ibbitson suggests - a dichotomy characterized by class struggle between the working man and the owners - and towards an egalitarian 1950s Republican-Democrat model (or the older pre-Reform model lampooned as "Liberal-Tory:Same Old Story".

The fight in Britain was between those that believe in "tradition" and those that believed in everything else.  The traditionalists won by voting for the Conservatives and the UKIP.  Labour lost by trying to resurrect that British immigrant, Marx.  Labour is now fighting it out internally between its militant Waffle tendency and its Co-operative movement that still believes in the same things their church-going, masonic forebears believed in.  

Keir Hardie's Labour Party was not about Revolution.  Its rallying cry would be more fairly described, in Canadian terms as, "The Working Man Wants In".   The dominant characteristic of most of those old Labour men was not that they wanted to unseat the Aristocracy.  They wanted the same opportunities that the Aristocracy enjoyed.  Some of their greatest scorn was reserved not for the aristocrats that acted aristocratically but for those aristocrats that wasted the opportunities available to them, opportunities that the miner's son and shopkeeper's daughter would never have.  Conversely I know how well received were those aristocrats that met the working man on equal terms and mucked in themselves.  Keir Hardie's party was built by men and women that believed strongly in self-improvement and paying your own way.  Keir Hardie gave rise to that great Scot Tommy Douglas. 

The challenge for every NDP leader since has been to meld that very British centrist co-operative movement individual with the much more radically minded continental leftist who was the result of the continuing struggle between peasant and church and aristocracy where there had never been a compromise possible.  The Church demanded no compromise.  The aristocracy accepted no compromise. The peasantry were never offered an opportunity to compromise.  Laisser-faire is a french word for a concept that does not exist in french.  It is a vilified Anglo-Saxonism.  The offspring of that community became the David and Stephen Lewis's of Canada.  They became the Waffle Intellectuals.

I think that there is a strong level of support for a party system that supplies two teams of individuals that broadly pursue identical policies but replace the individuals in power on a regular cycle as the faction in power becomes too comfortable and corrupt.

That would explain the tendency for governments to defeat themselves, for the lack of interest in policy generally except when policy is too obviously divergent from the status quo.  People like the status quo.  People like tradition.

And youngsters are not people....


----------



## GAP (23 May 2015)

that made my head hurt....


----------



## Kirkhill (23 May 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> that made my head hurt....



Pologies.....

Short form: People don't want change - they just want to chuck out the crooks.

And youngsters aren't people.  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 May 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is an interesting analysis that shows why Gerald Butts' (Justin Trudeau's political _guru_) _strategy_ is flawed:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/for-liberals-bill-c-51-story-of-calculation-and-miscalculation/article24584901/


> For Liberals, Bill C-51 story of calculation and miscalculation
> 
> *SUBSCRIBERS ONLY*
> 
> ...




Splits on the left benefit only the Conservatives ... even Liberal/NDP splits in urban Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton and Vancouver _might_ save a few CPC urban seats and even allow the Tories to "come up the middle" and _steal_ a seat or two from the Liberals or NDP.

     (From _my personal perspective_, anything that defeats Justin Trudeau is good. While I want the Liberals to succeed, in the mid and long term ~ because I know that the CPC will need replacing sooner
      rather then later ~ I believe that M. Trudeau is unfit to lead a small town, must less a G7 country. The Liberal Party of Canada needs a real political leader, not just a pretty face and nice, but vacuous personality; there are
      good people on the Liberals' front benches: social moderates and fiscal conservatives with real ideas of their own. (Some will say that my (acknowledged) _hatred_ of Pierre Trudeau, who I continue to regard as
      a disaster for Canada, colours my opinion of his son; not so, _I think_, my low opinion of Justin Trudeau is based on his resume and his words and deeds in public life. He's not _*ready*_ to be an
      alderman in Moose Jaw, much less prime minister of Canada.) I want the Liberal;s to do well because I cannot believe that Thomas Mulcair's NDP is ready to govern based on it's policies, to date.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 May 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Liberal insider Warren Kinsella gives a timely warning to _Team Trudeau_, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Winnipeg Sub_: negative, attack ads still work; that's why the Conservatives use them; expect more; fight back:
> 
> http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/04/19/negative-ads-that-doomed-dion-ignatieff-could-sink-trudeau
> 
> ...




And, in the _maybe Conservatives_ *can* _learn_ department, we find this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/new-tory-attack-ad-targets-liberal-leader-despite-poll-showing-ndp-ahead


> New Tory attack ad targets Liberal leader despite poll showing NDP ahead
> 
> John Ivison | May 25, 2015
> 
> ...




It looks like a good ad (I haven't seen it) because it attacks M Trudeau's _policies_, not his personality, and it compares and contrasts his weakenesses with Prime Minister Harper's strengths.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 May 2015)

And David Akin (_Sun_ News) posted the latest Liberal ad, here.

He says, "New from the Liberals. I think it's way too long and way too wordy and requires the viewer to know all the back stories involved here -- but what they hey ..."

Edited to add:

And, still thanks to David Akin:

Here is the CPC advert; and

Here is the new NDP ad; too.

There is, also  a new, _positive_, CPC ad.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 May 2015)

And here, in an article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, is a rumour which is poor economic_ policy_ but _might_ be great _politics_:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-tories-may-be-considering-nuclear-option-the-libs-and-ndp-cant-match-lowering-the-gst?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


> Tories may be considering nuclear option the Libs and NDP can’t match — lowering the GST
> 
> John Ivison | May 25, 2015
> 
> ...




The economists are right ... we need to allow the national government to have some revenue; that means we must have some taxes; a well designed, universal, consumption tax is _better_ than an income tax or a corporate tax. First, consumption taxes are, somewhat, discretionary: consume less and you pay less. Second, since we all have top consume some things, consumption taxes are, also, _progressive_ because the poor tend to consume cheaper things (which attract less tax) than do the rich. Third, the tax system can be used to refund some of the HST to the really poor.

But, and this is a BIG *POLITICAL* *BUT* Canadians _hate_ the GST/HST and cutting it by another point might be very, very popular.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 May 2015)

IIRC from the early days of the NWMP in the west, there was what ER calls a consumption tax on pretty well all goods going into the territory from Eastern Canada.  Some of the taxes were so steep that people attempted to circumvent things by basically going on buying trips to Fort Benton Montana in order to get around it.  From what I've read, depending upon what it was you were wanting, you were bled dry by the taxes on it.

If there's to be an income tax, I like the thinking of the Libertarian party with a reasonable flat tax on all.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 May 2015)

As I understood the situation John A's policies were explicitly designed to bring grain east to support Ontario and Quebec millers and send houses and farm implements west to support Ontario and Quebec manufacturers.

The west as colony.

WRT the GST - agreed - poor economics but brilliant politics.  Once upon a time the only revenue the government had available to it was a consumption tax - the customs revenue from imports and whiskey.


----------



## a_majoor (25 May 2015)

While this is an ad from the last election, this is the sort of ad the CPC should also be running: who we are and why we are here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rEkFG5MNTk

ANd it is perhaps the most positive ad I have seen in a very long time.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 May 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Just a couple of days later, but based on some addtional polling data, Davoid Akin has updated his _Predictinator_:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And here is a further update to David Akin's (_Sun_ News) _Predictinator_:

     149 days until we vote and it’s anybody’s ball game     
     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



      WIth a couple of new polls out in the last week, some new candidates nominated and, voila — here’s the latest seat count from my_ Predictionator_. You can grab an RSS
     feed of all posts tagged with “_Predictionator_” here.


So, more gains for the NDP at the expense of both the Conservatives and the Liberals.

Unfortunately for Thomas Mulcair, it is too early to _peak_ ... both the CPC and the LPC have plenty of time to turn the tables on the NDP, riding by riding.


----------



## observor 69 (26 May 2015)

And then there's this from Chantal Hebert in today's TO Star:

Justin Trudeau’s relevance fading in Quebec: Hébert

Quebec’s longstanding love-hate relationship with Pierre Elliott Trudeau is morphing into collective indifference towards the son.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/05/25/justin-trudeaus-relevance-fading-in-quebec-hbert.html


----------



## a_majoor (26 May 2015)

We should remember the collapse of the Liberals began when Mr. Dithers really could not articulate just "why" he wanted to be Prime Minister or what he would do once in office. The process accelerated when Mr. Dion failed to articulate the idea of the "Green Shift", and the collapse became complete once Mr. Ignatieff failed to provide any meaningful direction to the Liberal brand (his Big Thinker's conference simply ended up with "more of the same").

Indeed, the Liberals have been running on empty since post 1993, since they used the _same_ "Red Book" platform in every election since then (how many times can you run on providing universal day care, and fail to deliver _each time _you actually are in office?). The Young Dauphin and his team have singularly failed to deliver even a hint of a platform or an idea of what sort of direction they wish to take Canada since his ascension as the party leader. Given the pretty disastrous record of the previous three leaders not having ideas, I suspect the current Liberal position in the polls might evaporate pretty quickly once the lack of ideas becomes apparent to the electorate (i.e. once people start paying attention).


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 May 2015)

If Iggy hadn't been an idiot and forced the election on us so soon after the last one, he might not have had his head on a pike after the voter's took revenge.  I know, I was pissed at being forced into another election.  Same goes for Mr. Prentice, he forced the issue and paid the price.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 May 2015)

Margaret Wente, a pretty _conservative_ columnist, offers what _I think_ is a good, common sense analysis of the pre-election situation in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright At from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/federal-election-lets-have-a-three-way/article24600414/


> Federal election: Let’s have a three-way!
> 
> MARGARET WENTE
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




          “I absolutely refuse to vote for Harper again,” declared one person at my Saturday evening gathering of random friends ... He has voted for him twice. But he’s had enough.

*And*​
          The default for soft-core conservatives has always been the Liberals. There’s just one problem – Justin. Even Liberals secretly admit that if their leader’s name were Gaston Tremblant, he’d still be a high-school drama teacher.
          “He has good people around him,” they insist. It’s not clear who they’re trying to reassure – other people, or themselves.

That's the dilemma: we dislike Prime Minister Harper, we're tired of him; we want the Liberals to take over for a while, but they need a grown-up leader. That leaves M. Mulcair ...

But there are over four months until the general election: both the Conservatives and the Liberals can slap a lot of lipstick on their respective pigs to make Prime Minister Harper appear a little less hateful and M. Trudeau appear modestly competent. M. Mulcair will be exposed, by the Liberals, as a mean tempered bully, just like Prime Minister Harper; M. Trudeau will be exposed, again, by both the CPC and NDP, as totally unprepared to lead anything much above a high school drama club; and then we'll have to decide ... then being October.


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 May 2015)

And, therein lies my dilemma.  Unless I have a viable fourth option such as the Libertarian Party running in my riding that appeals, I don't know what to do or where to go as every avenue stinks to one degree or another.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 May 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And, therein lies my dilemma.  Unless I have a viable fourth option such as the Libertarian Party running in my riding that appeals, I don't know what to do or where to go as every avenue stinks to one degree or another.



You can always vote and spoil your ballot.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 May 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is some entertaining _speculation_ about various "hung parliament" scenarios:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/five-ways-a-hung-parliament-could-swing-in-october/article24615741/


> Five ways a hung Parliament could swing in October
> 
> *SUBSCRIBERS ONLY*
> 
> ...




As John Ibbitson says, the possibilities are endless, but my preferences are, in order: 2 (Strong Tory plurality, NDP in second), 5. (Weak NDP Plurality), 1 (Strong Tory Plurality, Liberals in Second), 3 (Weak Tory Plurality) and 4 (Weak Liberal Plurality). My _most desired outcome_ is a CPC slim majority, after which Prime Minister Harper resigns. (I believe Stephen Harper will resign the leadership in any "hung parliament" situation.) My second most desired outcome is any which forces M. Trudeau to resign. I could live with Prime Minister Mulcair for a few months ...


----------



## Kirkhill (27 May 2015)

It occurs to me that the media are so financially challenged these days that they are reduced to rewriting (plagiarising) old stories.

With some modifications to fit Canadian conditions I would swear that I read Ibbitson's column in both the Telegraph and the Guardian 6 months ago.....And then David Cameron won a majority.


----------



## ModlrMike (27 May 2015)

I've said this before, but I think people are over looking the possibility of a resurgent Bloc taking seats away from the NDP. We don't see much information leaking out about Quebec federal politics, I'll admit, but I think it's short sighted to write the Bloc's obituary  just yet.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 May 2015)

>“I absolutely refuse to vote for Harper again,” declared one person at my Saturday evening gathering of random friends ... He has voted for him twice. But he’s had enough.

People thinking about sending a message need to think also about how strong a message they wish to send, and therefore whether they need to be an active contributor to that message.  Was the approximate collective desire of Alberta voters to have a minority government (of any one of the 3 parties), a Wildrose majority, or an NDP majority?

In 2008, the CPC got 143 seats with 37.65% of the popular vote (5,209,069 votes); in 2011, they got 166 seats with 39.62% (5,832,401 votes).  (Reminder: majority started at 155.)  The shift from minority to majority occurs rather suddenly.  

I am confident the CPC is not going to improve over its 2011 result.  There are plenty of people who have been against Harper and the CPC since day 1, and many more who will act to reduce the CPC vote count this time around.  Not all who merely want to take the CPC down a notch from majority government should vote against the CPC.  Some of the people who would prefer a CPC minority still need to support the CPC if they don't want that mark to be overshot.


----------



## George Wallace (28 May 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> People thinking about sending a message need to think also about how strong a message they wish to send, and therefore whether they need to be an active contributor to that message.  Was the approximate collective desire of Alberta voters to have a minority government (of any one of the 3 parties), a Wildrose majority, or an NDP majority?



People have to really think about what message they are sending.  Many think that they are only sending a message of disapproval to the PC's in this case, not thinking that at the same time they have sent a message of approval to the NDP -- Boils down to a "Half-baked" thought.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 May 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> People have to really think about what message they are sending.  Many think that they are only sending a message of disapproval to the PC's in this case, not thinking that at the same time they have sent a message of approval to the NDP -- Boils down to a "Half-baked" thought.



That's why I will say, over and over again ...



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... Tell me, honestly, all of you who are fed up with Stephen Harper:[size=14pt]_ do you really want Justin Trudeau in 24 Sussex Drive?_[/size]
> 
> ...




I know a lot of people have had more of Prime Minister Harper than they can stand ... but I ask you: who is the better choice, for Canada, _Thomas Mulcair?_ _Justin Trudeau?_ or _Stephen Harper?_

If you can, honestly, based on an analysis of his policies and his abilities and his record, say _Justin Trudeau_ then I say, "fine, good, go ahead and vote for him," but I will disagree, profoundly, with your analysis ... I will suggest (and understand) that you are voting against Prime Minister Harper, not _*for *_anything, especially _*not for Canada*_.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 May 2015)

I may vote CPC this election, but I won't volunteer or donate, which is a clear way of saying that I am unhappy. As a gun owner I get scapegoated by the Libs and NDP, as Public Servant I get scapegoated by CPC, there is no win for me, just less losing. I wish for a minority CPC government which would keep everyone from being outright stupid.


----------



## GAP (28 May 2015)

> I wish for a minority CPC government which would keep everyone from being outright stupid.



Yeah, but most legislation is watered down and largely ineffective because of pacifying the opposition.....just get a majority, go to it, and if we don't like it, vote the rascals out....


----------



## George Wallace (28 May 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ......... I wish for a minority CPC government which would keep everyone from being outright stupid.



Not asking for much are you?    >


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 May 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> Yeah, but most legislation is watered down and largely ineffective because of pacifying the opposition.....just get a majority, go to it, and if we don't like it, vote the rascals out....




I agree ... but that means you have to vote _*for*_ something (or someone), _*for*_ a suite of policies which are, on balance, preferable to what the others offer or, even just _*for*_ a specific leader if you are convinced that the leader rules everything (not a bad assumption in Canadian governments since Pierre Trudeau, although, as I mentioned elsewhere that's not the case in e.g. the UK nor was it the case under St Laurent, Diefenbaker and Pearson).

Everything in a minority government is a compromise, usually a wasteful compromise; I would rather Prime Minister Mulcair with an NDP majority than Prime Minister Harper depending on Liberal (Trudeau) support for his legislative programme ~ at least I would know who to blame.


----------



## Jed (28 May 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I may vote CPC this election, but I won't volunteer or donate, which is a clear way of saying that I am unhappy. As a gun owner I get scapegoated by the Libs and NDP, as Public Servant I get scapegoated by CPC, there is no win for me, just less losing. I wish for a minority CPC government which would keep everyone from being outright stupid.



You read my mind.


----------



## Kilo_302 (28 May 2015)

I can't for the life of me understand how anyone who is opposed to greater government meddling in our lives would ever consider voting for either the Liberals or the Conservatives in this election. Those parties' support for C-51, a bill which every editorial board in every newspaper in Canada, just about every legal specialist and every political scientist has declared as being dangerous, illegal and in the end ineffective, shows them to be fundamentally opposed to democracy. 

I'm no fan of the NDP, but they're the only option here if we actually care about the democratic process in Canada. History has shown us that when we give the government the tools to suppress political dissent (as this bill does) they will use them. And future governments will too. Once in place, it's hard to remove a security apparatus like this. And let's be frank, Islamic fundamentalism poses little to no threat to Canada.


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 May 2015)

And just what makes you think I want to see protesters running around in the streets instead?   I'm not interested in seeing either franchise getting the go ahead.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 May 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> And let's be frank, Islamic fundamentalism poses little to no threat to Canada.



So now you're a security expert too?

So yeah, let's be frank. You know nothing of the sort.


----------



## Kilo_302 (28 May 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So now you're a security expert too?
> 
> So yeah, let's be frank. You know nothing of the sort.



Stats don't lie. Terror isn't even a significant threat to US citizens, never mind Canada. Do some recce on "google" or something.


----------



## ballz (28 May 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And just what makes you think I want to see protesters running around in the streets instead?



The day we don't, I'll know its time to leave in a big hurry...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 May 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Stats don't lie.



You really are a special kind of something aren't you??


----------



## Kirkhill (28 May 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Stats don't lie.




Ahhhh Maaaazzziiinngg !!! Whodafunkit?


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 May 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> The day we don't, I'll know its time to leave in a big hurry...



Don't mind?  Or don't want to see it not allowed?  I'm not clear on what you mean, sorry.


----------



## Loachman (28 May 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Islamic fundamentalism poses little to no threat to Canada.



Neither did Nazism to begin with, and look what it took to clean that mess up once people finally woke up.

Those who fail to learn from history...


----------



## Good2Golf (28 May 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Stats don't lie. Terror isn't even a significant threat to US citizens, never mind Canada. Do some recce on "google" or something.



 ???

To quote Lord Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield, in 1985: "There are three degrees of veracity; lies, damned lies, and statistics."


----------



## George Wallace (28 May 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> yada, yada, yada........ And let's be frank, Islamic fundamentalism poses little to no threat to Canada.





			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Stats don't lie. Terror isn't even a significant threat to US citizens, never mind Canada. Do some recce on "google" or something.




LOL!  It must be great to live in ignorant bliss.  

Oh well, some of us know better.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 May 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Stats don't lie. Terror isn't even a significant threat to US citizens, never mind Canada. Do some recce on "google" or something.



I doubt you'll get the families of the 9-11 and Boston marathon victims  to agree. 

But you carry on with your alter universe fantasies. At least you're amusing sometimes.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 May 2015)

The NDP is against C-51.  Big deal.  The NDP is also not the party in government, and therefore also not privy to all of the information the government has.

Thought experiment: if the NDP were the government, would the NDP take a different position?

If you think not, observe what is happening across the border: President Obama, no right-wing security fanatic he, is asking for Patriot Act eavesdropping provisions to essentially be renewed as they stand.


----------



## George Wallace (28 May 2015)

So far, as I see it, C-51 has no real affect on 'honest folk' who abide by the Law.  I wonder why those who oppose C-51 are so vocal?  What do they have to hide?  Do they have criminal pasts, current criminal activities, or future criminal intentions?  What kind of skeletons are they hiding in their closets?


----------



## GAP (28 May 2015)

You know...............maybe we're making a mistake. 


We've gone and arrested these muslims that were planning to blow up things when all they needed was a big group hug and a few bars of Kumm Bya. 

Gee, I'm torn....... :


----------



## ballz (28 May 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Don't mind?  Or don't want to see it not allowed?  I'm not clear on what you mean, sorry.



The day we don't see protesters in the streets...



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> So far, as I see it, C-51 has no real affect on 'honest folk' who abide by the Law.  I wonder why those who oppose C-51 are so vocal?  What do they have to hide?  Do they have criminal pasts, current criminal activities, or future criminal intentions?  What kind of skeletons are they hiding in their closets?



 :facepalm:

Wow... I guess we should make all law-abiding citizens register their guns then right? And be subject to a police officer coming to "inspect" their firearms for safety? After all, if you're "honest folk" this has no affect on your right? What have you got to hide?

What do we even need legal rights for? If you're "honest folk," you've got nothing to worry about.


----------



## observor 69 (28 May 2015)

Thanks for that ballz. BZ


----------



## George Wallace (29 May 2015)

:facepalm:



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Wow... I guess we should make all law-abiding citizens register their guns then right?



If we have no registry, why?



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> And be subject to a police officer coming to "inspect" their firearms for safety? After all, if you're "honest folk" this has no affect on your right? What have you got to hide?



With a warrant and due cause?  WTF are you going on about?




			
				ballz said:
			
		

> What do we even need legal rights for? If you're "honest folk," you've got nothing to worry about.



If you are not breaking the Law, what would you have to fear?  LEO's don't have the rights to just walk in and search you without cause.









OH!  I see......I posted and you had go get in some digs......


Sorry.....Back to our normal channels.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 May 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So far, as I see it, C-51 has no real affect on 'honest folk' who abide by the Law.  I wonder why those who oppose C-51 are so vocal?  What do they have to hide?  Do they have criminal pasts, current criminal activities, or future criminal intentions?  What kind of skeletons are they hiding in their closets?



George, I'm a card carrying, dues paying Conservative; I'm in favour of Canada having efficient and effective security services *but* I find many elements of C-51 to be ill-conceived, unnecessary and, in a few cases, actual threats to the _liberty_ we, Conservatives, should want to protect.

I totally reject your "honest folk" notion: it is juvenile, the last resort of those defending the indefensible.

We need strong, clear "official secrets" laws and regulations to protect information which is really secret (as opposed to just embarrassing to the powers that be) and we need strong, clear "threat to Canada" laws and regulations, too ... and then we need to ensure that regulations allow our security services to _snoop_ *with judicial oversight* and to protect sources from everyone *except judges* and we need to press our legal cases in courts and the trust the judicial system.

We have to trust someone in our society. I don't trust elected politicians; I have slightly more, but not much, trust in most public servants (including those in the uniformed and security services (police, CF, CSIS, etc)); I totally mistrust the media ... I do trust judges. I don't always agree with what they decide but it is my _firm belief_ that most judges are the most honest and ethical of all public servants.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 May 2015)

Mark Sutciffe, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, offers some election advice to Prime Minister Harper:

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/sutcliffe-retirement-pledge-could-help-harper


> A pledge to retire could help Harper
> 
> Columnist Mark Sutcliffe
> 
> ...




Mr. Sutcliffe's proposal is to give Canadians a "no risk" option: you/we let Harper "finish the (economic) job" but we will not be asked to re-elect him again and again ... he's done.

_I think_ it's good advice ... and I happen to like Prime Minister Harper, and many (certainly not all) of his policies, and want him to win in 2015.


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 May 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Neither did Nazism to begin with, and look what it took to clean that mess up once people finally woke up.
> 
> Those who fail to learn from history...



Ironically, Steven Blaney cited the Nazis as well when defending C-51. The attack on the Reichstag is generally viewed as a key event that solidified their grip on power, and this is the very same situation Canada is in. I'm not comparing the government to the Nazi party, but the parallels should be obvious here.  Some mentally ill man attacks parliament and our government decides this is cause to pass legislation which legalizes spying on Canadian citizens, gives CSIS arrest powers, etc etc. Those who fail to learn from history indeed. You're making my point for me.


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 May 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> LOL!  It must be great to live in ignorant bliss.
> 
> Oh well, some of us know better.



Well no, some of us don't. 

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americans-are-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-their-own-furniture-as-by-terrorism/258156/

The threat of terrorism is miniscule in the West. You seem like a paranoid-about-the-government kind of guy. Are you really going to allow our government to raise the spectre of terrorism in order to crush political dissent and spy on Canadian citizens? Again, legal experts across the country are raising the alarm C-51. Nearly all of our papers (including the National Post and the Globe and Mail) have come out against it. If you're so afraid of a threat that is demonstrably nearly non-existent, you're hysterical and making no sense.


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 May 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The NDP is against C-51.  Big deal.  The NDP is also not the party in government, and therefore also not privy to all of the information the government has.
> 
> Thought experiment: if the NDP were the government, would the NDP take a different position?
> 
> If you think not, observe what is happening across the border: President Obama, no right-wing security fanatic he, is asking for Patriot Act eavesdropping provisions to essentially be renewed as they stand.



Obama is a joke. He's a Wall Street president, just like Bush before him. The fact that he's considered left wing is a testament to where we are as a society. Sure, he's pro gay marriage, and he might even legalize pot. But he's been bought and paid for, so have the Democrats in general. And our vaunted Liberal Party and NDP are the same. 

All of this surveillance isn't really about terrorism, it's about power. Obama might be a reasonable man, but the structures and system he's governing in has seen him win a Nobel Peace Prize while he's allowing drones to kill American citizens without a trial. This is insanity.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 May 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Obama is a joke. He's a Wall Street president ... the structures and system he's governing in has seen him win a Nobel Peace Prize while he's allowing drones to kill American citizens without a trial. This is insanity.




I don't disagree, Kilo_302, and I don't disagree that politics on our side of the border are no better: (smart) people pandering to the unreasonable fears and prejudices of the masses ... but, and it's a BIG *BUT*, our current form of liberal, secular, responsible (Australia, Britain, Canada etc) or representative (US and a few others) government is, even in its deeply flawed states (and those flaws, and others, exist equally in Sweden and Norway, too), better than anything else that's on offer.

Now, you and I are poles apart on economic policies ~ _I think_ you're a damned fool, because _I'm certain_ that all socialists are damned, ignorant fools ~ but we share a common belief, _I think_ (maybe just _hope_) that we can and should do better for our societies; that's why you're not on ignore.


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 May 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't disagree, Kilo_302, and I don't disagree that politics on our side of the border are no better: (smart) people pandering to the unreasonable fears and prejudices of the masses ... but, and it's a BIG *BUT*, our current form of liberal, secular, responsible (Australia, Britain, Canada etc) or representative (US and a few others) government is, even in its deeply flawed states (and those flaws, and others, exist equally in Sweden and Norway, too), better than anything else that's on offer.
> 
> Now, you and I are poles apart on economic policies ~ _I think_ you're a damned fool, because _I'm certain_ that all socialists are damned, ignorant fools ~ but we share a common belief, _I think_ (maybe just _hope_) that we can and should do better for our societies; that's why you're not on ignore.



I could be a damned fool, but I would like to have your thoughts on those pesky socialist Scandinavian countries. They aren't socialist through and through, but they are countries that I would like to see Canada emulate in some ways. Capitalist economies, heavily regulated, free post-secondary, excellent healthcare and quality of life etc etc. They aren't perfect, but if we're saying that liberal democracies are the closest thing we have to perfection ( and I agree with you on this) I would argue that these countries are the most perfect of us liberal democracies.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 May 2015)

Yes, Kilo_302, but I'm an very, very old fashioned _liberal_ and, in fact, I'm also, simultaneously, an odd sort of _Confucian conservative_. _I believe_, firmly and fully, in the _rights_ to life, liberty and property, as defined by John Locke in 18th century England, and to privacy, as defined by Brandeis and Warren in 19th century America. _I don't believe_ in much else.

The Scandinavians, like the Canadians, are not _liberal_ enough for me and the Singaporeans are a wee bit too _conservative_.


Edit: corrected name of the person to whom I was responding


----------



## George Wallace (29 May 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Well no, some of us don't.
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americans-are-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-their-own-furniture-as-by-terrorism/258156/
> 
> The threat of terrorism is miniscule in the West. You seem like a paranoid-about-the-government kind of guy. Are you really going to allow our government to raise the spectre of terrorism in order to crush political dissent and spy on Canadian citizens? Again, legal experts across the country are raising the alarm C-51. Nearly all of our papers (including the National Post and the Globe and Mail) have come out against it. If you're so afraid of a threat that is demonstrably nearly non-existent, you're hysterical and making no sense.



How about 'second-hand smoke'?  How many of us non-smokers are going to die from second-hand smoke?  Really!  Now; how many steps have we as a society taken to prevent people from having to inhale second-hand smoke?  Now substitute 'terrorism' for 'second-hand smoke'.

I have not tried to make this overly complicated.  Just keeping it stupid simple.  If the government is monitoring me, my internet, my land line, my cell, etc. and I am not saying or doing anything illegal, then whatever they gather is going to ignored and not kept in a database.  I have nothing to fear if I am not a criminal, some sort of subversive or any other threat to the nation and society.  

I do not believe in frustrating our LEO's and Security and Intelligence professionals in protecting me from those who would do me harm.  I do not like the fact that currently we have so many loopholes in our system that often penalize the victims of crime and are lenient towards the perpetrators of illegal activities.  We have a Legal System that clearly lays out how the LEO, Security and Intelligence services must act.  I agree with ERC that "oversight" is necessary to ensure that those who are there to protect us do stay within the bounds of the Law.  Politicians and media who have their own agendas, always make me suspicious.  The latest example of that mistrust could be the Omar Khadr tells his Guantanamo story in new documentary on CBC.   We have numerous terrorist related cases already in Canada, where various agencies have been hamstrung by legalities allowing less than innocent accused to have been set free to walk among us.  To me, cleaning up our legal loopholes that prevent such cases from prosecuting perpetrators to the fullest extent of the Law with all evidence to be within legal parameters.

Remember; we still have a stringent Legal System, the Charter of Human Rights and numerous other legislation and Laws to protect our Rights and Liberties.  Whether or not C-51 is passed depends on our elected parliamentarians following the rules of parliament, not sensationalist propaganda from fringe elements.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 May 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I could be a damned fool, but I would like to have your thoughts on those pesky socialist Scandinavian countries. They aren't socialist through and through, but they are countries that I would like to see Canada emulate in some ways. Capitalist economies, heavily regulated, free post-secondary, excellent healthcare and quality of life etc etc. They aren't perfect, but if we're saying that liberal democracies are the closest thing we have to perfection ( and I agree with you on this) I would argue that these countries are the most perfect of us liberal democracies.



Kilo - In my opinion the countries you fancy are largely what are now known as "Corporatist" economies.  They are heavily influenced by the economic policies of both the Catholic Socialists (also known as Fascists) and the National Socialists (also known as Nazis).  Needless to say they do not adhere to the same social policies as either one of those.  But they are heavily regulated societies.   For ill as well as good.

They have not made crime go away.  And they have discovered that people still need to work to pay the bills and that one of the best ways to control the cost of services is to make sure the consumer has some skin in the game in the form of user fees.


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 May 2015)

Sure, and I agree that they aren't perfect. But let's examine their policies that work and conduct our own cost-benefit analysis instead of rejecting any form of government intervention (not saying you are). Norway for example has managed it's oil wealth far better than Canada, and that required direct state intervention. Whereas we sell off the Canadian Wheat Board  (on the cusp of what many think will be a "food boom") Norway formed Statoil and the result has been well documented. 

A form of wealth redistribution already exists in this country in the form of income tax. We also grant corporations massive subsidies and in return they ship jobs overseas. Are we getting the best bang for our buck? When societies become as inequitable as we are becoming they also become unstable and susceptible to radical elements on the left AND the right. If Roosevelt is famous for saving capitalism, let's look at how he did it. In my opinion, the bargain between labour and capital has been consistently shifting in favour of capital since World War 2. Capital has been chipping away at the welfare state since then, and it's clear that's largely the reason for many of our problems. The good old days (1950s for example) many conservatives seem to yearn for saw us taxing top earners at 80%, affordable university, well funded social programs, strong unions and also the greatest period of economic growth we've ever seen.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 May 2015)

Have you considered that the "Chipping Away By Capitalism" that you describe is just the natural order of things as the pendulum swings back to center?

Our movement forward in time always looks to me like the graph of any control system.  It is characterized by overshooting and undershooting the target.  The system is designed to bring itself back towards the target.  The average is maintained.  The system stays in balance but it is never static.  

The question of whether or not the system is in control is more one of does the pendulum continue to swing and does it swing radically.  Neither stasis nor radical swings are desirable.  

Which actually is appropriate when thinking about the desire by some to target a minority government.  The control is not that precise.  Elections, like the stockmarket, run on emotions.  If people start looking for a particular outcome they are more likely to undershoot or overshoot than hit the mark.


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 May 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Have you considered that the "Chipping Away By Capitalism" that you describe is just the natural order of things as the pendulum swings back to center?
> 
> Our movement forward in time always looks to me like the graph of any control system.  It is characterized by overshooting and undershooting the target.  The system is designed to bring itself back towards the target.  The average is maintained.  The system stays in balance but it is never static.
> 
> ...



Let's look at the effects on the ground though. I don't buy "the natural order of things" argument. We have agency and we can decide what kind of world we live in. If the "center" is increasing inequality and a third of our society living in poverty, let's redefine the center. The road we are on now will inevitably lead to an economic and social collapse. I for one don't relish a return to the Dark Ages.


----------



## Loachman (29 May 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If we have no registry, why?



There is still a registry, and I am required to maintain all but one of my firearms in it.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> With a warrant and due cause?  WTF are you going on about?



Law-abiding firearms collectors are required to allow "inspectors" (not necessarily police) to "inspect" their firearms, storage facilities, and documents. The "inspectors" may take things found during this rape of one's dwelling. This is a search and seizure, despite the terminology used, and it is indeed warrantless. One is required to "assist" the "inspectors", including verbally. The Liberal, and now Conservative (as they have adopted almost all of it), legislation thereby denies the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to silence, and several other constitutionally-protected rights and freedoms from a select group of the citizenry for no valid reason. 



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> If you are not breaking the Law, what would you have to fear?  LEO's don't have the rights to just walk in and search you without cause.



Many firearms owners fear our own government and its agents more than they fear criminals, regardless of having done nothing wrong. And this legislation is so confusing and convoluted that it is almost impossible to know if one has done any real wrong or not.

Under this legislation, yes, some form of LEO  can pretty well enter and search without cause. They merely have to provide notice.

Criminals are better protected, legally.

The legislation actually declares simple ownership of a firearm to be a crime. The licence is government permission to commit this crime.

The maintenance of this legislation, despite all promises to repeal and replace it, and above all other dissatisfactions and disappointments that I have with this government and party, is the main reason that I shall cast my ballot for a Libertarian in the next election.

I would sooner vote NDP than Conservative, just to clean this party out as recently happened in Alberta.

And I never expected to even consider doing so just a few years ago.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (29 May 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Sure, and I agree that they aren't perfect. But let's examine their policies that work and conduct our own cost-benefit analysis instead of rejecting any form of government intervention (not saying you are). Norway for example has managed it's oil wealth far better than Canada, and that required direct state intervention. Whereas we sell off the Canadian Wheat Board  (on the cusp of what many think will be a "food boom") Norway formed Statoil and the result has been well documented.
> 
> A form of wealth redistribution already exists in this country in the form of income tax. We also grant corporations massive subsidies and in return they ship jobs overseas. Are we getting the best bang for our buck? When societies become as inequitable as we are becoming they also become unstable and susceptible to radical elements on the left AND the right. If Roosevelt is famous for saving capitalism, let's look at how he did it. In my opinion, the bargain between labour and capital has been consistently shifting in favour of capital since World War 2. Capital has been chipping away at the welfare state since then, and it's clear that's largely the reason for many of our problems. The good old days (1950s for example) many conservatives seem to yearn for saw us taxing top earners at 80%, affordable university, well funded social programs, strong unions and also the greatest period of economic growth we've ever seen.



The 1950s boom was fuelled by money and industry from WW2 and by rebuilding Europe. Remember, the European powerhouses were broke and the US (and us) was essentially the economic big player owing to the state of industry at the end of the war. As the world caught up and labour became increasingly expensive North America gradually lost those industrial jobs to the growing countries and Europeans relied less on North America for production as their factories became operational again. 

Also, one could argue that Norway has benefitted from oil money more because of it's smaller population- one could easily argue that Dubai should be the model to follow if we solely look at those factors.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 May 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Let's look at the effects on the ground though. I don't buy "the natural order of things" argument. We have agency and we can decide what kind of world we live in. If the "center" is increasing inequality and a third of our society living in poverty, let's redefine the center. The road we are on now will inevitably lead to an economic and social collapse. I for one don't relish a return to the Dark Ages.



Indeed, individually we have agency.  Collectively? I don't see any evidence of a collective consciousness.

I might change my mind if she showed up on my front doorstep.


----------



## dapaterson (29 May 2015)

The most powerful person in Canada you've never heard of - Jenni Byrne.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/meet-the-woman-driving-harpers-re-election-campaign/article24699535/


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 May 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Glen McGregor, of the _Ottawa Citizen_, tweeted an interesting (and unnamed) poll showing a tight (within the margin of error), essentially a _tied_ three way race after: _a)_ the Alberta election; and _b)_ the vote on Bill C-51:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



David Akin, of the _Sun_ Media chain, has posted a newer EKOS poll：







The changes are slight ... the Conservatives and the Liberals have swapped about one point each and, in so doing, the Conservatives and NDP have also swapped first and second places, but it is still a tight, three way race.

The *Justin Trudeau* effect was pronounced after the summer of 2012, when he began to campaign for the Liberal leadership, which he won in April of 2013; support for the Liberals mostly climbed ~ and support for the Conservatives fell, for about 18 months. Then, in the fall of last year, a full year before the scheduled election, things changed: Conservative support mostly rose and Liberal support fell, quite sharply. In the last few weeks both the CPC and LPC have lost ground to s resurgent NDP ... according to EKOS.

What changed in late 2014? Two things, at least:

     1. The global security situation, especially the rise of IS** in the Middle East and Russian actions in Ukraine, made Prime Minister Harper look prescient and gave him an opportunity to take some _seemingly_ decisive actions that many Candians supported; and

     2. The media began to notice its own fawing over M Trudeau ... remember this?

         
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



         Michael de Adder, in the _Hill Times_


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 May 2015)

Scandinavian-style socialism will never work in Canada because Canada is not full of Scandinavians.  As soon as more than one "tribe" exists to try and make gains for itself at the expense of other "tribes", the wheels come off the socialist cart.  Even the Scandinavian countries are starting to experience this phenomenon.

Canada is full of "tribes".


----------



## JS2218 (30 May 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The most powerful person in Canada you've never heard of - Jenni Byrne.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/meet-the-woman-driving-harpers-re-election-campaign/article24699535/



I think we've all heard of her  : The myth about her being behind the scenes, unapproachable, and invisible exists because the media want it to exist. Still, a good profile of her.


----------



## ballz (30 May 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I totally reject your "honest folk" notion: it is juvenile, the last resort of those defending the indefensible.



Nah, just me trolling him apparently.



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The good old days (1950s for example) many conservatives seem to yearn for saw us taxing top earners at 80%, affordable university, well funded social programs, strong unions and also the greatest period of economic growth we've ever seen.



The greatest period of economic growth was from about 1700 to 1915. It was a relatively unregulated place that saw wealth mobility and its highest forms. Currency was backed by gold, and interest rates were about 8-10%.

What we have now is not "capitalism." Having the government print money, borrow money out at ridiculously low, unsustainable interest rates, in order to "stimulate" the economy, etc is the reason we will have a social and economic collapse. All of these are forms of government "regulation" in the economy and we can thank them for the 2008 recession and the looming sovereign debt crisis in the US.


What's funny about Scandinavian socialism is that most people don't realize that most of the social programs and wealth distribution is done at the lowest levels of government, as opposed to what Canadian socialists think and want. It would be much better, in my opinion, to have a small federal government and allow the provinces, and even better, the municipalities, more power to control their own destiny. The federal government should only exist to protect the country's borders and protect individual life/liberty/property within our borders (aka the Criminal Code), and to arbitrate between province-to-province disputes. Want socialized healthcare? Socialized daycare? Socialized education? Vote for it at the provincial level, or even better at the municipal level.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 May 2015)

Concur.  Socialism - or left-leaning government in general - works best (sometimes well) within smaller tribes.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 May 2015)

A while back in this thread (May 05) I compared the Liberal tax cut to the Conservative TFSA contribution level increase.  I structured the comparison incorrectly, comparing only the tax savings of the former to the plan growth of the latter.  What I should have done is compare an investment contribution (notionally, $5K as a proxy for the TFSA doubling) under the two regimes.

Done that way, I found the "value" of the Liberal policy is greater than I thought.  For low returns on investment (ie. low side of 5-7% range), lower provincial income tax rates, and over a shorter term, the LPC policy is more valuable while you are working (it takes longer for the CPC policy to break even).


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 May 2015)

Liberal heavyweight Scott Reid takes a look at the current, tight, three way race and sees one problem for the Liberals: leadership, Justin Trudeau, in this opinion piece which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/reid-time-for-the-liberals-to-face-some-hard-truths-about-justin-trudeau


> Time for the Liberals to face some hard truths about Justin Trudeau
> 
> Scott Reid
> 
> ...




I agree with Mr Reid: Justin Trudeau _might_ be a real winer, a game changer for the Liberal Party of Canada but he is, also, right now, it's ...






M Trudeau is, undeniably, a nice, personable, likeable young man, but he is, thus far, sadly lacking in _gravitas_, what the Brits call "bottom." Messers Harper and Mulcair have lots and lots of _bottom_, the both positively reek gravitas; no one much likes them but most people agree they are serious men, men of substance, men who can lead ...

M Trudeau has, rightfully, targeted the middle class ... the middle class votes, and it votes with its pocketbooks. But Prime Minister Harper and M Mulcair have also targeted the middle class, and they may be more credible ... they are, after all, authentic middle class Canadians, themselves. The problem with getting M Trudeau's message out is that Prime Minister Harper and Thomas Mulcair, both, have already cast real doubt on M Trudeau's middle class credentials. 

But, _I think_ it is the _gravitas_, the issue of "bottom," that is the biggest hole in M Trudeau's boat, and that what _may _sink him.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 May 2015)

David Akin _Tweets_ that the latest Liberal ad is _false_:






David Akin ‏@davidakin  May 29
Latest #LPC fundraisr claims (falsely) that #CPC is using tax dollars for “another attack ad blitz on Trudeau” 
24 retweets 4 favorites
Reply


----------



## dapaterson (30 May 2015)

While I do not doubt that the PM can and will remain on message for the next several months, as with any long-serving government there is an ever-widening circle of appointees and hangers-on now associated with the government and ruling party, providing opponents with an ever-increasing array of potential missteps to target.

While I don't expect anyone to pull up to a news conference on a jet ski, I'm certain that there are any number of duffers about that the NDP and Liberals are aware of and are getting ready to use in campaign ads to attempt to discredit the Conservatives.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 May 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> While I do not doubt that the PM can and will remain on message for the next several months, as with any long-serving government there is an ever-widening circle of appointees and hangers-on now associated with the government and ruling party, providing opponents with an ever-increasing array of potential missteps to target.
> 
> While I don't expect anyone to pull up to a news conference on a jet ski, I'm certain that there are any number of duffers about that the NDP and Liberals are aware of and are getting ready to use in campaign ads to attempt to discredit the Conservatives.




And David Akin picks up on that in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Sun_:

http://m.ottawasun.com/2015/05/30/tories-liberals-face-political-peril-in-exploding-senate-scandal


> Tories, Liberals face political peril in exploding Senate scandal
> 
> David Akin
> 
> ...




I agree with David Akin on the reactions, then, in 2013, and now in 2015, of the Conservatives' _grassroots_ supporters and on the reaction of Canadians, writ large, if, and_ I think_ it's a *Big* IF, they are, indeed "disgusted by what they will see in the Senate expense scandal next week." _I'm just not so sure_ that it will be as large an issues as Mr Akin thinks or hopes. _I suspect_ that everyone from Bryce Mackasey, Brian Mulroney, David Dingwell and, now, Mike Duffy, have desensitized Canadians to political chicanery ... we've given up hope on ethical standards in politics, as, _I guess_, we should.  :-\


----------



## Kirkhill (31 May 2015)

I think (hope?) that Conservative supporters may have been inured to the Senate scandal.

Harper and the Conservatives are on record as "recognizing" the weaknesses of the Senate.  They can argue that this system is not their preferred system, that they proposed alternatives, that the alternatives were shot down by the Senate, the Provinces, the Courts and the Opposition.

That may not go very far with the Harper-Haters on the extremes but it might be enough to keep the core on side, and properly packaged might go someways to energize them and even to sway some middle of the road types.  The alternative is that it might just disgust the moderates that they decide to put a pox on all their houses and stay home.

What could be emphasized is that Mike Duffy and Pam Wallin, as well as many other non-party appointments, were popular individuals in their own right when they were appointed.  That eased their appointment in the first place.

If the Auditor-General's report demonstrates that the problem is endemic, which Duffy's trial and the ever increasing number of Senators falling afoul of the apparently non-existent rule book seems to suggest, then that could be used to bolster a "tried but failed" argument for reform.

The problem then becomes one of which reform might Canadians prefer: one which relies on taking on the Supreme Court as an opponent of change; or one based on chucking out the brutes entirely.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 May 2015)

What's missing is recognition that the Senate is a separate body and controls itself.  Harper's real responsibility ends with his power of appointment.  Harper's real mistake ends with his bad judgement regarding some of his selections.  Harper's only scandal is Wright's well-meant but foolish and improper attempt to help Duffy clear the debt of expenses denied.

Harper invested a bit of time and political capital investigating how the Senate might be reformed and got some answers to legal questions.  He was reluctant to make any appointments until the coalition-that-might-have-been forced him to recognize that there would be more appointments - his, or someone else's.  He isn't the roadblock to change.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jun 2015)

I'm not so sure that _l'affaire Duffy_ matters anywhere near as much as many in the media want it to ... ditto for the trial of former Senator Mac Harb which, the _Ottawa Citizen reports__ "has been postponed into the new year."

_


----------



## Remius (2 Jun 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I can't for the life of me understand how anyone who is opposed to greater government meddling in our lives would ever consider voting for either the Liberals or the Conservatives in this election. Those parties' support for C-51, a bill which every editorial board in every newspaper in Canada, just about every legal specialist and every political scientist has declared as being dangerous, illegal and in the end ineffective, shows them to be fundamentally opposed to democracy.



interesting article on that very subject here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/c-51-could-trigger-ndp-liberal-coalition-conservatives-warn-1.3096534

Although I'm unsure if it would trigger a coalition (liberals are supporting the legislation and the NDP is opposed), it is interesting to note that it might drain some votes away from the CPC.  Could we actually see a Libertarian elected?  at the very least I wouldn't be surprised if their share of the vote goes up significantly across the country despite not winning a seat.


----------



## ballz (2 Jun 2015)

The title of that article when first posted was "Bill C-51 Could See Conservative Support Swing to Libertarian Party of Canada..." Sigh, it's still the CBC I guess, but the name drop with the big three parties is big news for us.

I am quite confident we will surpass expectations and make a splash. We now officially have the most candidates we've had since 1988, with twice as many applications to sort through, and its still months away from the election. Tim Moen just quit his well paying, secure job as Battalion Chief of a fire department in Fort McMurray to go at this full time (without a salary I might add), and since then he's been making some big trips and attracting some big names like Jeff Berwick, Alexander Johnson, and more to come. It's not too to change your vote from "status quo" to true, meaningful change for Canada! [/end shameless plug]


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jun 2015)

I "like" M Trudeau. He is a pleasant young man ~ just the sort of fellow one might like to have as a colleague at work or a neighbour. I wish him, and his family, well.

My problems with M Trudeau are _political_, not personal.

I have two major problems:

     1. His résumé, which is very, very _light_. Now, I'm the first to admit that Prime Minister Harper's résumé was pretty thin, too, when he took over the _Alliance_ and then the newly formed CPC, but he had some record of _*policy*_ positions; and

     2. Gerald Butts, his "puppet master." Butts is intelligent, politically smart, focused and driven. He is also one of the prime architects of the policies that Dalton McGuinty (and now Kathleen Wynne) followed to drive Ontario to near ruin.

_I think_ M Trudeau was, and remains, sincere in wanting to have a more open, more "fair" Liberal Party and _I suspect _that it is Gerlad Butts who is behind the latest (of many) moves to pick star candidates rather than to allow riding associations to choose who they want ~ as Justin Trudeau promised.

So, now I have a third "problem" with M Trudeau:

     3. He's _weak_. He cannot show us the _*real*_ Justin Trudeau because Gerald Butts has forced him to submerge himself under a campaign image, and he's not man enough to push himself forward.

_I guess_ that a few of you are going to vote *for* the Liberals because you really approve of their policies (what little they've shown us, so far) and you like and trust M Trudeau; good for you ~ go for it. _I believe_ that many of you are going to vote *against* Prime Minister Harper for a variety of reasons: some tied to specific policies, some just based on the fact that it's time to "throw the rascals out;" good on you, too, but, please, consider _who_ will get your votes ... you have choices based on both policies and people. If it was me looking for ABC (Anyone But Conservatives) I would look, closely, at who is _leading_ the Liberals Party: is it Justin Trudeau or is it Gerlad Butts?


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jun 2015)

I think that your three points hold a lot of weight.  Point two has particular relevance in my Riding, and one of the reasons I would be hesitant to be swung over to the Liberals.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jun 2015)

Interesting point about Gerald Butts. If more Canadians knew his name and association with the downfall of Ontario, then the LPC would probably evaporate in that province (especially whereLiberal policies have decimated the industreal base), and quite possibly give more people a loong pause when considering which party to vote for.


----------



## Remius (3 Jun 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Interesting point about Gerald Butts. If more Canadians knew his name and association with the downfall of Ontario, then the LPC would probably evaporate in that province (especially whereLiberal policies have decimated the industreal base), and quite possibly give more people a loong pause when considering which party to vote for.



I thought that would have happened in the last provincial election but look what happened... :rage:


----------



## observor 69 (3 Jun 2015)

David Akin ‏@davidakin  · 6h6 hours ago  
“@PMHarper Performance Review” riffs off #CPC “The Interview” attack ad VIDEO from #LPC candidate @OmarAlghabra 

http://bit.ly/1dMDgiu


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jun 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I thought that would have happened in the last provincial election but look what happened... :rage:



True, but the Public Service Unions and their front organizations will have a harder time influencing a national election (and if they split the Orange/Red vote, even better).


----------



## RedcapCrusader (4 Jun 2015)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> David Akin ‏@davidakin  · 6h6 hours ago
> “@PMHarper Performance Review” riffs off #CPC “The Interview” attack ad VIDEO from #LPC candidate @OmarAlghabra
> 
> http://bit.ly/1dMDgiu



I had a tough time getting through that entire video.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jun 2015)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> David Akin ‏@davidakin  · 6h6 hours ago
> “@PMHarper Performance Review” riffs off #CPC “The Interview” attack ad VIDEO from #LPC candidate @OmarAlghabra
> 
> http://bit.ly/1dMDgiu




I see several problems with the ad:

     1. It is, too obviously, a _response_ ~ in other words, the CPC attack ad "Just Not Ready" (properly "The Interview") scored and the LPC feels a need to defend;

     2. The demographic is wrong ~ it features too many young people who, typically, don't vote in large enough numbers; and

     3. Too hard to follow ~ the "worst economic performance" message, for example, doesn't _track_ with the general perception that Canada did "not too bad" in the _Great Recession_. The facts may be just that: true facts, but there is
         no context and they are not part of the generally prevailing narrative, whereas "Just Not Ready" built on existing (albeit unfair) perceptions about M Trudeau's youth and in experience.

In _my opinion_ the first problem is the worst: by even allowing this to go on _YouTube_ the Liberals are admitting that "Just Not Ready" worked and hurt them ... one should not admit weakness during the campaign.

It's time for new, better CPC ads ... emphasising Justin is in way over his head and Not up to the job but with emphasis on pocketbook issues.


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Jun 2015)

I share ERC's feelings about the ad. It really comes across as a poorly done copycat response, and is not clear that the Liberal band is the best choice.

It is a bit like a Pepsi ad attacking Coke, but leaving out mention of its own brand, so the audience is not sure whether to go with Dr Pepper or Pepsi.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Lysiane Gagnon offers some interesting comment on two issues, the apparently enduring popularity of the NDP in Quebec (which is something that many of us, me included, did not expect back in 2011/2012) and the unreliability of polls in recent elections, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/in-quebec-the-tories-love-orange/article23596416/
> 
> ...




And Jeffrey Simpson, who (despite my many disagreements with him) is an expert in _Canadian politics_ (and in health care, but not in much of anything else, especially not in foreign affairs, defence or finance) agrees in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/liberals-swimming-against-ndp-tide-in-quebec/article24797344/


> Liberals swimming against NDP tide in Quebec
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> Montreal — The Globe and Mail
> ...




As Jeffrey Simpson pointed out, early on M Trudeau took positions (the gun registry and pipelines) that would help him in the West but which are "out of step" with Quebecers. If he backtracks he will pay a price in the West and rural Ontario but it is not clear that he will make any real gains in Quebec by backtracking. 

Ontario is the key for M Trudeau - give him Atlantic Canada, say half (16) or even 20 of Atlantic Canada's 32 seats and, say, 10 to, even, 20 of the West's 117 seats that means he must win 130 to 145 seats in Ontario and Quebec (out of 199) - if he can only win less than 40 of Quebec's seats then he needs around 100 in Ontario, and that's not going to happen.

My guess is that M Trudeau can/should win 20 to as many as 60 seats in Ontario, but I will be shocked if he can win many more. That means a majority or even a strong minority is out of reach. 

My current _guesstimate_ is that while the CPC can win a small majority if the vote splitting works for them, the most likely outcomes are:

     1. A weak CPC minority but with neither the Liberals nor the NDP being ready and able to lead a coalition ~ this will, probably, result in another election in winter 2015/16; or

     2. A weak NDP minority which will govern for a a year or 18 months, maybe even two years.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jun 2015)

So the tactical plan for both the CPC and NDP revolves around shutting the Liberals out of Quebec and Ontario.

In Quebec, the CPC does not have enough horsepower to split votes or take a lot of ridings, so this is pretty much Tom Mulcair's show to run. In Ontario, the CPC could do well to link the wretched economic performance of Ontario to the Liberals (a given, really) and link the Liberal party of Ontario to the LPC (pretty easy to do, given how Preimier Wynn made such a big point of courting the Young Dauphin). I hope Ontarians have come to their senses, but even if not, there is always the "Orange Wave" card to play.

One thing which might take everyone by surprise is Atlantic Canada. Everyone seems to assume the Maritimes will be a safe Liberal bastion, but who is to say that the Orange Wave might not roll in there as well? The loss of several Liberal seats in Atlantic Canada, either directly to the NDP or indirectly through vote splitting will change the political dynamic of the region, and also keep the LPC firmly in third place (the overriding goal of both the CPC and NDP). Squeezing the Liberals out of the center is the plan, and that might be the lever to do it.


----------



## observor 69 (4 Jun 2015)

As a political junkie the only thing I am certain of in this confusing political moment is the uncertainty of making a prediction.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html?spref=tw

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2668747111/


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jun 2015)

_Not quite ..._



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> So the tactical plan for both the CPC and NDP revolves around shutting the Liberals out of Quebec and Ontario. _Agreed_
> 
> In Quebec, the CPC does not have enough horsepower to split votes or take a lot of ridings, so this is pretty much Tom Mulcair's show to run. _Not quite ... in QC the Conservatives want, need, to fight hard for the handful of seats in which they have a good to very good chance, say ten, in all. In the remaining 50-60 they need to fight against the Liberals in order to help the NDP and, thereby, deny the Liberals a room to grow_ In Ontario, the CPC could do well to link the wretched economic performance of Ontario to the Liberals (a given, really) and link the Liberal party of Ontario to the LPC (pretty easy to do, given how Preimier Wynn made such a big point of courting the Young Dauphin). _Agreed ... and, in the suburbs, campaign TO the "ethnic vote," especially East and South Asians_ I hope Ontarians have come to their senses, but even if not, there is always the "Orange Wave" card to play. _Don't forget that Ontario often (almost_ traditionally_) votes for different parties at provincial and federal levels ~ that should help the CPC but could, also, help the NDP _
> 
> One thing which might take everyone by surprise is Atlantic Canada. Everyone seems to assume the Maritimes will be a safe Liberal bastion, but who is to say that the Orange Wave might not roll in there as well? The loss of several Liberal seats in Atlantic Canada, either directly to the NDP or indirectly through vote splitting will change the political dynamic of the region, and also keep the LPC firmly in third place (the overriding goal of both the CPC and NDP). Squeezing the Liberals out of the center is the plan, and that might be the lever to do it. _Agreed_


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jun 2015)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> As a political junkie _the only thing I am certain of in this confusing political moment is the uncertainty of making a prediction._
> 
> http://www.threehundredeight.com/p/canada.html?spref=tw
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2668747111/




Agreed, but .....

Here is a _guesstimate_, based, in part, on what Éric Grenier said in your link, and, partially, on my own sense of how the West might break:
           West   Ontario   Quebec   Atlantic
           (107)   (121)       (78)        (32) 
CPC        70        56           5            5     = 136 (realistically, 110 to 150 seats)
NDP        22        32          47          10    = 111 (realistically, 100 to 140 seats)
LPC         12        31         16          16    =   75  (realistically,  50 to 110 seats)
Others      3          2          10           1    =   16
                                                               338
_
I think_ 130-140 is a workable minority for 12 to 18 months. _I also think_ that is within reach, using today's numbers, for both the CPC and NDP but NOT for the LPC.

If that holds, even if you reverse the CPC and NDP numbers so that you have an NDP minority (which I am 99.99% certain M Trudeau would refuse to join as the "junior partner"), then I suspect it will be ...

         _




          ... Bye bye, Justin_


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Jun 2015)

I think we can agree that the next election will be Mr Harper's last election. The outcome only determines the speed at which he exits. Mr Trudeau on the other hand, is expected to form the Government, perhaps even a majority government. Failing to do neither will see him cast on the dustheap with Messrs Martin, Dion and Ignatieff. Only Mr Mulcair can survive intact regardless of the outcome of the election.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Jun 2015)

You know, a 135-seat NDP minority might just be what the country needs.  Thin enough that there is a safety valve against "Rae Days" (who, BTW, still holds the record for greatest number of aggregate days of proroguement during a leader's tenure...not Mr. Harper as many/most would have us believe), in the form of some highly likely opportunity for a non-confidence vote in the first 12-18 months...

:stirpot:


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Jun 2015)

One of Harper's aims was to cripple the LPC.  That's done.

What should be next?  Bury the LPC so deeply that it dissolves into two factions which join the NDP and CPC, or start knocking the pins out from under the NDP?

I don't see a healthy future for Canada under an NDP government (majority, minority, or senior partner in a coalition) which owes favours to QC.  It would only be worse if favours were also owed to ON.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Jun 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> You know, a 135-seat NDP minority might just be what the country needs.  Thin enough that there is a safety valve against "Rae Days" (who, BTW, still holds the record for greatest number of aggregate days of proroguement during a leader's tenure...not Mr. Harper as many/most would have us believe), in the form of some highly likely opportunity for a non-confidence vote in the first 12-18 months...
> 
> :stirpot:



The problem with the opposition holding the NDP in check is that people might believe they're not so bad and subsequently give them a majority.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jun 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> One of Harper's aims was to cripple the LPC.  That's done.
> 
> What should be next?  Bury the LPC so deeply that it dissolves into two factions which join the NDP and CPC, or start knocking the pins out from under the NDP?
> 
> I don't see a healthy future for Canada under an NDP government (majority, minority, or senior partner in a coalition) which owes favours to QC.  It would only be worse if favours were also owed to ON.




I understand the desire for a two party system but if the two parties are CPC and NDP then we have our own version of the British or (current) US systems, neither of which works.

_I think_ we want two strong centrist parties, and _I believe_ that the NDP will have a hard time shedding its roots and core and being real centrists. Therefore, I want a strong Conservative Party and an equally strong Liberal Party, both fighting for the centre, while the NDP represents the _real left_ and, if need be, we have a reborn _Something_ Party (Reform?) representing the _real, hard right_.

This is a centrist, mushy middle country: it needs centrist, mushy middle governments ~ sometimes leaning a little left, other times leaning a bit to the right. If we get to something akin to a Tea Party and the US Democrats then we are totally f__ked beyond all recognition.


----------



## GAP (4 Jun 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The problem with the opposition holding the NDP in check is that people might believe they're not so bad and subsequently give them a majority.



Manitoba is a classic example....the NDP give enough goodies to satisfy the base instincts to lots of people, and we can't get rid of the buggers...... :

It doesn't help the the PC's are flatlining.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> For reasons I'm not at all sure I understand, political polls have become suspect. I'm told, by people who should know, that consumer/audience polls are still highly reliable but political polls have two problems:
> 
> 1. Apparent inconsistency ~ too many (public) polls are biased and produce results that only further confuse the general public. We should, for example, not be surprised when a polling firm with a long history with _Party A_
> produces a poll that differs substantially from that produced by another firm with a long history with _Party B_. The media makes it worse by failing, normally, to explain polling to viewers/readers; and
> ...




An article in today's _Globe and Mail_, citing _Abacus Data_'s results says that:

          "Among all respondents, only 9 per cent both identified as Conservative supporters and agreed with the statement “I know how I will vote and it won’t change.” That was better than the same responses for the Liberals and NDP,
            which each got 6 per cent, but not dramatically so."

1993 was a disaster year for both the NDP and the (now defunct) PCs: the _Dippers_ got less than 7% of the vote and the Tories came in at less than 17%. But the PCs could, and did, fall farther down in public support, when Joe Clark led them to less than 13% (and fifth party (out of five) status in the HoC) in 2000. The worst the Liberals have done was in 2011 when they polled under 20%.

_I think_ that Stephen Harper has cemented right of centre support for the CPC and my guess is that a 20% "floor" is reasonable for both the CPC and LPC, but could be "soft" if either party does something to alienate its base.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jun 2015)

While waiting for coffee to brew in the 1 Can Div coffee room, I received indirect evidence that the Duffy Affair and the Senate scandal in general will not be a factor in the election. The CBC commentator reading the news report on the emerging scandal mentrioned Sen Duffy, failed to mention Sen Harb and the part about the other Senators who are now under investigation by the RCMP was quickly passed over near the end. Why so quickly? Five of the seven Senators under investigation are Liberals.

Since that part of the story does not support the "narrative", I predict it will be allowed to die quiickly and won't be a factor in the general election campaign (If the LPC brings up the Duffy affair it will rapidly blw up in their faces).


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jun 2015)

One of the 2 asked to step down was Colin Kenny. Pretty bring name to fire back at LPC if they bring up Duffy.


----------



## Remius (5 Jun 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While waiting for coffee to brew in the 1 Can Div coffee room, I received indirect evidence that the Duffy Affair and the Senate scandal in general will not be a factor in the election. The CBC commentator reading the news report on the emerging scandal mentrioned Sen Duffy, failed to mention Sen Harb and the part about the other Senators who are now under investigation by the RCMP was quickly passed over near the end. Why so quickly? Five of the seven Senators under investigation are Liberals.
> 
> Since that part of the story does not support the "narrative", I predict it will be allowed to die quiickly and won't be a factor in the general election campaign (If the LPC brings up the Duffy affair it will rapidly blw up in their faces).



What makes the Duffy trial different from all those cases is the PMO involvement.  That's why it will be bigger news than all the others.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> What makes the Duffy trial different from all those cases is the PMO involvement.  That's why it will be bigger news than all the others.




_Agreed_, but I remain unconvinced that it will have much impact outside of the greenbelt. _I think_ Canadians are already bored and, equally, already _believe_ that most politicians are venal and would do what Duffy did, given half a chance.

I also _suspect_ that Nigel Wright's testimony will be anticlimactic. He will say, "Yes, I gave Duffy some money because I wanted to make a _political_ problem go away and I was, personally, offended by how Mr Duffy's actions might impact on the prime minister's programme. It was my money; I asked nothing of Mr Duffy except that he make things right with the people of Canada. I did not consult the prime minister." Mr Wright is a very smart man, at least as smart and as tough as Donald Bayne ... he will not be shaken on cross-examination and his testimony will be like a damp squib.


----------



## Remius (5 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _Agreed_, but I remain unconvinced that it will have much impact outside of the greenbelt. _I think_ Canadians are already bored and, equally, already _believe_ that most politicians are venal and would do what Duffy did, given half a chance.
> 
> I also _suspect_ that Nigel Wright's testimony will be anticlimactic. He will say, "Yes, I gave Duffy some money because I wanted to make a _political_ problem go away and I was, personally, offended by how Mr Duffy's actions might impact on the prime minister's programme. It was my money; I asked nothing of Mr Duffy except that he make things right with the people of Canada. I did not consult the prime minister." Mr Wright is a very smart man, at least as smart and as tough as Donald Bayne ... he will not be shaken on cross-examination and his testimony will be like a damp squib.



I would add to that that this is more of _Senate_ issue and something Canadians will view as the Senate and their cronies being the problem as an institution (as opposed to the ruling party or the PM) not so much as something that would be an election issue.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jun 2015)

Is there another element at play as well?

Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin were reporters.  They were hired because they were popular and effective as communicators (as you've said elsewhere ERC).

When they left the Press Gallery for the Red Chamber they lost the support of their drinking buddies in the Gallery and became fair game, perhaps even prime targets due to the politics of envy.  Thus they came under extra scrutiny and could be guaranteed a headline on an otherwise slow news day.  So the press's interest in them could be explained.

The problem the press has though, is that it is rapidly losing respect with the public.  It is falling from the ranks of the 6 O Clock Preachers like Walter Cronkite to the level of used car salesmen.

If two old time preachers (say Paisley and the Pope) had a dispute, then the guns came out.  On the other hand what reaction is there to two used car salesmen brawling in the street?


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jun 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Is there another element at play as well?
> 
> Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin were reporters.  They were hired because they were popular and effective as communicators (as you've said elsewhere ERC).



At the same time, that may be a red herring.  They may have had "Ghost Writers" and "Producers" cuing them from the control booths.


----------



## Remius (5 Jun 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> At the same time, that may be a red herring.  They may have had "Ghost Writers" and "Producers" cuing them from the control booths.



Likely in the case of lower level reporters but I'm fairly sure that bigwigs in the industry have their share of influence as chief correspondents and principle anchors.  Mansbridge, Laflamme et al all have a big say in what direction their news goes, I would presume.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Jun 2015)

The relevance of Duffy et al is less along party lines, and more along individual judgement lines.  Neither Mulcair nor Trudeau named the Liberal senators under investigation.  Many of the Tory senators under investigation, on the other hand, were named by the PM.  If the Dippers & Liberals approach this as "Look at the poor judgement and poor selections made by the PM" they may have something.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jun 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Likely in the case of lower level reporters but I'm fairly sure that bigwigs in the industry have their share of influence as chief correspondents and principle anchors.  Mansbridge, Laflamme et al all have a big say in what direction their news goes, I would presume.



Sometimes it is all "appearance" that counts.   "Does the camera love you?"


----------



## Remius (5 Jun 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The relevance of Duffy et al is less along party lines, and more along individual judgement lines.  Neither Mulcair nor Trudeau named the Liberal senators under investigation.  Many of the Tory senators under investigation, on the other hand, were named by the PM.  If the Dippers & Liberals approach this as "Look at the poor judgement and poor selections made by the PM" they may have something.



That would be the best approach for them if they planned on using this.  Justin Trudeau has already distanced himself from the senate by removing them all from caucus and Thomas Mulcair can state that they are the only party clean in anything related to the senate.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The relevance of Duffy et al is less along party lines, and more along individual judgement lines.  Neither Mulcair nor Trudeau named the Liberal senators under investigation.  Many of the Tory senators under investigation, on the other hand, were named by the PM.  If the Dippers & Liberals approach this as "Look at the poor judgement and poor selections made by the PM" they may have something.




I agree ... but the _supremes_ have stymied him on most of the easy ways to reform the Senate, and he can use that to mollify his own supporters.

I remain convinced that he can 'trump' the _supremes_ by going directly to the provincial premiers and the senators themselves and refusing to appoint anyone to the Senate who has not:

     1. Been elected in the province; and

     2. Presented the PM, prior to being appointed, with a signed letter of resignation, effective the date of the next provincial general election.

This forces the provinces to hold Senate elections when they have general elections ~ or risk going unrepresented.* It will take time, maybe 25+ years, to completely reform the Senate, and elected senators will demand to be effective, too ~ and a smart PM will allow the Senate to exercise its constitutional powers.**

A reformed Senate will be a thorn in the sise of many (most? all?) prime ministers: there is no way to guarantee than an _elected_ and _effective_ Senate will not delay, even block government legislation. Some Canadians, especially those who oppose the government of the day on any given issue will like that; others will not.

_____
*   The _supremes_ will scream bloody murder, but _I'm not convinced_ that they can win and I think they know it. The Senate is not popular with Canadians, making it elected ~
     saying, in effect, "You judgment is better than mine" ~ will be popular. Some sitting senators, secure in their jobs until they are 75, will stay on, but many will resign, too, rather than be anachronisms.
**  For example, in areas in which the federal intrudes into areas of provincial jurisdiction (health, for example) a smart PM would select the minister (or an associate minister) from the Senate.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jun 2015)

And David Akin posts another poll:







This time the CPC and NDP are in a statistical dead heat but a measurable _fade_ continues to be visible for the Liberals - now they are a full 5 to 7 points behind the CPC/NDP front-runners.

Caution: we have four and a half months to go. Canadians will not start to really pay attention until after Labour Day.

But, that caution being noted:

     1. Something is wrong with the LPC's campaign; and

     2. Prime Minister Harper needs to get some good "press" ~ his current trip to Europe may help a bit; and

     3. Thomas Mulcair needs to start reassuring Canadians that he has a _team_, Canadians will want to know who might be the the NDP finance minister, for example. Will it be Nathan Cullen (he is the finance critic in the NDP shadow cabinet?
         Who will be foreign affairs minister? Will it be Paul Dewar? Will Françoise Boivin get Justice? He needs to start introducing his "A Team."


----------



## dapaterson (5 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 1. Something is wrong with the LPC's campaign; and



Unless they are adopting the Ali "rope a dope" tactic, and planning to let the other two pugilists duke it out, then come up the middle.  We don't see their internal polling; we don't know what they've got in their bag of tricks; in fact, we don't even know everything that we don't know.  (This applies to all parties, not just the Liberals).

It will be interesting to watch how the party communicates (indirectly) its goals for the fall "running of the reptiles".  Is it to win? Is it to become official opposition? Is it to regain lost seats?  When you're in third place out of three, there are lots of ways for you to declare victory.  Jean Charest was a "success" in taking the Tories to 20 seats in 1997.



> 2. Prime Minister Harper needs to get some good "press" ~ his current trip to Europe may help a bit; and



Except Canadians don't much care or concern themselves about foreign affairs; any blip from this will be shortlived.



> 3. Thomas Mulcair needs to start reassuring Canadians that he has a _team_, Canadians will want to know who might be the the NDP finance minister, for example. Will it be Nathan Cullen (he is the finance critic in the NDP shadow cabinet?
> Who will be foreign affairs minister? Will it be Paul Dewar? Will Françoise Boivin get Justice? He needs to start introducing his "A Team."



This, I think, is what will be key in the upcoming campaign.  Can the NDP come across as a credible potential government?  Can they control the bozo outbreaks that bedevil most parties?  I am not yet convinced that the NDP is seen by enough Canadians as having the gravitas to form a national government.

The recent Alberta election was a wonderful example of vote splitting; a transferrable ballot would likely have seen a singificantly different outcome.  The national NDP won't have that same advantage.


----------



## observor 69 (5 Jun 2015)

I think the Liberals should play up there bench strength. Take a look at the Wiki link listing the shadow cabinet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_Shadow_Cabinet_of_the_41st_Parliament_of_Canada

Lots of smart capable talent.


----------



## GAP (5 Jun 2015)

That list tells me that nothing much has changed within the Liberal Party, except the leader(s).........


----------



## observor 69 (5 Jun 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> That list tells me that nothing much has changed within the Liberal Party, except the leader(s).........



Hence the problem.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jun 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Unless they are adopting the Ali "rope a dope" tactic, and planning to let the other two pugilists duke it out, then come up the middle.  We don't see their internal polling; we don't know what they've got in their bag of tricks; in fact, we don't even know everything that we don't know.  (This applies to all parties, not just the Liberals).



It seems far more likely the LPC will get pummeled on the ropes by every party out there, starting with some heavyweight blows from the CPC and NDP, but even getting smacked around in QC by the Bloc and having the Greens snapping at their ankles everywhere. I suspect the parties might even enjoy this slugfest, and turn on the easy target rather than fight each other (at least not until enough blood has been drawn from the LPC).



> It will be interesting to watch how the party communicates (indirectly) its goals for the fall "running of the reptiles".  Is it to win? Is it to become official opposition? Is it to regain lost seats?  When you're in third place out of three, there are lots of ways for you to declare victory.  Jean Charest was a "success" in taking the Tories to 20 seats in 1997.



The real problem with the Liberal "campaign" is that most people have come to the conclusion there isn't one. How long has the Young Dauphin been the leader? How many policies have come from his mouth? Ideas? Directions? Handwaves? He may be a "nice young man" but I want a bit more when looking for the direction my country is going to go, both for myself and my children. In the end, I want a place where *we* have a chance to get ahead, not just the political class and their crony hangers on. The long history of the LPC being the party that goes for _power at any cost_ does not reassure me that I am going to benefit on any material way from a Liberal government in office. And silence from the Young Dauphin does nothing to reassure me that things have changed. I certainly am not the only person who feels this way.

The idea that the NDP needs to show gravitas and be accepted as the national "government in waiting" may be one of those calculations which is behind the Prime Minister's decision to not take part in television debates. Rather than sit there and be a punching bag for a multitude of contestants, he steps out and lets Tom Mulcair come off as the smart guy in the room (hardly a difficult proposition when he will be debating the Young Dauphin and Elizabeth May...). The Prime Minister will be able to set up situations where he can take on Mr Mulcair at places of his time and choosing (those mini debates the CPC is promoting?) or fight him in the media (a more dangerous proposition).


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Jun 2015)

I am less interested in a prospective NDP finance minister's identity than in a prospective NDP government's fiscal ideas.

QC and ON both want transfers - probably a great amount of transfers.  There is no value for the CPC in promising more money to QC; they did the fiscal imbalance thing, the QC government turned around and gave provincial taxpayers a tax cut, and QC voters seem to have decided that the CPC is still not a friend to QC.  Wynne has not talked to or about Harper in a way that suggests the CPC would get any credit there either.  All of the transfers that the CPC has continued, restored (since the Chretien/Martin cuts), and increased have passed almost unnoticed.  The CPC gets bad press for the fact that Martin's health accord had a termination date, instead of good press for extending it and putting up another health funding growth formula with a floor still well above current growth rates.

The only parties that can buy votes are the LPC and NDP.  Both are floating childcare funding in their platforms.  QC undoubtedly does not expect to pay more in than it takes out of such a scheme.

AB is weathering a bit of a storm; ON has never really recovered; BC isn't going to drive any economic growth as long as the province-wide NIMBY movement holds sway.   I suppose it's time for SK/MB, NL, and the Maritimes to pull the country's weight so the NDP can keep its QC base happy.


----------



## Infanteer (5 Jun 2015)

I'm seeing the Alberta Provincial Election repeated all over again, except the political "poles" of left and right are reversed.  Alberta had two right of centre parties fighting and the left of centre party went up the middle and won big.  Federally, we have two left of centre parties fighting and a right of centre party poised to go up the middle.  At this point, I can reasonably expect the Conservative Party's 30% polling to actually translate into big seat numbers if the NDPs 31% and the Liberals 23% split ridings up.


----------



## suffolkowner (6 Jun 2015)

Brad Sallows 
I am less interested in a prospective NDP finance minister's identity than in a prospective NDP government's fiscal ideas.
[/quote]

Fiscal or monetary?
Perhaps that is the problem, too many people trying to solve a monetary problem with so called fiscal solutions


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jun 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Brad Sallows
> I am less interested in a prospective NDP finance minister's identity than in a prospective NDP government's fiscal ideas.
> 
> 
> ...




So, you want higher interest rates? or even lower ones?

How do you propose that any political party does that? remember the _Coyne Affair_ in 1959-61? As a result of that little dust up it is the Bank of Canada, not the elected government, no matter how much popular support or big a majority it might have, that decides monetary policy.


----------



## suffolkowner (6 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So, you want higher interest rates? or even lower ones?
> 
> There is more to monetary policy than interest rates, even though conversations on interests rates obviously remain prominent as they should
> 
> ...



That is the popular reading but I think wrong.  For example if the Bank of Canada were to decide that interests rate were too low now and began to raise them(lets say to 2%) or indicated the intention to do so, what would the appropriate response from the government be? For how long and to what extent could a discrepancy in policy be allowed? What if instead of 2% it was 4%?


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jun 2015)

My answer to 90% of any government's problems, including changes to monetary policy, is: spend less on _social_ programmes and lower taxes a bit, too.

In the case of the BoC announcing its intention to let interest rates climb to, say, 2% over some reasonable period (say 18 months) then I believe the best policy is to _contract_ by reducing social programme spending and pay down debt. I would allow borrowing, even at higher rates, to continue to fund long term infrastructure maintenance and development. (I would count _*some*_ of the defence budget commitments (a _continuing_ warship construction programme, for example) as "long term infrastructure.")


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Jun 2015)

>Fiscal or monetary?

Mainly I want them to reveal all of their plans for spending and taxation.  If they don't want to talk very much about it, I assume by default they intend to spend more than they say and tax more than they say.  Harper has done a good job of squeezing the revenue envelope to make it harder for other parties to promise goodies without making an awkward choice to cut other spending, borrow more, or raise taxes/fees.

Economists disagree on the absolute magnitude of estimates, but not the sign of the number: when taxes go up, jobs go away, and vice versa.  Nothing any party has proposed is important enough to justify raising some taxes and losing some jobs in the current economic situation.

Low interest rates are promoting consumer and government indebtedness.  The more private debt people take on now, the less future spending they will do and the less future tax revenue there will be.

Government indebtedness is different and it's much less clear what will happen when it gets too high again.  Last time there was lots of room for interest rates to fall or be pushed down and the burden was mainly federal.  What happens soon when there is nowhere for rates to go but up, and it is provinces - which can not do "quantitative easing" - which are at the breaking point?

My basic point remains that governments and their agencies seem to be trying to prop up their revenue streams at levels which were "above average" prior to the recession, and have nearly exhausted all of their tools.  We need policies which will balance budgets, diminish public debt to allow debt to be taken on again at some future time, and encourage private de-leveraging.  There is no fiscal freedom of manoeuvre for the next recession.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jun 2015)

Rather curious about the trial ballon that was floated a while ago, when the Young Dauphin "suggested" that CPP funds be "borrowed" to pay for infrastructure. I don't recall seeing any further discussion of the idea; did it just evaporate or is it lurking in the background, waiting to be sprung on unsuspecting Canadians?

From any realistic perspective, moves in this direction suggest that I am unlikely to receive any sort of pension at all if I retire (notice the "if"). Assuming the government continues to pay out pensions after draining the funds for their next adventures in crony capitalism, it will be in highly devalued dollars, with printing presses running flat out to "cover" the hole they created.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jun 2015)

There are two reasons for governments to tax anyone or anything:

     1. To raise money for necessary public expenditures ~ and paying the interest on the national debt always must have first call on any government revenue; and

     2. Changing public behaviour.

Too much, some might argue most, public expenditure (especially at the provincial level) is patently _*unnecessary*_. This is especially the case with _social_ spending: the high desirable, even laudable ends could be met, more efficiently, by private agencies ~ a mix of corporations and charities. (Let me just use healthcare as an example:

     1. The World Health Organization (WHO) ranks Canada as 8th (out of 192 countries) in health care expenditures (PPP/per capita) while Singapore is ranked 28th and Sweden 13th; but

     2. The same WHO ranks Singapore 6th (of 190 countries) in terms of health care quality while Sweden is 24th and Canada is 28th. 

         Canada's health care system is the most _statist_ and Singapore's is the least of those three. Clearly our _publicly funded_/single payer health care ~ although immensely popular with ignorant, innumerate people ~ is neither
         cost effective nor especially "good." Much of the money spent on healthcare in Canada is manifestly misspent and, therefore, qualifies and _*unnecessary*_ public expenditure. But that same money could be transformed into
         necessary public expenditure if the governments were forced out of the system and the individual and the private sector was given the dominant role.)

Changing behaviour covers things like "sin taxes" and could cover a carbon tax ... if it was properly designed and implemented. _*IF*_ changing how we use (or misuse, if you like) carbon is, indeed, a national priority then a tax _might_ work, provided it lands squarely and completely on the end users of carbon: you and me.

"Good" taxes, those that cover necessary expenses or push/pull people towards socially beneficial behaviour, must be efficient and fair (reasonably progressive).


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Jun 2015)

ERC - I'll accept your carbon tax IF

I get a rebate on every pound of carbon filed for posterity on my bookshelves and in my filing cabinets
I get a rebate on every pound of carbon I belch, fart or exhale and thus provide nourishment for all those wonderful trees, grasses and plants
I get a rebate on every pound of carbon my car and my house generate and add to the nourishment from my belches, farts and exhalations
I get a rebate on every pound of carbon I lock in the wood and plastics in my house
I get a rebate on every pound of carbon I in the wood and plastics in my furniture.
I get a rebate on every pound of carbon I lock up in my kids and pets.

Then I would accept paying a carbon consumption tax..... but I already do.  It is better known as a fuel tax.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jun 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ERC - I'll accept your carbon tax IF
> ...




It's not _*my*_ carbon tax. I think we have enough taxes, more than enough revenue ... what we are missing is some _discipline_ on spending. We are burdened by _*unnecessary*_ government expenditures and if we _would_ fix (cancel) those we _could_ have a sane tax system.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (7 Jun 2015)

My issues is neither taxes, which are necessary to pay for expenditures, which are also necessary.  The real problem is tax expenditures - a uniquely inefficient way to achieve public policy ends, but a damned efficient way to buy votes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> >
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And here is yet another of David Akin's _Predictinator_s based on the latest polling data he has seen:






The only thing that's consistent is that the Liberals are falling farher and father behind.

David Akin suggests that you should "Read up, if you’d like, at the relatively arbitrary way the Predictionator works.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Jun 2015)

I wonder if poling during the campaign will show blue liberals shifting right to conter the NDP, or if that phenomenom will be reflected at the ballot box. We can accept that the LPC has a core 20% of the electorate, but if the NDP shows forwards momentum, how solid with that core remain?


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jun 2015)

As much as I'm not entirely wild about the Liberals/Trudeau Jr. to get the reins, I'd be surprised if the NDP's lead remains in place as we get closer to election day.  I stand to be corrected, but the NDP's never been Canada's "let's give _them_ a try now that we're sick of the incumbents" party.


----------



## MilEME09 (7 Jun 2015)

No someone more versed in Canadian election laws will have to help me out but those polls got me thinking, what happens in the case of an electoral tie? IE Cons and NDP have the same number of seats with the libs in 3rd


----------



## suffolkowner (7 Jun 2015)

It looks/feels to me like a conservative minority too. There just doesn't seem to be a credible alternative to the governing party Federally or in Ontario. By credible I mean capable of forming a government. The provincial Tories and federal Liberals appear to have lost there way. While in theory I like the idea of minority governments in practice I think it has resulted in the greatly diminished autonomy of our MP's. I have been disappointed in Trudeau's performance so far not because of the lack of policy presented, who in the electorate(or for that matter the candidates) actually reads their party's platforms never mind the other parties. But he has had an amazing ability to just blurt out brain farts something that use to identify the Reform/Alliance party and a young Harper as well. Regardless I await the election results with interest and notwithstanding those results I feel that Harper will join the list of former great conservative PM's Mulroney,Diefenbaker,MacDonald, Borden(?). I doubt any one of those gentleman would consider any of the others their type of conservative though.


----------



## suffolkowner (7 Jun 2015)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> No someone more versed in Canadian election laws will have to help me out but those polls got me thinking, what happens in the case of an electoral tie? IE Cons and NDP have the same number of seats with the libs in 3rd



MilEME09  they figure out, parties have no standing anyways. They are an arbitrary and perhaps necessary construct of the system.  One leader would have to gather the confidence of parliament much like John A MacDonald did


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Jun 2015)

The question came up with respect to the recent British election.  The highlighted bit is the one you might be referring to.  The PM doesn't actually have to step down until he/she is defeated in the House and the other parties can present a credible alternative.



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Interesting review of Minorities and Coalitions by the Hansard Society of the UK.
> 
> http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/A-Numbers-Game-Hansard-Society.pdf
> 
> ...


----------



## suffolkowner (7 Jun 2015)

Kirkhill, I agree Mulcair and Trudeau do not seem to get along. But how long can the Liberals and NDP continue to lose elections. Eventually you would think someone would smell their way to power much like Harper and McKay especially without the vote subsidy going forward


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jun 2015)

_I think_ M Mulcair and M Trudeau each have, and need to have, the same _strategy_: if they win a plurality (but not a majority) they would invite the other to be the *junior* partner in a coalition. Each would expect that the other would decline. The "winner" would, confidently, expect, for a while at least, that the weaker party would support the winner in a minority situation for a year or 18 months while the weaker party sorted out its leadership.

_It seems to me_ that M Trudeau must win at least a minority, even a weak minority, if he wants to stay on as LPC leader. M Mulcair may have the benefit of lower expectations.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Jun 2015)

I believe that Janet Daley in yesterday's Telegraph alludes to the problem facing the NDP.  Its tribalists are steeped in the cause and will brook neither truck nor trade.



> ...
> 
> Even what are known as “moderate” candidates for the Labour leadership have to mind what they say about the value of wealth creation and steer clear of embracing those infamous “liberal” economic solutions, while the party wallows in the most absurd explanations for its own unpopularity. The most idiotic of these – that the campaign wasn’t Left-wing enough – reminds me of the apologists who insisted after the 1983 Labour defeat that the electorate had failed to “understand our message”. It took another decade for the realisation to dawn that voters had – boy, had they ever – understood it. This was not incomprehension: it was repudiation.
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11657461/If-Labour-thinks-voters-got-it-wrong-it-has-learnt-nothing.html

For the extreme on the left (in my opinion, moreso than on the extreme of the right) the "ends justify the means" and if the ballot will not suffice there is always an alternative.  While some on the left of the LPC and some on the right of the NDP will find common ground I think that the Waffle core will never permit a joining - except perhaps as an expedient coalition.


----------



## suffolkowner (7 Jun 2015)

ERC I agree with this but it just seems to me that Trudeau seems to be getting worse at his job not better, I question his judgement. Perhaps it is all rhetoric and when the time comes the obvious will happen. 

Will they join form a coalition in the face of a conservative minority?

Kirkhill

I think it is easier for the true believers to hold sway when the possibility of success is not great. The NDP have never really had a chance federally before.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jun 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> ERC I agree with this but it just seems to me that Trudeau seems to be getting worse at his job not better, I question his judgement. Perhaps it is all rhetoric and when the time comes the obvious will happen.
> 
> _Will they join form a coalition in the face of a conservative minority?_
> 
> ...




My guess is that once again it's a question of _balance_ ...

Let's, first, posit a weak CPC minority: IF the LPC and NDP are very close in seats then they _might_ be persuaded into a coalition IF they can find some, enough common ground ... but see Kirkhill's comments, above. If one party or the other has a large advantage and there is, clearly, a senior and a junior partner then _I believe_ that M Mulcair would be unwilling to join as junior partner, but M Trudeau would be *unable* to join as the junior partner: the LCP would rather go to the polls again, and risk everything, than play second fiddle to the NDP.

If the CPC minority is strong then I suspect that the _Manley Liberals_ might force the party to support the Conservatives while they, yet again, examine their leadership.

(Like you, I mistrust M Trudeau's judgement. _I think_ M Trudeau is a weak, indecisive leader ~ not, in other words much of a leader at all. _I believe_ he lacks what the English call "bottom," _gravitas_, if you like, but it actually means more than that: depth, roots, grounding, principles, even moral courage. I don't think M Trudeau has much "bottom" at all, and I seriously mistrust his _guru_, Gerald Butts.)


----------



## suffolkowner (7 Jun 2015)

Sometimes I worry that the attraction to charisma/gravitas etc.. is a holdover from a tribal past and wonder if it serves us well in selecting modern leaders


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Jun 2015)

I believe that charisma and gravitas are actually opposing concepts suffolkowner. 

Charisma is a magical appeal of the individual.  Gravitas is the sense that there is more to the individual than just charisma - that the individual has standing based on capabilities and also is a person of principle. The Charismatic is never bothered with niceties like rationalization.  Their's is a purely emotive attraction.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jun 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> As much as I'm not entirely wild about the Liberals/Trudeau Jr. to get the reins, I'd be surprised if the NDP's lead remains in place as we get closer to election day.  I stand to be corrected, but the NDP's never been Canada's "let's give _them_ a try now that we're sick of the incumbents" party.



Two words - Bob Rae

You need only look at where that took us on a Provincial level to forecast the chaos that would ensue at the national level.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jun 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Kirkhill, I agree Mulcair and Trudeau do not seem to get along. But how long can the Liberals and NDP continue to lose elections. Eventually you would think someone would smell their way to power much like Harper and McKay especially without the vote subsidy going forward



I think the Blue Liberals will get off the X faster and sit with the CPC (even using a fig leaf like "Government of national unity") since they are far closer philosophically than the LPC and NDP. If anything, the National Socialist BQ was far closer to the Social Democratic NDP than any other party, which I think goes a long way to explaining why the Orange Crush overwhelmed Quebec. 

As you note, Tom Mulcair does not have to be the "junior" partner any more and the Young Dauphin's preening sense of self worth would prevent him from being a junior partner anyway. Looking at how the situation "out there" has deteriorated in Ukraine, the EUzone (preparing for a formal or informal Greek default), the Middle East and East Asia, I suspect a lot of people will be looking for a safe harbour rather than strike out in new directions. As Edward tells us, there are always "events" which could conspire to derail any plans, even the CPC's, but on balance I think the most likely "events" will probably go the other way for the electorate.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jun 2015)

There is an interesting article in the _National Post_ that includes a _Forum Research_ poll that show yet another statistical dead heat, but one that differs from the polls David Akin has posted ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   
          ... the Liberals are ahead (32%) of the CPC (31%) and NDP (28%).

The article also says that 57% of Canadians would support a coalition ... I'm guessing that 95% of that 57% are thinking only of a LPC/NDP coalition but I would remind you that two coalitions are theoretically possible:


          ---- NDP ---------- Liberals ---------- Conservatives -----

There would be some members of each party who would balk, even revolt, at any coalition but the Liberals are better able to choose between a NDP/Liberal or Liberal/CPC coalition.

I could, happily, accept a CPC/Liberal coalition that put the Conservatives squarely in charge on fiscal issues and the Liberals in charge of Law and Order and social _policy_ (but not social spending).


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jun 2015)

The "middle class" is the holy grail for the CPC, LPC and NDP: but what is the _middle class_. The _Globe and Mail_'s Konrad Yakabuski tries to add some light to the heat in this article which is reproduced (with links ~ and the links matter) under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/there-is-no-middle-in-the-middle-class-debate/article24827509/


> There is no middle in the middle-class debate
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




_I believe_ that the "lower taxes and less spending" argument is easier to make to the "middle class" (however it self defines) because we are, constantly, bombarded with stories of government programmes and projects that are over-budget, late and don't work as intended and, while tax cuts are often small, hardly noticeable to many, they are, at least not increases. We _know_ we are spending too much and _we suspect_ that our taxes are too high, because the money is wasted on failed programmes and projects.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jun 2015)

And, back to polls, where ThreeHundredEight.com has its own numbers:





Source: http://www.threehundredeight.com/2015/06/may-2015-federal-polling-averages.html?spref=tw

A bare majority in a 338 seat House of Commons is 169. ThreeHundredEight.com says the CPC *can* (but _probably_ will not) form a majority but the LPC and NDP cannot.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The "middle class" is the holy grail for the CPC, LPC and NDP: but what is the _middle class_. The _Globe and Mail_'s Konrad Yakabuski tries to add some light to the heat in this article which is reproduced (with links ~ and the links matter) under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/there-is-no-middle-in-the-middle-class-debate/article24827509/
> 
> _I believe_ that the "lower taxes and less spending" argument is easier to make to the "middle class" (however it self defines) because we are, constantly, bombarded with stories of government programmes and projects that are over-budget, late and don't work as intended and, while tax cuts are often small, hardly noticeable to many, they are, at least not increases. We _know_ we are spending too much and _we suspect_ that our taxes are too high, because the money is wasted on failed programmes and projects.



By streamlining admin, eliminating "failed" programs (i.e. ones which failed to acheive their goals) and bundling up duplicated programs (lately the emails I get for "Governmentr funding of your start up business now claim that there are over _*500*_ different programs to apply to), I'm sure we can eliminate billions of government spending and not touch a single dollar of "entitlement" program for voters.

The winning formula might be to sell this streamlining and cost cutting as a way to reduce the tax and government fees burden on the average Canadian family of 4 from @ 44% to 35%. Offering the average middle class Canadian household an almost 10% increase in their take home pay? Where else would you be able to get that in any public or private sector job?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (8 Jun 2015)

We spend less on programs than we do on tax expenditures.  How about we re-write the tax code to eliminate the fiscal gerry-mandering.  Cild's Sports Credit?  Really?  Income splitting in a very narrow band?  Really?  All of that is revenue that has been lost to the government.


----------



## Kilo_302 (8 Jun 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> We spend less on programs than we do on tax expenditures.  How about we re-write the tax code to eliminate the fiscal gerry-mandering.  Cild's Sports Credit?  Really?  Income splitting in a very narrow band?  Really?  All of that is revenue that has been lost to the government.



To that I would add the GST cut. Economists across the political spectrum warned it would serve no real purpose other than to reduce government revenue. The idea that people in lower income brackets benefit more than the wealthy from a 2% decrease in a sales tax is ridiculous. It's the wealthy who make purchases large enough to see a real benefit. The poor benefit more from government programs than 2 cents per dollar back in their pocket. Then again, this government has never much for data, math or reality.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jun 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> To that I would add the GST cut. Economists across the political spectrum warned it would serve no real purpose other than to reduce government revenue. The idea that people in lower income brackets benefit more than the wealthy from a 2% decrease in a sales tax is ridiculous. It's the wealthy who make purchases large enough to see a real benefit. The poor benefit more from government programs than 2 cents per dollar back in their pocket. Then again, this government has never much for data, math or reality.



Is there anything in this life that makes you happy?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (8 Jun 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Is there anything in this life that makes you happy?



The GST cut made me very unhappy too.  A cheap political decision masquerading as a serious and principled policy option.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jun 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> To that I would add the GST cut. _Economists across the political spectrum warned it would serve no real purpose other than to reduce government revenue._ The idea that people in lower income brackets benefit more than the wealthy from a 2% decrease in a sales tax is ridiculous. It's the wealthy who make purchases large enough to see a real benefit. The poor benefit more from government programs than 2 cents per dollar back in their pocket. Then again, this government has never much for data, math or reality.





			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The GST cut made me very unhappy too.  A cheap political decision masquerading as a serious and principled policy option.




_I believe_ that reducing revenue was the "purpose" and the "policy option," how _principled_ it was is a matter of opinion.

Many commentators have said, and _I agree_, that Prime Minister Harper wants to make Canada into a more _conservative_ (_liberal_, by my definition) place and one of the ways that _I think_ he is doing that is by making it harder and harder and harder to spend on new programmes. _My sense_ of the prime minister is that he is a fiscal hawk but a political pragmatist: he knows he cannot make deep cuts to social programmes, even if, in his *heart* and *mind*, he knows they are necessary, and still get reelected. What he can do is hamstring future governments, of whatever stripe, by making it harder and harder to raise revenue. Is that _principled_? No ... not unless one is also a committed fiscal hawk. Even some fiscal hawks think it's a but unfair to tie the hands of future governments.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jun 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The GST cut made me very unhappy too.  A cheap political decision masquerading as a serious and principled policy option.



I, personally, am in favour of a Flat Tax.  

Back to the GST.  Cuts to GST affect all.  Just that some spend more than others, and then naturally would benefit more from such a cut really is not an issue; unless you are of the "MAKE THE RICH PAY" ilk.   Higher income earners pay higher taxes as is.  The "MAKE THE RICH PAY" crowd are actually the ones who fail to see that this is not the way to go; the removal of incentives for people to use their initiative to earn more to better their lives.  That crowd would prefer to live on the dole.  Problem is: Who pays the taxes so that they can live on the dole?   Why those who pay the higher taxes of course, even with all their loopholes.  Welfare is killing us.


----------



## ballz (8 Jun 2015)

I am against cutting the GST tax (for now) as it is a very efficient tax. Consumption taxes are much more efficient than income taxes. They do not affect consumer behaviour and they are cheap to administer.

There are other taxes that should be reduced first.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (8 Jun 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The GST cut made me very unhappy too.  A cheap political decision masquerading as a serious and principled policy option.



Anything that puts more money in my pocket I'm OK with.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jun 2015)

A much more streamlined tax system is much better, more efficient at getting revenues and cheaper to administer, so I am in favour of that.

I do object to the convention of calling tax cuts "expenditures", it is not the government's money, it belongs to the people who earned it.

If anything, lets make the change from "revenue reduction" to "overspending" and put the onus where it really belongs.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Jun 2015)

Reducing GST was good politics and bad policy.


----------



## suffolkowner (8 Jun 2015)

It would have been far better in my mind to cut income taxes rather than the GST.  Its done now unless reversed by another government or the difference taken up by the provinces. Governments are going to have to find another source of revenue than income taxes as the number of people making enough to generate a net benefit to the treasury is under downward pressure.

The rich pay taxes to keep the wolves away from the doors in my opinion, they also benefit from the cheap labour supply from poor people. I'm all in favour of trying anything as nothing the government does can affect me, I wonder how many other people are truly willing to deal with the consequences.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jun 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> ..... I'm all in favour of trying anything as nothing the government does can affect me, I wonder how many other people are truly willing to deal with the consequences.



Everything the Government does affects me.  We have put ourselves into a position that we need to be taxed.  Can the system we use to tax the population be improved?  Sure it can.  Will everyone be happy?  Never.  Perhaps a start to our tax reform could be with the removal of 'taxes on taxes', such as those seen in gasoline taxes.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Jun 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps a start to our tax reform could be with the removal of 'taxes on taxes', such as those seen in gasoline taxes.



Or taxing a used car that was purchased in Canada and already was taxed on its full value. Pure money grab.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _I believe_ that reducing revenue was the "purpose" and the "policy option," how _principled_ it was is a matter of opinion.
> 
> Many commentators have said, and _I agree_, that Prime Minister Harper wants to make Canada into a more _conservative_ (_liberal_, by my definition) place and one of the ways that _I think_ he is doing that is by making it harder and harder and harder to spend on new programmes. _My sense_ of the prime minister is that he is a fiscal hawk but a political pragmatist: he knows he cannot make deep cuts to social programmes, even if, in his *heart* and *mind*, he knows they are necessary, and still get reelected. What he can do is hamstring future governments, of whatever stripe, by making it harder and harder to raise revenue. Is that _principled_? No ... not unless one is also a committed fiscal hawk. *Even some fiscal hawks think it's a but unfair to tie the hands of future governments*.



Their hands would only be tied if they chose not to (grow a pair and) raise the GST/HST back up to a level that would actually make all the social programs they want to provide, affordable (i.e. still run a blanched budget).  The GST/HST at higher levels as a slightly imperfect higher VAT is fiscally workable, but as others point out, political dynamite...no, make that political nitroglycerine. 

IMO, the GST/HST should be two points higher and we should be working off debt as the main focus, followed by keeping all our warm fuzzy socialist support programs running as a secondary (NOT primary) line of Govt operations.

 :2c:

G2G


----------



## suffolkowner (9 Jun 2015)

It seems most governments/commentators forget about the debt and are happy with just achieving a balanced/surplus budget, what like once every 8 years? 

While there is large amount of fat in government operations I have found the same to be true with every large institution i have worked with. The removal of unnecessary programs is only a first start and there will undoubtedly be disagreements on what are unnecessary.

In Ontario very soon the education and health ministries will soon approach 90% of the budget you could cut everything else and still not have an impact.

Plus you have to add in the fact that there is unlikely to be the management skill in place to accomplish anything. I was once asked my opinion on my operations budget. I responded pretty good but how am I supposed to operate without fuel and hydro. This was in private industry I think this level of incompetence is fairly common


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jun 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> It would have been far better in my mind to cut income taxes rather than the GST.  Its done now unless reversed by another government or the difference taken up by the provinces. *Governments are going to have to find another source of revenue than income taxes  reduce spending  as the number of people making enough to generate a net benefit to the treasury is under downward pressure*.



FTFY


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jun 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Their hands would only be tied if they chose not to (grow a pair and) raise the GST/HST back up to a level that would actually make _all the social programs they want to provide_, affordable (i.e. still run a blanched budget).  The GST/HST at higher levels as a slightly imperfect higher VAT is fiscally workable, but as others point out, political dynamite...no, make that political nitroglycerine.
> 
> IMO, the GST/HST should be two points higher and we should be working off debt as the main focus, followed by keeping all our warm fuzzy socialist support programs running as a secondary (NOT primary) line of Govt operations.
> 
> ...




"All the social programmes they" (our political leaders, civic, provincial and national) "want to provide" are all the existing social programmes and many, many more. No politician, not even Stephen Harper, maybe especially not Stephen Harper wants to tell Canadians that they cannot have whatever their little hearts (and much, much smaller brains) desire.

Suffolkowner noted that "In Ontario very soon the education and health ministries will soon approach 90% of the budget ..." How long can that be sustained? What happens when infrastructure or public safety or, much more likely and vastly more important, the interest on the public debt needs more and more money? Will the education budget be cut? Will Ontario decide to _reform_ health care? Not f'ing likely! Taxes will go up, and Up, and UP ... until Ontarians finally decide "enough is enough" and we do another, bigger, better (harsher) Mike Harris.

The fact is that ALL of our social programmes, in fact ALL of our programmes of all types, have "cheering sections" that will threaten to punish politicians for trying to be fiscally responsible. Canadians don't want fiscal responsibility if it takes so much as a penny out of their pockets. And, of course: "We get the governments we deserve, don't we?"


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jun 2015)

Looking at all the polls, the one thing which is very clear is the LPC is stuck in third place, and trending downward. I expect a pretty ugly campaign as the supporters of the "Laurentian Consensus" fight desperately to keep what positions of power and influence they have, even as economics and demographics flow westward and the New Canada (everything west of the Ottawa river) grows and matures.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Jun 2015)

Hope you realize Thuc., that everything West of the Ottawa river includes 100% of Ontario. I thought that was where the "Laurentian Elites" you keep talking about mostly reside. In your scenario, Ontario represents 55% of the "vote" in itself.

By the way everybody: Get ready: He's Baaaack! Very strong rumours around in Montreal today that Gilles Duceppe will come back immediately as leader of the Bloc Quebecois to fight the next election, as all their internal polling show him to be the only one that could get the BQ's fortunes turned around.


----------



## Underway (9 Jun 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> By the way everybody: Get ready: He's Baaaack! Very strong rumours around in Montreal today that Gilles Duceppe will come back immediately as leader of the Bloc Quebecois to fight the next election, as all their internal polling show him to be the only one that could get the BQ's fortunes turned around.



CBC article here.

What this means for the NDP in Quebec could be interesting, actually it might benifit the Conservatives a bit as they can split the left vote.  I personally think the Gilles will be smashed again, as Quebec voted NDP not necessarily for Jack but also because of the West-Ontario deal that cut them out of the national conversation.  Quebecers are not happy being on the outside looking in and had no power in gov't for the first time, probably ever.  The younger generation of voters don't care about the Bloc as its "their parents issue", and just want to get on with it.

The Bloc also have no money. It's going to be difficult to get them going.  There was also a lot of anger at them last time I was in Quebec, their arrogance and ignorance of the real issues in Quebec made people vote NDP.  The attitude I heard more than once was "Duccepe told us that to vote NDP was idiotic, well I guess I'm a idiot then".


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jun 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Hope you realize Thuc., that everything West of the Ottawa river includes 100% of Ontario. I thought that was where the "Laurentian Elites" you keep talking about mostly reside. In your scenario, Ontario represents 55% of the "vote" in itself.
> 
> By the way everybody: Get ready: He's Baaaack! Very strong rumours around in Montreal today that Gilles Duceppe will come back immediately as leader of the Bloc Quebecois to fight the next election, as all their internal polling show him to be the only one that could get the BQ's fortunes turned around.



True, "New Canada" includes Ontario (great thinkers from Preston Manning, who coined the term, to our own ERC all agree on this). The "Laurentian Elites" generally were the people who saw the Montreal-Toronto corridor as the economic center of Canada and valued the ability to capture seats in Ontario and Quebec to gain and maintain power in Ottawa.

Today the ability to capture seats in Quebec is no longer as important, and  the economic landscape of Ontario has changed far beyond the "Industrial Heartland" model (a long standing trend which the McGuinty/Wynn Liberals ramped up to Warp Speed), so the conditions which supported the Laurentian Consensus are no longer present.

While the "Big Shift" sees a form of small "c" conservatism becoming the new normal for Canada, it may be possible the shifting equilibrium has created chaotic conditions which could lead to all kinds of unlikely outcomes (the "Orange Crush" of the last election is almost certainly one of the signs of the breakdown of the Laurentian Consensus model, and chaotic systems have outputs that are not linearly correlated with the inputs).


----------



## Rocky Mountains (9 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Canadians don't want fiscal responsibility if it takes so much as a penny out of their pockets.



Former Alberta premier, Jim Prentice, was crucified when he said that taxpayers should look in the mirror to see the cause of over-spending.  Of course he was 100 % correct.  And we wonder why politicians don't tell the truth.


----------



## suffolkowner (9 Jun 2015)

Thucydides

Everyone talks about reduced spending but I never hear what people are willing to give up. I am assuming most people here (including myself) are not overly excited about reducing the defence budget anymore than has already been done.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jun 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Thucydides
> 
> Everyone talks about reduced spending but I never hear what people are willing to give up. I am assuming most people here (including myself) are not overly excited about reducing the defence budget anymore than has already been done.





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> The fact is that ALL of our social programmes, in fact ALL of our programmes of all types, have "cheering sections" that will threaten to punish politicians for trying to be fiscally responsible. Canadians don't want fiscal responsibility if it takes so much as a penny out of their pockets. And, of course: "We get the governments we deserve, don't we?"


----------



## ballz (9 Jun 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Thucydides
> 
> Everyone talks about reduced spending but I never hear what people are willing to give up. I am assuming most people here (including myself) are not overly excited about reducing the defence budget anymore than has already been done.



At the federal level, I am willing to give up everything excluding the protection of life, liberty, and property, (so the military, police, and justice system) and *some* national parks / museums / etc (ones that wouldn't make sense belonging to the provinces)... All the corporate welfare, EI, healthcare, education subsidies, all the tax credits / etc that exist to arbitrarily support some people's life choices, etc, should be cut at the federal level along with spending. If the provinces want to raise their own revenue and run their own healthcare system or EI business, no problem, that's their call.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jun 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> At the federal level, I am willing to give up everything excluding the protection of life, liberty, and property, (so the military, police, and justice system) and *some* national parks / museums / etc (ones that wouldn't make sense belonging to the provinces)... All the corporate welfare, EI, healthcare, education subsidies, all the tax credits / etc that exist to arbitrarily support some people's life choices, etc, should be cut at the federal level along with spending. If the provinces want to raise their own revenue and run their own healthcare system or EI business, no problem, that's their call.




_My personal opinion_: you left out one vital federal responsibility ~ maintaining a strong, stable, trusted economy. While the currency, _per se_, may be the BoC's responsibility, the economy is the responsibility of the elected government.


----------



## ballz (9 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _My personal opinion_: you left out one vital federal responsibility ~ maintaining a strong, stable, trusted economy. While the currency, _per se_, may be the BoC's responsibility, the economy is the responsibility of the elected government.



I respectfully disagree. I would have probably agreed with that as a fourth thing before reading "How an economy grows and why it crashes" by Peter Schiff. I recommend it for anybody.

I think monetary and fiscal policy are a charade. Our currency should be backed by something of value and left alone, and the only thing the government needs to do to help our economy is stay out of it (the best it can). Artificially low interest rates (only possible because our currency is literally just paper, backed by nothing, and only valuable as long as people continue to play with paper) encourage people and governments to take on debt, and not save. Couple this with our economy's addiction to stimulus, and we have a disaster waiting to happen, as it did in 2008 and will again.

Protectionism, another way the government "helps" the economy, no thanks. If someone is better at producing a product and wants to sell it to Canadians for dirt cheap, let them. While everyone is tempted to save a local business that can't compete with say, China, by protecting it with tariffs, they are really just dragging the economy down by 1. making prices higher than they need to be, therefore those who wish to be productive are hindered and 2. keeping a non-competitive business in business, tying up useful capital, time, and energy on a sunken ship instead of allowing it to reallocate to more fruitful ventures.

Besides, the federal government being limited to life liberty and property does not restrict the the *provinces* from being protectionist if they want to be. They can "stimulate" the economy if they want, just waste their own damn money doing so.

I can agree with certain regulations. I can see a role for the government to "write the rules" for all those wishing to play the game, but they need to make a fair set of rules and not pick and choose which companies they will help win or help stop from losing. The limit to these rules should be to protect Canadians. For example, health and safety aspects of food-handling to prevent one bad company from killing a lot of people. That's about as far as I'd agree with the government intervening in the economy.


----------



## suffolkowner (9 Jun 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> At the federal level, I am willing to give up everything excluding the protection of life, liberty, and property, (so the military, police, and justice system) and *some* national parks / museums / etc (ones that wouldn't make sense belonging to the provinces)... All the corporate welfare, EI, healthcare, education subsidies, all the tax credits / etc that exist to arbitrarily support some people's life choices, etc, should be cut at the federal level along with spending. If the provinces want to raise their own revenue and run their own healthcare system or EI business, no problem, that's their call.
> [/q
> 
> The provinces don't really have the revenue access that the federal government has unless the federal government were to devolve them constitutionally. If it did that you could get rid of the military too since the federal government wouldn't have the revenue streams to fight a war anyways.
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Jun 2015)

Some of you may be old enough to remember this: the GST cuts and other revenue-trimming measures were, indirectly, prompted by the preceding Liberal government.  They started low-balling their surplus estimate at the start of each FY, and then at YE would announce a grab-bag of popular new spending to encourage voters to think happy thoughts about Liberals.  Others in Parliament felt the unpredicted extra surpluses (windfalls) should have been employed to further eliminate accumulated deficit (debt), to reduce taxes, or provide simple rebates back to taxpayers.  This cause/effect between one party's spending habits and another party's resolve to stop it was discussed at the time; it isn't a secret or imaginary relationship.  This is how we reached the situation many are complaining about.

So, a Lesson for those who are now complaining: if you can not or will not curb your self-serving abuses (or of those you tacitly support), someone may eventually curb them for you using whatever means are available - blunt and clumsy or not.  But the fault - the first cause - lies with the abusers.

(And: I agree that GST cuts are good politics and bad policy.  So, to the LPC and NDP and their supporters: commit to raising the tax, and to using surpluses only to retire debt.  Show some temperance, justice, fortitude, and wisdom.)

(And: I support the removal of chickensh!t little boutique tax credits.  But I more strongly support clear and simple transfers and expenditures which promote two-parent family formation by leaving money in the family and letting the family decide exactly where it is spent.)

Another couple of things some of you may remember: the amusing pie charts in the T1 package literature that showed 30%+ of revenues were required simply to pay debt servicing charges - money that wasn't available for program spending because politicians a decade earlier had been too cowardly to manage finances prudently; and, in the same tax packages, Tax Table B.

About that debt: at the end of FY 74/75, it stood at ~ $28B.  From FY 75/76 to FY 86/87 operating deficits were run to a sum of ~ $67B.  During the period of operating surpluses from FY 87/88 to 08/09, the sum of interest charges was ~ $871B.  (Nominal, not adjusted dollars, and the tables include a note that an accounting change between 83 and 84 means data before and after are not directly comparable.  But I am citing for effect, not pinpoint accuracy).  That's a lot of interest paid relative to principal spent.

Current debt charges per year stand at ~$28B.  Remember that next time someone from a party that likes to spend is complaining about resistance to spending another couple of billion - their bad habits are the reason they can't spend 10 times that much right now.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jun 2015)

Interesting you should say that, Brad ... it matches something one of my online contacts posted today ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





               ... which are words by which we should all aim to live, and vote.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jun 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Thucydides
> 
> Everyone talks about reduced spending but I never hear what people are willing to give up. I am assuming most people here (including myself) are not overly excited about reducing the defence budget anymore than has already been done.



There is lots of fat to cut. I routinely receive spam emails telling me there are more than 500 government programs to provide grants and loans to small business. Why do we need 500 different programs to do essentially the same thing? Eliminating 499 sets of program directors, staffs, office budgets etc. is a pretty quick and dirty way to get started. Combing through the government and eliminating duplicate and overlapping programs and their staffs, office budgets and so on would save an unknown number of billions right there. Edward has noted many times there are hundreds of tiny offices in Ottawa who carry out obscure tasks which no one notices. If no one is noticing these jobs, maybe they are not very important. Getting rid of them would save another unknown, but probably significant amount of money.

I am still trying to track down the origin of this one, but I once heard that if the GoC were to close down departments and ministries which overlapped Provincial jurisdiction as outlined in the BNA, that would save @ $19 billion/year. Since the Provinces are already doing these things, it is hard to argue this is a "cut in services". 

Transfers to the Provinces could be streamlined by defining what "services" are being equalized, then setting the amount based on the most efficient province for that service (for example, provinces with the highest standardized test scores would be looked at in terms of how much they spent per student. The one with the "optimum" outcome (i.e. scores well against Korean kids, but costs less per student than the other provinces) would set the amount other provinces receive for schooling). Ruthless cost comparisons for transfer payments could cut the costs by a considerable margin. Once again, who could complain because they are getting funded to the levels of the "best" provinces for schooling, health care etc.? (If the receiving Provinces are not getting the same results, then they now have incentive to change things for the better).

As for the idea the Government should be in charge of stabilizing the economy, I agree if you mean via passive means (Peace order and good government, stable and transparent administration of Laws and regulations, the "setting the table" argument). I disagree if you are talking about actrive measures (except in extreme events like war  or very large scale natural disasters like BC sliding into the ocean). My historical readings of the "Free Banking" era, prior to governments being able to really manipulate the economy through fiscal and monetary measures (no Federal Reserve, and the First and Second "Bank of America" had both been closed by the Congress) shows that economic dislocations like crashes, recessions and even depressions were of limited effect and duration. Contrast this with the state of affairs _after_ the creation of the Federal Reserve. Niall Ferguson points out a similar state of affairs existed in England when the Bank of England's powers were more theoretical than real (much like the GG's reserve powers) in his book "The Great Degeneration".

While cumulative cuts on the order of $40-50 billion a year are great, one should note that it would still take over a decade to pay down the Federal debt at that rate, and the unfunded liabilities would take another decade + to cover. So if this was to be a serious plan, it would commit governments for the next generation, something I think would be virtually impossible to do.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jun 2015)

Another Television personality in the Liberal fold, has difficulty answering detailed questions of union endorsement.

Federal Liberal candidate Seamus O’Regan picked up the endorsement of a labour union on Tuesday as he tries to unseat NDP MP Ryan Cleary in St. John’s South-Mount Pearl. But O’Regan was surprisingly unprepared to answer detailed questions about the legislation he’s campaigning against. NTV’s Katie Breen reports:

http://ntv.ca/seamus-oregan-unprepared-to-answer-detailed-questions-after-union-endorsement/


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Jun 2015)

I watched a bit of the press conference with Gilles Duceppe making his comeback announcement today.  Is it just me, or does he remind you of Professor Severus Snape (albeit with grey hair) of the Harry Potter movies.  That makes me less able to take him seriously.

On a more serious note, I don't recall which polling firm it was on the radio, but the gist of the lead up to their sound bite (which sadly I couldn't stick around to hear fully) was polls are indicating that folks in general are starting to really see the possibility of a NDP government federally with the recent success in Alberta.  That, is somewhat worrying.  

Also, Mulcaire is making noise that he sees a good deal of support for the idea of axing the Senate.  A canny move on Tom's part if you ask me.  Many folks are sick to death, myself included, with the Senate and would not necessarily miss this load of freeloading bastards kicked to the curb.  Both things will be sources of votes to be mined by the dippers.


----------



## Underway (10 Jun 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I watched a bit of the press conference with Gilles Duceppe making his comeback announcement today.  Is it just me, or does he remind you of Professor Severus Snape (albeit with grey hair) of the Harry Potter movies.  That makes me less able to take him seriously.
> 
> On a more serious note, I don't recall which polling firm it was on the radio, but the gist of the lead up to their sound bite (which sadly I couldn't stick around to hear fully) was polls are indicating that folks in general are starting to really see the possibility of a NDP government federally with the recent success in Alberta.  That, is somewhat worrying.
> 
> Also, Mulcaire is making noise that he sees a good deal of support for the idea of axing the Senate.  A canny move on Tom's part if you ask me.  Many folks are sick to death, myself included, with the Senate and would not necessarily miss this load of freeloading bastards kicked to the curb.  Both things will be sources of votes to be mined by the dippers.


Until Ontario and Quebec say get rid of the senate it stays.  And they will never get rid of it, especially Quebec.  It would require a round of constitutional wrangling and no one wants that.  It would require a big gift or de-evolution of powers from the Fed to get Quebec onside for a senate removal, and I just don't see it happening.  Senate reform might make it through negotiations though, with elected senators or somesuch.

Modified:  Oh look 10 seconds after I post I find this article that supports my supposition.


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Jun 2015)

That may be so, but there will be voters out there who like what Mulcaire is proposing and that will translate into votes for his side.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jun 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That may be so, but there will be voters out there who like what Mulcaire is proposing and that will translate into votes for his side.



Which also means fewer votes for the Greens, BQ and Liberals. Given the fairly hard ceiling on CPC voters, all I can say is: Go split that vote Tom!


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jun 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I watched a bit of the press conference with Gilles Duceppe making his comeback announcement today.  Is it just me, or does he remind you of Professor Severus Snape (albeit with grey hair) of the Harry Potter movies.  That makes me less able to take him seriously.
> 
> On a more serious note, I don't recall which polling firm it was on the radio, but _the gist of the lead up to their sound bite (which sadly I couldn't stick around to hear fully) was polls are indicating that folks in general are starting to really see the possibility of a NDP government federally_ with the recent success in Alberta.  That, is somewhat worrying.
> 
> Also, Mulcaire is making noise that he sees a good deal of support for the idea of axing the Senate.  A canny move on Tom's part if you ask me.  Many folks are sick to death, myself included, with the Senate and would not necessarily miss this load of freeloading bastards kicked to the curb.  Both things will be sources of votes to be mined by the dippers.




Which, as our friend Thucydides points out is good news for the Conservatives as it promises to split the progressive anti-CPC vote.

I need to repeat: I have nothing but the best of wishes for the Liberal Party of Canada; _I believe_ it and the CPC are the _natural_ and _responsible_ governing parties and each needs to be ready to relieve the other in power when, inevitably, the other party gets old, stale, corrupt and so on. No matter how far _Le Bon Jack_ Layton and M Mulcair may have pushed and dragged the NDP towards the centre, that party's basic (_loony left_) political DNA would make it a danger in government. But, for now, I cannot trust the LPC when it has M Trudeau (and Gerald Butts) at the helm ... I think it needs to get a new, grown up leader; so, for the moment, I wish the NDP good fortune in 2015. _I believe_ an NDP minority would be less harmful than a government led by M Trudeau.


----------



## ballz (10 Jun 2015)

:facepalm: I'm going to assume this is half my fault and half the internet's fault.

Gents, I was *NOT* making any claims that healthcare spending is being cut. I *wish* it were being cut.

Read what I was responding to:



			
				suffolkowner said:
			
		

> The provinces don't really have the revenue access that the federal government has unless the federal government were to devolve them constitutionally.



I responded with 



> The provinces have the same revenue access that the feds have... their own people. The feds can continue to tax Canadians at a federal level and Alberta can continue to tax Albertans at a provincial level.


 This was the introduction of a hypothetical, Alberta being the metaphor for provinces.



> The only difference *would* be the feds *would* lower their tax rates and provide less, while the provinces *would* raise their tax rates (potentially) in order to provide the things the feds are cutting (like healthcare).



Note the emphasis on the word WOULD. This was a hypothetical scenario.

I was trying to explain to suffolkowner how decentralizing *would* work if it were to happen. The feds would cut revenue and cut spending, while the provinces would raise revenue and spend on whatever social programs their little hearts desire. Healthcare was just an example.

I hope fixing this _mistake_ that has caused this miscommunication clarifies what I meant so that we can move on



> The only difference *would* be the feds *would* lower their tax rates and provide less, while the provinces *would* raise their tax rates (potentially) in order to provide the things the feds are *would be* cutting (like healthcare).


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Jun 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> provide the things the feds are cutting (like healthcare).



Try again, federal health transfer payments are nearly doubled for Alberta since 2005. The federal government doesn't provide health services (besides ours), it gives the provinces money to administer the system.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp#Alberta


----------



## ballz (10 Jun 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Try again, federal health transfer payments are nearly doubled for Alberta since 2005. The federal government doesn't provide health services (besides ours), it gives the provinces money to administer the system.
> 
> http://www.fin.gc.ca/fedprov/mtp-eng.asp#Alberta



I know how the healthcare system works, I even wondered as I typed that if someone was really going to bother correcting that nuance instead of just accepting the point it was demonstrating.

EDIT:

Judging by what you quoted, I realize now that you think I was being literal (that the feds are cutting healthcare) instead of talking about decentralization of services and how it *would* work. I was not. I was addressing a point brought up that provinces don't have the same access to revenue streams as the feds.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (10 Jun 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Another Television personality in the Liberal fold, has difficulty answering detailed questions of union endorsement.
> 
> Federal Liberal candidate Seamus O’Regan picked up the endorsement of a labour union on Tuesday as he tries to unseat NDP MP Ryan Cleary in St. John’s South-Mount Pearl. But O’Regan was surprisingly unprepared to answer detailed questions about the legislation he’s campaigning against. NTV’s Katie Breen reports:
> 
> http://ntv.ca/seamus-oregan-unprepared-to-answer-detailed-questions-after-union-endorsement/



Legit question- When's the last time a journalist turned politician and something positive happened? Duffy, Wallen, Kent, etc... unless we count the last 2 of 3 governors general


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jun 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Legit question- When's the last time a journalist turned politician and something positive happened? Duffy, Wallen, Kent, etc... unless we count the last 2 of 3 governors general



It is getting positively scary.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jun 2015)

Don't forget Jim Munson....


----------



## Retired AF Guy (10 Jun 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> The provinces have the same revenue access that the feds have... their own people. The feds can continue to tax Canadians at a federal level and Alberta can continue to tax Albertans at a provincial level. The only difference would be the feds would lower their tax rates and provide less, while the provinces would raise their tax rates (potentially) in order to provide the things the feds are cutting (like healthcare).



Does not the province collect the tax revenues and then pass it on to the Feds??


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jun 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Does not the province collect the tax revenues and then pass it on to the Feds??



Your Income Tax does not go to the Province; it goes to the Feds who disperse it to the Provinces.....That or for some reason my Ontario taxes are going to Quebec then back to Ontario.


----------



## ballz (10 Jun 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Does not the province collect the tax revenues and then pass it on to the Feds??



Someone correct me if I am wrong... Income taxes are collected by the Receiver General of Canada (who operates the treasury), simply to have all the money go to one pot. The CRA then administers the income tax act, and tells the Receiver General how much money to send out to each of the provinces for their share (based on whatever tax rates they had) to the province and how much to send each individual for their refund. If you owe taxes, the CRA tells you to write out a cheque to the Receiver General of Canada. Same idea with GST/PST/HST. It all gets collected by the RG and then the provinces cut is sent to them by the RG.

Things like user fees that the province has put in place (like motor registration) stays within the province.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Jun 2015)

>provide the things the feds are cutting (like healthcare).

I'll guess: you are referring to the end-of-life of Paul Martin's "health accord" (because that's what most writers and pot-stirrers are referring to when they mention "Conservative health care cuts").

If not, disregard what follows - although I look forward to an explanation of what is being cut.

Otherwise, the claim is utter bullsh!t.  The core of the health accord was a formula to increase transfers 6% a year for 10 years.  When the accord expired, the annual increases  had established a new baseline which was to be (and was) retained.  The Liberals set the rate and set the end of life. When the Conservatives took over, they retained the rate, and extended the life for 2 years.  By my understanding of "increase" and "cut", the Conservatives increased funding.  6% a year for 12 years essentially yields a doubling.

Since the end of the accord, the Conservatives proposed to increase funding at the rate of GDP growth, with a 3% floor (generous, considering current rates of GDP growth).  So that is still, by any reasonable understanding of "increase" and "cut", an increase. 

What is being called a "cut" is the fact that Martin's brainchild had a termination date, for which - by some peculiar leap of logic apparently sensible only to progressive activists and media hacks - the Conservatives are being blamed.  For the hard of thinking: if the Conservatives had done nothing at all - taken no action whatsoever, laid no hand on no thing - the accord would have terminated.

I am tired of most of the outright lies promulgated by the NDP and their healthcare union brothers and other healthcare activist lickspittles, but really tired of this one.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Jun 2015)

Canada Health Transfer.

Not to be confused with Canada Social Transfer or Equalization payments.

And: the Conservatives have done a lot to restore/increase various transfers since the  (necessary, Liberal) cuts to eliminate the budget deficit.  It would be refreshing if those who complained long and loud when the cuts were made would simply keep their mouths shut if they are unwilling to say "thank you".


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jun 2015)

Thomas Mulcair will try to make the Senate an election issue, and he just _might_ succeed ... especially if senators keep acting in ways that make journalist David Akin indignant in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Winnipeg Sun_:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2015/06/10/deafening-disrespect-of-aggrieved-senators


> Deafening disrespect of aggrieved senators
> 
> BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF
> 
> ...




_I think_ that abolishing the Senate is a non-starter; _I'm sure_ M Mulcair knows that ... but he can fan the flames of Canadians' (not just David Akin's) outrage for quite a while, and to good (political) effect.

_I suspect_ the Clerk and a small battalion of Constitutional scholars are looking for ways to satisfy the letter of the _Supremes'_ ruling: to have a Constitutional agreement on Senate reform, but without opening the entire Constitution for negotiation.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Jun 2015)

Mr Mulcair will take that bone and run with it a long way while doing some excellent (in his eyes) credibility damage to both parties.  They have plenty of chickens that could come home to roost and Tom's going to build a gigantic coop to house them all.  Here in Atlantic Canada, the CPC is pretty well toast and the Dippers are making amazing headway into Liberal territory.  I believe they will pick up a few more seats in October.

As you say, ER, he might not be able to do anything about the Senate in practicality but he is going to fan the flames into as big a bondfire of the vanities as he can which will to some extent cut into both of the other guys territories.


----------



## ballz (11 Jun 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> although I look forward to an explanation of what is being cut.
> 
> Otherwise, the claim is utter bullsh!t.


\

I posted a response to this last night and couldn't figure out why it wasn't here. Turns out I accidentally modified my other post when I was trying to quote it. Anyway, here is the response I was trying to post (unfortunately my original post that has raised your concern is now FUBAR'd):

 :facepalm: I'm going to assume this is half my fault and half the internet's fault.

Gents, I was *NOT* making any claims that healthcare spending is being cut. I *wish* it were being cut.

Read what I was responding to:



			
				suffolkowner said:
			
		

> The provinces don't really have the revenue access that the federal government has unless the federal government were to devolve them constitutionally.



I responded with 



> The provinces have the same revenue access that the feds have... their own people. The feds can continue to tax Canadians at a federal level and Alberta can continue to tax Albertans at a provincial level.


 This was the introduction of a hypothetical, Alberta being the metaphor for provinces.



> The only difference *would* be the feds *would* lower their tax rates and provide less, while the provinces *would* raise their tax rates (potentially) in order to provide the things the feds are cutting (like healthcare).



Note the emphasis on the word WOULD. This was a hypothetical scenario.

I was trying to explain to suffolkowner how decentralizing *would* work if it were to happen. The feds would cut revenue and cut spending, while the provinces would raise revenue and spend on whatever social programs their little hearts desire. Healthcare was just an example.

I hope fixing this _mistake_ that has caused this miscommunication clarifies what I meant so that we can move on



> The only difference *would* be the feds *would* lower their tax rates and provide less, while the provinces *would* raise their tax rates (potentially) in order to provide the things the feds are *would be* cutting (like healthcare).


----------



## ballz (11 Jun 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Canada Health Transfer.
> 
> Not to be confused with Canada Social Transfer or Equalization payments.
> 
> And: the Conservatives have done a lot to restore/increase various transfers since the  (necessary, Liberal) cuts to eliminate the budget deficit.  It would be refreshing if those who complained long and loud when the cuts were made would simply keep their mouths shut if they are unwilling to say "thank you".



Complain long and loud about cuts? Have you read any of my posts prior to this? I wish the cuts were deeper. I would like to see the Canada Health Act scrapped and the federal government have *nothing* to do with healthcare, just like the Constitution laid out, prior to Trudeau Sr. using the Canada Health Act to undermine the constitution and *steal* that power from the provinces.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jun 2015)

Although I have some quibbles with the health act, it isn't fair to say the feds stole anything.  What they did was say "here is some money, provided you do the following".


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _I suspect_ the Clerk and a small battalion of Constitutional scholars are looking for ways to satisfy the letter of the _Supremes'_ ruling: to have a Constitutional agreement on Senate reform, but without opening the entire Constitution for negotiation.



A canny provincial premier could draft a proposal and get buy-in from other enough provinces for Senate reform, then present the Feds with almost a fait accompli - "We the provinces have spoken and want to fix your mess, since you are unable to do so."

I think we are in a two or three year window where such a thing is possible - I'm certain that the premiers of Ontario and Quebec would love to tweak the current government.


----------



## ballz (11 Jun 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Although I have some quibbles with the health act, it isn't fair to say the feds stole anything.  What they did was say "here is some money, provided you do the following".



They took control of the spending. Whoever controls the money, controls basically everything. A province is now hamstrung from creating its own autonomous healthcare system. If Alberta decides tomorrow that it wants to 100% private, unregulated healthcare, Albertans will still be taxed federally just like every other Canadian but would receive no money from the federal government (which they could then use to do other things). Provincial voters are basically be put in a position where "you can have private healthcare if you want, but we're going to take your money anyway... so go frig your hat, voter."

The Canada Health Act was 100% designed by Trudeau Sr to take the power away from the provinces and centralize it at the top, because, well, he believed that was better. And that's exactly what it did...


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jun 2015)

Sure.  But they also took responsibility for the taxation.  Whichever level of government is willing to demand a tax is surely entitled to decide how it wants the money spent.


----------



## ballz (11 Jun 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Sure.  But they also took responsibility for the taxation. Whichever level of government is willing to demand a tax is surely entitled to decide how it wants the money spent.



Yes, they centralized healthcare, that is what I have been saying so I am not sure what you are trying to argue with me about. 

Who said they were entitled to demand a tax in the first place? Certainly not the Constitution Act. The Constitution Act gives pretty exclusive powers to the provinces for healthcare related services. The only reason the Canada Health Act was introduced instead of a National Healthcare plan run entirely by the feds (can you imagine the disaster?) was because the Constitution didn't specifically state that the provinces had exclusive control of healthcare _spending_, despite the fact that the spirit of the Constitution Act would certainly say so.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jun 2015)

According to a report in the _Globe and Mail_:

     "A group of high-level Liberal and New Democratic backroom veterans has collected millions of dollars from unions and other centre-left interests to run a pre-election advertising campaign attacking Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.
      Beginning on Friday, the group – which calls itself Engage Canada – will begin running television ads across Canada that ..."

What those ads will do, like Conservative attack ads, I hasten to add, is shade and distort the facts ... and economic facts are east to distort, especially when "ordinary Canadians" are the audience. Those "high-level Liberal and New Democratic backroom veterans," using *your* union dues and charitable (you thought) donations, will _*lie*_ to you and me about something ~ a notional but undefined "middle class" ~ that neither they nor most of us, and especially not Justin Trudeau, really understand.

This worked well enough in Ontario last year when, as in the current national pre-campaign, unions and other _progressive_ groups raised and spent millions on anti-PC attack ads, but I'm not sure that they will be preaching to anyone but the choir at the national level. I know that some people are planning to _vote against _Prime Minister Harper, for a variety of reasons ~ treatment of veterans (the Liberal _New Veterans' Charter_) being just one example ~ but my sense is that they are_ not voting *for*_ much of anything. The impact of the "left's" attack ads may be to simply reinforce the confusion of the many and varied anti-Harper factions.

A _majority_ of Canadians doesn't want or vote *for* anything ... it may well be that 65% of Canadians will not vote _*for*_ the CPC, but the 35% who do may be able to elect the government. The vast majority of Canadians who don't like that fact are seriously confused about democracy.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> According to a report in the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> "A group of high-level Liberal and New Democratic backroom veterans has collected millions of dollars from unions and other centre-left interests to run a pre-election advertising campaign attacking Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.
> Beginning on Friday, the group – which calls itself Engage Canada – will begin running television ads across Canada that ..."
> ...








http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Voter_turnout_in_Canada_1867-present.png

This is increasingly an option for Canadians.  In the absence of a compelling reason to vote (for or against) the largest single block of Canadians opt to not vote and leave the field to the partisans.

I don't know which party that dynamic favours but it is certainly a factor in the calculus as the UNINVOLVED do influence the outcome of the vote.

Even no action is an action.


----------



## Underway (12 Jun 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> They took control of the spending. Whoever controls the money, controls basically everything. A province is now hamstrung from creating its own autonomous healthcare system. If Alberta decides tomorrow that it wants to 100% private, unregulated healthcare, Albertans will still be taxed federally just like every other Canadian but would receive no money from the federal government (which they could then use to do other things). Provincial voters are basically be put in a position where "you can have private healthcare if you want, but we're going to take your money anyway... so go frig your hat, voter."
> 
> The Canada Health Act was 100% designed by Trudeau Sr to take the power away from the provinces and centralize it at the top, because, well, he believed that was better. And that's exactly what it did...



This is not entirely true.  The reality is that the federal government gets a choice.  They can stand up to the provincial voters in favour of the new health system or they can back the people who are against the change in the prov and cut off funding.  Its political calculus.  There are a million ways to define private vs public care and lots of shades of grey.  The feds could redefine and continue funding things.  Imagine the political blowback if Ontario decided to go it alone and the feds cut hospital funding so grandma's and sick kids don't get health care?!.  It would be the end of that government (both provincial and federal).

The federal governments know that to actually use their financial clout as a weapon against provinces is suicide, always has been and always will be.  Look at the one common market issue or provincial trade issues etc...  Hell they can't even get rid of marketing boards without something blowing up in their face.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> According to a report in the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> "A group of high-level Liberal and New Democratic backroom veterans has collected millions of dollars from unions and other centre-left interests to run a pre-election advertising campaign attacking Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.
> Beginning on Friday, the group – which calls itself Engage Canada – will begin running television ads across Canada that ..."
> ...




And David Akin (_Sun News_) reports: "On same weekend that _Engage Canada_ comes out with ad attacking Harper Conservatives, their conservative doppelganger, _Working Canadians_, is out with an ad attacking Justin Trudeau: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o86n3MJxarc


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jun 2015)

And regarding both attack ads and health care spending, David Akin (_Sun News_) posted the _Engage Canada_ TV ad ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ABvLHvwMAs ~ and then this:

         _ "In that Engage Canada TV ad, they claim the Conservatives are "cutting health care by $34 billion." That's a flat-out lie, folks. But don't take my word for it -
           - here's the Parliamentary Budget Officer:"_

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




See my remarks, just above where I said "Those "high-level Liberal and New Democratic backroom veterans," using your union dues and charitable (you thought) donations, will _lie _to you and me about something ..." In this case the Liberal/NDP/_progressive_/Laurentian Elites _lie_ is about health care spending.

So _I have a challenge_ for those of you who plan to vote _against_ Prime Minister Harper because you don't like e.g. his government's stand on veterans' benefits ~ _I challenge *you*_ to challenge the parties you plan to support on the numbers: how much will they commit to veterans' benefits? Will Liberals repeal their very own _New Veterans' Charter_? And where will they get the numbers from? From the same place they got their _lie_ about health care spending?


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jun 2015)

It's too early to draw conclusions, which is another way of saying thet the Liberals stil have time to turn things around, but this story, which is reproduce4d under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright from _CBC News_ is encouraging:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-losing-steam-as-election-approaches-polls-suggest-1.3109809


> ANALYSIS | Liberals losing steam as election approaches, polls suggest
> *After leading in the polls for 2 years, the party is in danger of falling behind at the worst possible time*
> 
> By Éric Grenier, for CBC News
> ...




_I think_ voters are, for the very first time, taking the NDP seriously ... voters can compare M Mulcair to Prime Minister Harper and they can imagine both running the country; _I doubt _that M Trudeau fares as well when they (voters) compare him and the prime minister. Voters _like_ M Trudeau; he is, certainly, a nice young man; voters _respect_ Prime Minister Harper and M Mulcair.


----------



## Underway (12 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It's too early to draw conclusions, which is another way of saying thet the Liberals stil have time to turn things around, but this story, which is reproduce4d under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright from _CBC News_ is encouraging:



Your bias is showing... 

I honestly wonder what a federal NDP gov't would really be like.  Not the uber socialists that some ppl think they will be like, but what they will be like when they have to make real decisions with real people at the other end, with real US presidents calling them up and asking for support at this UN meeting etc... and what they will do when their real world consequences come back around at them.  What are they going to say to Russian agression, at a NATO meeting, military funding, fighter jet choices, dealing with first nations when it costs the "white" population money, land or power.  Its a big unknown.  I probably should go to their website and read up.  Harper had to go towards the centre to keep power, I think Mulcair will have to do the same.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Jun 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> Your bias is showing...
> 
> I honestly wonder what a federal NDP gov't would really be like.  Not the uber socialists that some ppl think they will be like, but what they will be like when they have to make real decisions with real people at the other end, with real US presidents calling them up and asking for support at this UN meeting etc... and what they will do when their real world consequences come back around at them.  What are they going to say to Russian agression, at a NATO meeting, military funding, fighter jet choices, dealing with first nations when it costs the "white" population money, land or power.  Its a big unknown.  I probably should go to their website and read up.  Harper had to go towards the centre to keep power, I think Mulcair will have to do the same.



Look at Bob Rae and his time as Ontario premier. You'll get a big preview.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jun 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> _Your bias is showing..._
> 
> I honestly wonder what a federal NDP gov't would really be like.  Not the uber socialists that some ppl think they will be like, but what they will be like when they have to make real decisions with real people at the other end, with real US presidents calling them up and asking for support at this UN meeting etc... and what they will do when their real world consequences come back around at them.  What are they going to say to Russian agression, at a NATO meeting, military funding, fighter jet choices, dealing with first nations when it costs the "white" population money, land or power.  Its a big unknown.  I probably should go to their website and read up.  Harper had to go towards the centre to keep power, I think Mulcair will have to do the same.





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Look at Bob Rae and his time as Ontario premier. You'll get a big preview.




Yes, my bias is showing, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to reiterate that my problem is not with the Liberal Party of Canada, in fact I wish it well because _*I know*_ that we always need a robust, competent "government in waiting" because the Conservatives, the party I support, *will become lazy and corrupt and will need replacing* ... just as did St Laurent's Liberals in the 1950s, Trudeau's Liberals in the 1980s and Chretien's Liberals in the 2000s They all got lazy and some of them were corrupt, too. My problem is with M Trudeau: _I do not believe_ he is fit to lead Canada; _I hope_ he leads the LPC to another third place finish, resigns the leadrship and is replaced by a grownup.

Recceguy: I'm not sure we can trot out Bob Rae as a horrid example any more. Thomas Mulcair in 2015 is not Bob Rae in the 1990s, nor are the situations really comparable. Perhaps we should look at Jean Charest's Quebec government in the early 2000s, when M Mulcair was a minister there, or at the Doer and Salinger NDP governments in Manitoba (from 1999 to the present) for better, more current thoughts about how a Mulcair government _might_ look.


Edit: typo


----------



## suffolkowner (12 Jun 2015)

I think Bob Rae's government was a little questionable but I'm not sure they were particularly socialist.

I don't get the fascination with private health care, been there, done that.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (12 Jun 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I think Bob Rae's government was a little questionable but I'm not sure they were particularly socialist.
> 
> I don't get the fascination with private health care, been there, done that.



Hybrid healthcare.

Two-tier system where National Health is still available to those who cannot afford or simply choose to utilize government-funded care. On the other hand you would have private clinics, private imaging, private hospitals and surgeons that a citizen could go to for a fee and instead of waiting 6 months for arthroscopy, only have to wait maybe a couple weeks. 

There is clear evidence that not only would it drive down healthcare costs across the country, it would force government-funded services to reduce wait times rather than just _talk_ about it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jun 2015)

David Akin asks: _"Can you say: Prime Minister Thomas Mulcair? Cuz as this 41st Parliament comes to an end, the NDP appear to have all the momentum, says pollster Frank Graves of Ekos Research."_


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jun 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I don't get the fascination with private health care, been there, done that.




My, _personal _"fascination" is based on OECD studies which, year after year after year show that Canada spends more than most (almost all) OECD countries on health care but always ranks in the bottom half (of 35+ countries) in terms of "outcomes." We spend too much, compared to say, France, Sweden, Singapore and even the UK and we get worse care than they do. None of the "good" countr ies (lower costs and better outcomes) have a single payer system. The best all have significant private (insurance and delivery) components. (The only slight comfort we can take is that our American neighbours spend more and have even worse outcomes.) 

I object to spending too much and getting too little in return on/for anything.

The _Canada Health Act_ was, in 1984, and still is, today, a monumentally f'ing _stupid_ idea.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (12 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> David Akin asks: _"Can you say: Prime Minister Thomas Mulcair? Cuz as this 41st Parliament comes to an end, the NDP appear to have all the momentum, says pollster Frank Graves of Ekos Research."_



Quite possibly the worst result for Canada IMO.  It would also be a terrible result for the CAF.  I can imagine making an exit from the organization if this scenario plays out as I think the NDP would make the Decade of Darkness look like a freaking picnic in comparison to how they would conduct day to day business.


----------



## suffolkowner (12 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My, _personal _"fascination" is based on OECD studies which, year after year after year show that Canada spends more than most (almost all) OECD countries on health care but always ranks in the bottom half (of 35+ countries) in terms of "outcomes." We spend too much, compared to say, France, Sweden, Singapore and even the UK and we get worse care than they do. None of the "good" countr ies (lower costs and better outcomes) have a single payer system. The best all have significant private (insurance and delivery) components. (The only slight comfort we can take is that our American neighbours spend more and have even worse outcomes.)
> 
> I object to spending too much and getting too little in return on/for anything.
> 
> The _Canada Health Act_ was, in 1984, and still is, today, a monumentally f'ing _stupid_ idea.



Without a doubt we spend too much for too little return. I'm just not convinced it's due to having a "public" system. It's probably has at least a little to due with the fact that were in Canada and not Singapore etc.. If Singapore didn't have a cheaper health system than Canada that would truly be worth looking into. American proximity probably is a factor in our costs


----------



## dapaterson (12 Jun 2015)

TANGENT ALERT

Singapore's system is quite different.



> Singapore's system uses a combination of compulsory savings from payroll deductions to provide subsidies within a nationalised health insurance plan known as Medisave. Within Medisave, each citizen accumulates funds that are individually tracked, and such funds can be pooled within and across an entire extended family. The vast majority of Singapore citizens have substantial savings in this scheme. One of three levels of subsidy is chosen by the patient at the time of the healthcare episode.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jun 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Quite possibly the worst result for Canada IMO.  It would also be a terrible result for the CAF.  I can imagine making an exit from the organization if this scenario plays out as I think the NDP would make the Decade of Darkness look like a freaking picnic in comparison to how they would conduct day to day business.



An NDP Government would most certainly lose on a confidence vote if they tried to pull out any major alliance...the Liberals would hate to see "their" St.Laurentian and Pearsonian engagement be disassembled, and the Conservatives would not accept seeing try engagement tools dismantled.  Mulcair is too savvy to do that.  Perhaps lots of posturing, but he would never do anything to get him kick out of Government any earlier than would naturally occur in the 12 to 18 month timeframe.

:2c:

G2G


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jun 2015)

>high-level Liberal and New Democratic backroom veterans


"and"?  They can all stop bull-sh!tting us with assurances of not entering into a coalition.  That goose is already cooked.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jun 2015)

>"In that Engage Canada TV ad, they claim the Conservatives are "cutting health care by $34 billion." That's a flat-out lie, folks. But don't take my word for it -
           - here's the Parliamentary Budget Officer:"

I'd like to dream that Akin or someone else will take that particular claim and bury their credibility forever with it, and attach it to every Liberal and NDP candidate who makes the mistake of regurgitating it.  (This isn't some backburner chickensh!t spending program no-one except its recipients cares about - it's health care, which is a big policy topic in any election.)

The "$34 billion" (sometimes cited as "$36 billion") appears to be the 10-year sum of the growth gap between the 6% escalator of Martin's health accord (if it were to continue) and the 3% floor of the Conservative's formula.

The health accord was a Liberal idea, legislated by Liberals, including its termination.  I have to assume at least some of the members (certainly some of the Liberals) of Engage Canada know this.  Therefore, I conclude they know they are telling an untruth.  In brief, they lie.  I suppose they could weasel around it by claiming the Conservatives are "allowing a cut" (passively) to occur.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jun 2015)

>I honestly wonder what a federal NDP gov't would really be like.

First time out, usually a bit of a cluster.  (Dave Barrett in BC, Bob Rae in ON.)

If that article in the FP about all the imported NDP help swarming into AB is true, I expect AB to be well and truly fukced by the NDP establishment if the NDP also control Parliament.  (Regardless, I expect to be able to add AB to the list above within a year to 18 months.)

Wynne in ON would not have Harper to use as a distraction.  An NDP federal government isn't going to spend its precious revenue by increasing transfers to a Liberal provincial government for which the latter takes spending credit.  Harper at least doesn't have any taxes he wants to raise, while the NDP do.  So when Wynne finally is forced to grow a spine and raise taxes, at least with Harper she has a greater number of tax points to play with (ie. ON taxpayers will face a greater tax squeeze with the NDP in Ottawa).

QC will have demands, and as the province which gave the NDP a large boost it will expect payoffs.  When that happens, federal/provincial and Canada/QC tensions will increase.

The budget will barely be balanced (I won't assume a deficit - the NDP has proven they are willing to raise taxes to close deficits).  Some taxes will go up (as promised, probably more in short order), which means a few thousand jobs go away.  A foot in the door with federally-subsidized childcare should lead to expansion and unionization.  (That'll be an interesting fight - a few years back when I suggested unionized child care workers will probably earn at least as much as teachers, some militant teacher's union types swore that there was no way they'd allow anyone with only a 2-year diploma to match someone with an undergraduate degree.  Whipsawing to follow.)

Defence will be ignored as much as they can ignore it.  Operations will be frequent and short - the NDP have R2P ADD.  VA won't get more, but it might get less.

Some of the vile illiberal legislation might be removed.  Anything useful for keeping tabs on troublesome people will be retained.  "If you have nothing to hide, why are you worried?" will initially sound surprising coming from the lips of NDP supporters who have been talking the other way for the past few months, but it'll become commonplace.

Progressives can't abide "do-nothing" or "unproductive" legislatures.  There will be regulation bloat and plenty of new legislation, much of it mundane stuff that attracts no attention.  But the cost of complying with it and enforcing it will creep in everywhere, and end at the consumer's/taxpayer's wallet.

If we experience another recession, the NDP is the party least likely to try to restrain itself.  The debt could become a really interesting number.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (13 Jun 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I honestly wonder what a federal NDP gov't would really be like.
> 
> First time out, usually a bit of a cluster.  (Dave Barrett in BC, Bob Rae in ON.)
> 
> ...



Don't forget lots of environmental friendly programs (e.g. more wind farms, solar projects, etc), killing any pipeline projects out of Alberta 
or to eastern Canada, some kind of federal cap-and-trade/carbon tax.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jun 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Hope you realize Thuc., that everything West of the Ottawa river includes 100% of Ontario. I thought that was where the "Laurentian Elites" you keep talking about mostly reside. In your scenario, Ontario represents 55% of the "vote" in itself.
> 
> _By the way everybody: Get ready: He's Baaaack! Very strong rumours around in Montreal today that Gilles Duceppe will come back immediately as leader of the Bloc Quebecois to fight the next election, as all their internal polling show him to be the only one that could get the BQ's fortunes turned around._




And his return _may_ do that, according to an article in _Le Devoir_, the most recent _Leger_ poll shows this:

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





And this:

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




The article says, _"Le sondage Léger a été mené en ligne les 10 et 11 juin auprès de 1006 répondants. Un échantillon probabiliste de cette taille aurait une marge d’erreur de 3,1 % dans 19 cas sur 20."_ That means, very roughly, that the poll was conducted 10 and 11 June, there were 1006 respondents and the margin for error is 3.1%, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20.

What _I find interesting_ is that the BQ's jump in support appears to have come mainly at the expense of the Conservatives (PCC) and the Greens (Verts) and Quebecrs can, by a huge margin, best imagine M Mulcair as their prime minister in Canada.


----------



## Underway (13 Jun 2015)

Temp bump due to celebrity.  I _expect_ that once the blocs same tired issues are aired they will settle back down a bit.  It might not matter though.  With Mulcair running at his numbers the bloc might just have moved from third to second in voting races, still not enough to win seats.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And his return _may_ do that, according to an article in _Le Devoir_, the most recent _Leger_ poll shows this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Harper Wins! LPC Plans Leadership Convention.

(If true..... on the day)


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jun 2015)

One more thing: the NDP in AB are giving us a staffing preview.   Progressives are typically people in a hurry (from time-to-time they openly express frustration with the need for elections or for people to work their way up a ladder).  The way it is often phrased is that we should be able to appoint the best people, and then get out of their way and let them work.

For all the whining they do about the small-ish crew of minders and advisers and propagandists that occupies the PMO, we should now suspect that a federal NDP government would bring in a small army of non-elected, non-civil service party stalwarts to run the show.  They will have lots of ideas they want to try out, especially the dogmatists and the people recruited from academia.  Canada will be an experiment.  Experiments sometimes fail.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And here is a further update to David Akin's (_Sun_ News) _Predictinator_:
> 
> 149 days until we vote and it’s anybody’s ball game
> 
> ...




Here is a new _Predictinator_ from _Sun News'_\ David Akin ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




He writes:

     "For the first time since I fired up the Predictionator machine earlier this year, it is spitting out an NDP Minority Government with the Conservatives as the Official Opposition, the Liberals remaining as the (much improved) third party.
      The last few runs of the Predictionator returned the Bloc Québecois with no seats but the return last week of Gilles Duceppe has tipped the scale and now the BQ could win three under Duceppe (we still don’t know where/if he is running and
      that would change Predictionator’s assessment of whatever riding that happened to be). Greens continue to elect only Elizabeth May and the other Green MP in the House, Bruce Hyer, would get replaced by a New Democrat.

      One note on Duceppe: He led his party to catastrophe in 2011. He lost his own seat and the BQ won just 4 seats. Right now, Duceppe would lead his party to an even worse result!

      But, seriously what does this mean?

      Well, first of all, there’s a whole lot of campaigning to go so, though the model I’m using is called The Predictionator, this is not — and I hoped this would be obvious — an actual prediction of what will happen on October 19. What it is though
      is a snapshot of several different datapoints that tries to capture how the actual work of generating votes and seats is going. So far as new inputs go for this week: Some new polls of federal vote intention in some regions, specifically Quebec
      and Atlantic Canada. There are also four recent national polls in here. And then there is me, your trust correspondent, putting his thumb on the dial in about 60 ridings in the country where, based on my discussions with local experts, candidates,
      and, most importantly of all, party workers actively engaged in those local races.

      This exercise is useful to me because it helps me identify where we might see some surprise results, where there are regional shifts away from or towards a party and where more inquiries might be needed. This all helps finding stories for an
      election reporter.

      The Big Idea, as I reviewed the riding by riding results is that, right now, a razor-thin NDP Minority is possible because of lots of razor-thin wins at the riding level. For example, I have, in my model, Matthew Robinson, a professor at the
      University of Western Ontario who is the NDP candidate in London West, winning against incumbent Conservative Ed Holder, the Minister of State for Science and Technology. But Robinson’s “win” right now is by less than 100 votes. A handful
      of these ‘toss-up’ races swing away from the NDP and the Conservatives would likely form a minority.

      _*No one is anywhere near a majority.*_

      What had looked like Liberal dominance in Atlantic Canada is now looking less so. Trudeau and his team are still easily the most popular choice of most Atlantic Canadians but, lo and behold, the NDP could pick up their first seat ever on
      Prince Edward Island. And, sure enough, I have discovered that NDP HQ has deployed resources to organize and do voter ID in the riding of Charlottetown, where I currently have Liberal incumbent Sean Casey losing by about 1,000 votes
      in a riding where about 18,000 will vote.

      Liberals also looked dominant for much of this year in Toronto but now, a little less so. Adam Vaughan, just elected in the Trinity-Spadina by-election, now finds himself down by 600 votes against a still-to-be-named New Democrat in the
      new-for-2015 riding of Spadina-Fort York, most of which is the southern half of the current Trinity-Spadina riding.  (And, yes, my model does put a value on anyone’s incumbency and Vaughan, himself, like several other candidates, also gets a
      special bonus just for being who he is.) The six ridings in Scarborough, where there are currently two New Democrats and one Conservative, seemed a near lock to be swept by the Trudeau Liberals. No longer: Dan Harris and Rathika Sitsabaiesan
      now hold Scarborough Southwest and Scarborough North and New Democrat Alex Wilson wins in Scarborough Centre, where the incumbent, Conservative Roxanne James, had been a likely loser in any event to the Liberals. This Scarborough result is
      holding despite the entrance into the race of former Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair in Scarborough Southwest.

      Just as the Liberals are appearing to wilt in the face of NDP popularity in Atlantic Canada and Ontario, the Conservatives are wilting in Alberta. But though I have the NDP with six seats in Alberta now — one in Lethbridge, the rest in Edmonton —
      all but four will be highly contested and it would not surprise me in the least if, after the count is done on October 19, that the NDP exit Alberta only with Edmonton Strathcona (the one seat they already hold there) and Edmonton Griesbach. Still,
      flagging these other four tells me that the other four ridings should attract resources and attention from the war rooms of the national parties."

One wonders about the percentage of "informed" voters ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jun 2015)

_"The situation for Mr. Trudeau isn’t fatal. He and his team have done a stellar job of reviving moribund riding associations, recruiting volunteers and improving fundraising. The Liberal machine
           hasn’t been this robust in many a year.
           ...
           But the fact remains that Justin Trudeau has only four months to reverse a decline that has been underway now since last October. Above all, he must, he simply must, convince francophone voters in Quebec to rethink their
           commitment to Mr. Mulcair and the NDP."_

That's from a useful article by John Ibbitson which is reproduced, below, under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/unless-the-ndp-stumbles-in-quebec-trudeau-cannot-win/article24951213/


> Unless the NDP stumbles in Quebec, Trudeau cannot win
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




You will not be surprised to know that I agree with John Ibbitson: M Trudeau's route to _24 Sussex Drive_, even just to _Stornaway_, must start in and be based in Quebec. If he cannot win Quebec ~ if he cannot take 40_ish_ seats there ~ then he will be just another _Liberal loser_.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jun 2015)

Poll results: The Trudeau/Liberal honeymoon is over.  The Mulcair/NDP honeymoon (kicked up by AB results) is in progress.  There isn't going to be a Harper/CPC honeymoon, and with the Senate soaking up all the press and confused in the mind of many voters with Parliament I suspect the CPC is at its low point.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Jun 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Poll results: The Trudeau/Liberal honeymoon is over.  The Mulcair/NDP honeymoon (kicked up by AB results) is in progress.  There isn't going to be a Harper/CPC honeymoon, and with the Senate soaking up all the press and confused in the mind of many voters with Parliament I suspect the CPC is at its low point.



And as has been noted by you and others, the NDP in Alberta is in the process of delivering a Teachable Moment courtesy of their imported Staff.


----------



## Underway (13 Jun 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> One more thing: the NDP in AB are giving us a staffing preview.   Progressives are typically people in a hurry (from time-to-time they openly express frustration with the need for elections or for people to work their way up a ladder).  The way it is often phrased is that we should be able to appoint the best people, and then get out of their way and let them work.



Buahahaha,  this is so wrong it's funny.  I've met dozens of very hard conservatives who think the exact same way.  Especially the election part.  Impatience and intolerance fall in all places of the political spectrum.  Last I check the "progressive unions" are not that in favour of appointing the best ppl and getting out of the way.  Talk about confirmation bias.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jun 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The trick is to have renewal in a peaceful and orderly fashion, rather than seeing leaders suddenly knifed by party insiders, bakbenchers or even outside influences (_looking at the vast array of "causes" funded by the American Tides foundation here in Canada, is anyone really willing to bet they are not also in our political process at the party level as well?_).
> 
> Canadians can point to the abrupt exit of leadrs like John Diefenbaker or Jean Chrétien as examples of how it should not be done. Maybe we should revisit "The Next Conservative Leader" thread, and also read the tea leaves WRT how the Prime Minister may choose to manage his own exit.




More on the campaign by the _Tides Foundation_ in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Vancouver Sun_:

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/story.html?id=11131829#pq=blwwy4


> Opinion: Anti-oil campaign funding murky
> *Invisible: U.S. foundations and Tides pour money into ‘earned media,’ protests and legal actions*
> 
> By Vivian Krause, Special to the Vancouver Sun June 12, 2015
> ...




_I don't know_ how much of the many and sundry green campaigns' money is spent exclusively on trying "to embarrass Canada, weaken the Alberta government and “reduce the attractiveness of the Alberta oil industry for the companies themselves, investors and financiers,”" but _I suspect_ that there is some correlation, and, _possibly_, some cross-funding between the anti-oil sands _movements_ (and their US paymasters) and the anti-CPC campaigns (and their union and _progressive_ paymasters, some of whom _may_ be in the USA, too.)

Another *challenge* to those of you who plan to vote _against_ Prime Minister Harper and the CPC (rather than _*for*_ a different programme or a different leader): ask the leaders of the other parties where their supporters get their money?


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jun 2015)

>I've met dozens of very hard conservatives who think the exact same way.

Good for you, but I have movements and governments as examples in mind, not acquaintances.

My rule for judging the Conservative government of Canada is simple: anything unflattering is widely and loudly broadcast.  The bureaucracy finds ways to publicize its complaints when political flacks have too much influence in the gap between MPs and the civil service.  The volume of such complaints has been fairly low, hence whatever hard-core conservatives think, it is not really being put into effect where it matters.

We'll see how the AB public service responds.  If there are few complaints, then the imported help probably are not stepping on any toes and AB probably did not elect a bunch of figureheads for viziers.


----------



## Underway (14 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> More on the campaign by the _Tides Foundation_ in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Vancouver Sun_:
> 
> http://www.vancouversun.com/business/story.html?id=11131829#pq=blwwy4
> 
> ...



How is this any different than big companies and banks funding parties, or the NRA and "Right to Life" movement in the US funding similar political organizations in Canada.  There's sketchy financing on both sides of the political spectrum.  It just happens that environmental groups are a BIG DEAL, and the environment itself is a BIG DEAL and moves a lot of votes and money.  

Its unfortunate that the Conservatives who are naturally on the side of the environment lost their way and went with business instead.  The GOP in the US invented National Parks to _conserve_ (see what I did there) the natural environment from the rape and pillage of US frontier mentality, and as a buffer to the modern age (keeping the old ways of hunting and trapping alive).  The Green Party in Canada was founded with a large number of disaffected PC's and form the core of the Greens capitalistic environmental policy vice the NDP socialist policies (Elizabeth May represents the left of her party).  Mulroney was the most environmental of the PM's with the Acid Rain Treaty and the phosphate legislation to save Lake Erie.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (14 Jun 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> or the NRA and "Right to Life" movement in the US funding similar political organizations in Canada.



Please provide examples of these two organizations providing funding to Canadian political parties.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Jun 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> How is this any different than big companies and banks funding parties, or the NRA and "Right to Life" movement in the US funding similar political organizations in Canada.  There's sketchy financing on both sides of the political spectrum.  It just happens that environmental groups are a BIG DEAL, and the environment itself is a BIG DEAL and moves a lot of votes and money.
> 
> Its unfortunate that the Conservatives who are naturally on the side of the environment lost their way and went with business instead.  The GOP in the US invented National Parks to _conserve_ (see what I did there) the natural environment from the rape and pillage of US frontier mentality, and as a buffer to the modern age (keeping the old ways of hunting and trapping alive).  The Green Party in Canada was founded with a large number of disaffected PC's and form the core of the Greens capitalistic environmental policy vice the NDP socialist policies (Elizabeth May represents the left of her party).  Mulroney was the most environmental of the PM's with the Acid Rain Treaty and the phosphate legislation to save Lake Erie.



I believe that the point was that for those voting AGAINST the conservatives vice FOR the NDP/Liberals/Greens to make sure that they do the research to get a clearer picture of what they're voting for. It doesn't matter, in this case, than the conservatives may or may not have funding for outside agencies too but rather that the NDP/Liberals/Greens also have their hands dirty and may not provide the alternative that people are looking for.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jun 2015)

Thank you Bird_Gunner45, that is, indeed, my point.

I applaud all those who are going to vote _FOR_ the Bloq or the Greens or the Liberals or the NDP ... I may not agree with you on policy or persons, but I respect your choice to vote _*for*_ something or someone.

My challenge is to those who have decided, _often for reasons I understand, equally often for reasons I do't understand_, to simply vote _against_ Prime Minister Harper and/or the CPC; I understand that you are angry or just fed up or, maybe, frustrated or even bored but you have, _it seems to me_, put the cart before the horse ... I forget where I read/heard it now, but someone wrote, in a well known novel or play, an exchange - involving war - between two principled men: one said to the other, after an over-long explanation of 'why we fight,' "I know what you're against ... what are you FOR?" That's my question. If you're going to spoil your ballot, saying, in effect, "a plague on all your houses," then that's a _*positive choice,*_ but if all you're going to do is walk into the voting booth and put your X against anyone except the Conservative then I believe that you are being irresponsible; you're expressing an opinion, of sorts, but it's not, really, an informed opinion, is it? As with the question: we know what you're against, but that's really not good enough; we need to know what you're for.

Thanks, Bird_Gunner45, for giving me the chance to claify my position ... _I hope_ I'm clear, anyway.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But the fact remains that Justin Trudeau has only four months to reverse a decline that has been underway now since last October. Above all, he must, he simply must, convince francophone voters in Quebec to rethink their
> commitment to Mr. Mulcair and the NDP."[/i][/i][/font][/size]



The problem for the Young Dauphin is the decline has been underway for a lot longer than last October. Consider the LPC has not released a new coherent policy platform since _1993's_ "Red Book". Paul Martin promising (yet again) to implement national day care in the 2006 election should have told everyone the Liberals had been out of ideas for more than a decade. Yes, Stephan Dion did offer the "Green Shift", but it was so incoherent that no one could even understand what it was about. Any theoretical advantages of a carbon tax (and I will argue that the reality will far outweigh any theoretical benefits) were totally lost on the voter. Ignatieff turned out to be even worse; his "Big Thinkers" conference essentially came up with "more of the same" as the answer to the direction the LPC should move in the 21rst century.

Even after the exist of Mr Ignatieff, the two leadership contenders who actually offered policy platforms ended up sounding like either Jack Layton clones (Marc Garneau) or Stephen Harper wannabe's (Martha Hall Findlay). I'd be very hard pressed to say what exactly was _Liberal_ about either platform, which may be why the LPC eventually voted for no platform at all....

So until there is a real and total housecleaning in the LPC and they actually can articulate a vision of who they are and what they stand for (besides "Power at any cost"), i.e. become a transformative rather than a transactive party, they are rightly cast into the wilderness.

(edit because autocorrect sucks)


----------



## Underway (14 Jun 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Please provide examples of these two organizations providing funding to Canadian political parties.



Don't put words into my mouth.  I said _political organizations_.  NRA and Right to Life are by their very nature political organizations, and funnel money, expertise, and help into their Canadian counterparts.  Just like the Sierra Club of Canada, Green Peace, dozens of churches and  organizations on both (all) sides of the political spectrum.  To think otherwise is wrong.  The Tides foundation isn't funding the NDP directly its funding like minded political organizations and entities in Canada to help its cause.

As for your information, I just looked at the first few articles that came up on google when I typed in NRA Canada. Not the best google fu but I'm not doing a research project here.

http://www.americasquarterly.org/content/nras-hemispheric-reach

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/2010/05/13/hepburn_us_gun_lobby_brings_hardline_tactics_to_canada.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nra-involved-in-gun-registry-debate-1.923766

But of course people are going to discount two of those right away because they are from the THE STAR and the CBC.  Not sure about America's quarterly....  For the record I'm not a gun control guy. I'm pretty much against it.  But I'm also an science and information guy, and can't stand confirmation bias.  I prefer to come to my decisions after weighing the pros and cons of the data, not just ignoring the cons.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I believe that the point was that for those voting AGAINST the conservatives vice FOR the NDP/Liberals/Greens to make sure that they do the research to get a clearer picture of what they're voting for. It doesn't matter, in this case, than the conservatives may or may not have funding for outside agencies too but rather that the NDP/Liberals/Greens also have their hands dirty and may not provide the alternative that people are looking for.



True.  No party if perfect. However if there_ is_ outside funding of a federal party then it has to be very cleverly disguised and not done directly.  Gone are the days when the federal Liberals could just walk up to the Royal Bank and get a cheque for $100,000 as a party donation and then another $20,000 from each VP.


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Jun 2015)

Trudeau's cowardly stance on C-51 is beginning to cost him. He made a cynical calculation in the wake of the Ottawa attacks and he can't back down from it. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/veteran-resigns-ns-candidacy-in-protest-against-trudeaus-support-for-security-bill/article24956480/




> “As a soldier, I helped defend Canada’s democracy by participating in peacekeeping, peacemaking and war,” he wrote. “Having opposed oppressive political systems in the name of Canadian democracy, I refuse to support any entity complicit in the creation of a repressive act which assaults Canadian liberty.”
> 
> Mr. MacLeod said that he heard concerns from Liberal supporters in Central Nova about the bill. He said, too, that there was opposition to it from supporters of all the parties.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Coipyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is a useful analysis* of M Trudeau's socio-economic policy initiative:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/if-youre-in-the-right-tax-bracket-trudeau-has-a-platform-for-you/article24247698/
> 
> ...




Back on the "battle for the soul of the _'middle class'_," David Akin has posted an interesting comment:

    "A new report out today from OECD shows that household wealth inequality in Canada has actually decreased from 2006-2012. The poorest group did just about as well as the top 10%. The middle group did best of all over that period
     while the Top 1% did worse. In econo-speak, the OECD says: "In Canada, median net wealth has increased faster than the wealth of the upper percentiles.” I've posted the key chart here which comes from this report:
     http://www.oecd.org/…/household-wealth-inequality-across-OE… "

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Let's hear what M Trudeau has to say about this ... but _I guess_ we will get deafening silence from the Liberals: this *fact *doesn't fit with their lie narrative.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (16 Jun 2015)

Trudeau!  If only he never had to open his mouth.
He is now for proportional representation.  I am not in favour and I suspect the Liberal Party is not in favour.  It is a losers cynical stance.  It would mean perpetual minorities, perpetual elections, and a constant buying of votes.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/trudeau-wants-alternative-first-past-post-next-election-080013526.html


----------



## Remius (16 Jun 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Trudeau!  If only he never had to open his mouth.
> He is now for proportional representation.  I am not in favour and I suspect the Liberal Party is not in favour.  It is a losers cynical stance.  It would mean perpetual minorities, perpetual elections, and a constant buying of votes.
> 
> https://ca.news.yahoo.com/trudeau-wants-alternative-first-past-post-next-election-080013526.html



Um, did you read the link you posted?  it says nothing of proportional representation.  It talks about preferential voting.  Not the same thing.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (16 Jun 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Um, did you read the link you posted?  it says nothing of proportional representation.  It talks about preferential voting.  Not the same thing.



I don't know that I am wrong - although I see proportional voting sometimes used.

Okay last try - The definitions people seem to use the term Mixed-Member Proportional Representation.  It could be argued that our current system is based on proportional representation.  There is much discussion on the internet using Proportional Representation in the same sense that I did as an alternative to First Past the Post.


----------



## Underway (16 Jun 2015)

@E.R.Campbell:  I think that the information you presented is essentially irrelivant to the electorate.  What defines the middle class as a economic situation and what people _think_ they are are two different things.  Most people define themselves as middle class even if they are technically poor or technically wealthy.  Secondly people don't care about wage gaps as an actual statistic.  Do I feel like I'm doing better than last year?  Yes or no?  Then I look at who's to blame.  I could be closing the gap with rich folks by 50% a year but if I still feel like I can't pay the bills (for whatever reason) its irrelivent.

Politics are about perception, not about facts.  The _perception_ is that rich get richer and the poor get poorer, especially in Canada.  In the US you look at your boss and want to be them, in Canada you look at your boss and hate them for their success.  Nobody cares about purchasing power or anything of the sort.


----------



## Remius (16 Jun 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> I don't know that I am wrong - although I see proportional voting sometimes used.
> 
> Okay last try - The definitions people seem to use the term Mixed-Member Proportional Representation.  It could be argued that I current system is based on proportional representation.  There is much discussion on the internet using Proportional Representation in the same sense that I did as an alternative to First Past the Post.



he's certainly open to the idea, but preferential seems to be the preference (no pun intended). 

All have pros and cons.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Jun 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Um, did you read the link you posted?  it says nothing of proportional representation.  It talks about preferential voting.  Not the same thing.





Actually, it does...from the link:



> ...However, Trudeau has also said he's willing to consider proportional representation...


----------



## Remius (16 Jun 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Actually, it does...from the link:



Caught that.  Mea culpa.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jun 2015)

Kudos to Justin Trudeau for presenting some policies, some of which have real merit and others of which are, well, less meritorious.

Lawrence Martin, in the _Globe and Mail_ says that, "In response to growing anxiety in the party caucus and declining polling numbers, Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are revamping their campaign strategy, putting out stronger platform measures on an advanced timetable ... [and] ... The schedule for policy releases has been moved up because the party realizes that the NDP has been making big gains in convincing Canadians it is the real party of change and that this has to be reversed before it is too late ... [and] ... There’s been grumbling in the Liberal caucus over what members feel is an overcautious approach by Liberal strategists since last fall, when the party led in the opinion polls."

Edited to add:

And not to be outdone, Thoimas Mulcair gave a speech to  the Economic Club of Canada, in Toronto, and, the story says "Mulcair talked about NDP icons such as Tommy Douglas, Roy Romanow or former Manitoba premier Gary Doer — provincial leaders who balanced budgets — even as he took a shot at ex-Liberal MP Bob Rae, who racked up a massive deficit in the recession of the early 1990s as the New Democrat premier of Ontario, damaging the party's electoral fortunes in the province for years ... "The federal department of finance's own reports show that NDP governments are the best at balancing the books when in office," Mulcair said ... [but] there was one exception — but he turned out to be a Liberal."


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jun 2015)

David Akin (Sun News) says that this poll (from _Angus Reid_) is a "good" one because it is based on a 6,000+ sample size:






The Angus Reid report says, "Contrary to post-election speculation in Alberta, the stunning majority win for the NDP’s Rachel Notley in that province last month has not produced the kind of “NDP bump” large enough to explain the federal party’s current standings.

Indeed – the historic win has had an impact in that province in terms of federal support: where just one-in-ten Albertans (likely voters) said they’d vote NDP six months ago (12%), twice as many (25%) say the same today. Impressive, but not a real threat to the CPC, which still claims the vast majority (56%) of the decided likely vote in Alberta.

More significantly, it is the NDP’s lead in Quebec (48%) and BC (38%) – and its growing competitiveness in Ontario (34%) that is telling.

The New Democrats today command half (48%) of the decided, likely vote in Quebec, leading by a margin of three-to-one over the Conservatives (16%) Liberals (17%) and the Bloc Quebecois (17%). This also illustrates the Liberal collapse in la belle province: the LPC had the support of 30 per cent of decided Quebeckers heading into 2015.

The NDP leads eight points over the CPC (30%) in British Columbia, and are 15 points ahead of the LPC (23%) in that province. In Ontario, the Liberals – who had had the backing of 34 per cent of likely voters six months ago – have dropped nine points (25%). Advantage NDP – which has picked up that support (34%), and sits in a statistical tie with the CPC (36%), which sees its fortunes in Canada’s most populous province slipping slightly."


Four months away from the general election I call the CPC and NDP as, effectively, _tied _for first, with the Liberals falling farther and farther behind in third place.


----------



## Infanteer (16 Jun 2015)

So the big (and probably deciding) question is, with the two lead horses clearly identified where will a chunk of the Liberals votes go, to the CPC or the NDP?


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jun 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So the big (and probably deciding) question is, with the two lead horses clearly identified _where will a chunk of the Liberals votes go, to the CPC or the NDP_?




That, _I think_, is the nightmare scenario for thew Liberal Party of Canada.

The fear now must be that Liberals will consider _strategic voting_ ~ the weapon the Liberals used so effectively against the NDP over the decades ~ and the Blue Liberals, the Manley Liberals will vote for the CPC, in 2015, to prevent an NDP government while the left wing of the LPC, and there is one, will drift towards the NDP ... permanently.

The first issue, _strategic_ voting by the Blue Liberals, is something the party can survive, under new, better leadership; the second issue, the Liberal Left permanently changing allegiance, could be fatal.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jun 2015)

I can see why the Liberals might like runoff voting.  It isn't far-fetched to imagine that 50-60% of voters would go 1/2 LPC/NDP or NDP/LPC, and the Liberals might see themselves as potentially the perennial majority partner in a "natural governing coalition".


----------



## Underway (16 Jun 2015)

Believe it or not this is all part of Harpers plan.  He wants to destroy the liberal party of Canada as his long term goal.  A country divided between socialists and conservatives means that the conservatives win two out of every three times.  Or at least that's his calculation.  It's been a long time coming but the chess master is closing in on his end game.  Even if that means losing the next election I think he might calculate that it's worth it.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (16 Jun 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> Believe it or not this is all part of Harpers plan.  He wants to destroy the liberal party of Canada as his long term goal.  A country divided between socialists and conservatives means that the conservatives win two out of every three times.  Or at least that's his calculation.  It's been a long time coming but the chess master is closing in on his end game.  Even if that means losing the next election I think he might calculate that it's worth it.



While Harper may well have hoped that the Liberal party would die, I doubt that he:

1. Convinced them to put Stephane Dionne, Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, and Justin Trudeau as party leaders;
2. Convinced the Liberals to continue to have no real major policy ideas that were different from the 1990s; or
3. Convinced Alberta and Quebec to vote NDP and make them a legitimate player on the national scene.

The Liberals lost the election in 2006 and have spent the past 5 years attempting to take short cuts to get back into power. Now they're paying the piper as the NDP have taken their left and the conservatives have taken their right. Ontario, who in reality were the only reason the liberals kept winning in the 90s, stopped voting 120 odd seats Liberal because the liberals grew stale in power. Since then, they've traded policy for celebrity.

Harper may be a politico, but you're giving him and the conservatives far too much credit. This is all Liberal doing.

Also- lets not forget the election is a long way off and the NDP are enjoying a bump thanks to the Alberta election results (akin to the democrats winning Texas). There is a lot of time for them to gain ground, particularly if the media start putting more pressure on the NDP, who in the past few elections, have been able to get away with running terrible candidates because there's been no scrutiny.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jun 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> While Harper may well have hoped that the Liberal party would die, I doubt that he:
> 
> 1. Convinced them to put Stephane Dionne, Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, and Justin Trudeau as party leaders;     ✓ Agreed
> 2. Convinced the Liberals to continue to have no real major policy ideas that were different from the 1990s; or  ✓ Agreed
> ...


  


_I think_ (just _hope_?) that the CPC is being very calm ~ think Wellington at Waterloo ~ being confident that Canadians will not start to really pay attention to the election until after Labour Day* when they, the CPC, can ramp up policy (and some, carefully targeted, spending) (re)announcements and persuade the (fairly large) Conservative friendly media contingent to look more and more closely the costs of the promises made by Messers Mulcair and Trudeau.

_I still believe_ that the key battlegrounds are the suburban ridings around the large cities in Ontario, above all, and in BC, and AB, and in the small to medium cities across the country. Those people are largely social _moderates_ and fiscal _conservatives_ and the CPC has, for the past decade pandered to their values and desires. _I think _that the suburbanites' fear of deficits (conversely, their _love _for balanced budgets) will make them open to thinking, long and hard, about the costs of Liberal and NDP promises. I also _suspect_ that the CPC is being a bit _*racist*_: they are working very, very hard to win the East Asian, South Asian and Jewish votes, even as they almost write off the Middle Eastern and Latin American votes. _My guess_ is that they have good, solid data on voting which shows them that they are on the right track.

_____
* Just as Wellington remained confident (outwardly, at least) that Blücher would, as promised, join him as soon as possible


----------



## Underway (17 Jun 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> While Harper may well have hoped that the Liberal party would die, I doubt that he:
> 
> 1. Convinced them to put Stephane Dionne, Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, and Justin Trudeau as party leaders;
> 2. Convinced the Liberals to continue to have no real major policy ideas that were different from the 1990s; or
> ...



But he did change elections funding, undercut the liberal power bases in immigrant communities and the middle class, took advantage of liberal blunders and internal party factions, crippled the Bloc by exposing their hypocrisy which allowed the NDP space.  He's very shrewd and clever.  He knows the liberals better than they know themselves.  In retrospect it's obvious that the liberals would turn too celebrity.  They still dream about the original Trudeau days.  Dion was a surprise but no plan survives contact with the enemy.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Jun 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> But he did change elections funding, undercut the liberal power bases in immigrant communities and the middle class, took advantage of liberal blunders and internal party factions, crippled the Bloc by exposing their hypocracy which allowed the NDP space.  He's very shrewd and clever.  He knows the liberals better than they know themselves.  In retrospect it's obvious that the liberals would turn too celebrity.  They still dream about the original Trudeau days.  Dion was a surprise but no plan survives contact with the enemy.



What's a hypocracy, a country led by horses? Or asses?  ;D

If you actually meant to say that about the Bloc


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (17 Jun 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> But he did change elections funding, undercut the liberal power bases in immigrant communities and the middle class, took advantage of liberal blunders and internal party factions, crippled the Bloc by exposing their hypocracy which allowed the NDP space.  He's very shrewd and clever.  He knows the liberals better than they know themselves.  In retrospect it's obvious that the liberals would turn too celebrity.  They still dream about the original Trudeau days.  Dion was a surprise but no plan survives contact with the enemy.



So, the conservatives are better at getting their message out, raising money, and taking advantages of stupid things their opponents do? Time for the Liberal party to "Cowboy up", get serious, and raise votes through getting their message (or evening just having a message) out than just blaming the conservatives and being sore losers. The Liberals, in the 50s, 60s, and 70s did all these things to the conservatives so I dont really see a difference. In 1992 the conservatives weren't even a recognized party in parliament. So, Liberals, get serious and quit whining about your entitlement to be the government. 

Blaming the conservatives, again, is to look away from the key problems that plague the liberal party. Namely, why were they not the natural party to lead quebec instead of the NDP (who have zero influence in provincial politics). How did they lose the votes in Toronto that they held for decades? Why do they lack the mental fortitude and courage to not elect leaders who have REAL policy and make REAL changes to their beliefs? Sure, it may involve them going to say, 2 seats a la conservatives in 1992, but politics is a marathon that the liberals treat as a sprint.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jun 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> But he did change elections funding, undercut the liberal power bases in immigrant communities and the middle class, took advantage of liberal blunders and internal party factions, crippled the Bloc by exposing their hypocracy which allowed the NDP space.  He's very shrewd and clever.  He knows the liberals better than they know themselves.  In retrospect it's obvious that the liberals would turn too celebrity.  They still dream about the original Trudeau days.  Dion was a surprise but no plan survives contact with the enemy.



Changing election funding was done by that great conservative leader   Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien (and this was done in a fit of pique against his political arch enemy who had undercut his position as leader of the LPC; Paul Martin Jr.) If other parties took advantage of this, then they were more agile, flexible and adaptable.

The LPC took their "power base" in immigrant communities for granted, but also failed to consider that the values of many of these immigrant communities on social issues is almost diametrically opposed to the sorts of social values the LPC was promoting. Once again, the CPC did not take these voters "for granted" and went for the opening provided.

The Bloc essentially made themselves irrelevant, and Quebec voters were much quicker than I expected to realize that they risked being "shut out" of the corridors of power once it became possible to reach a majority without a majority in Quebec. The basic attitudes of Quebecers hasn't changed much, they traded a National Socialist party for a Social Democratic party.

To criticize PM Harper, Jack Layton or Thomas Mulcair for being a sound "generals" and taking advantage of the changing social, economic, demographic and political landscapes to achieve their ends is silly. The problem is the overall Liberal Party leadership (including the power brokers in the back rooms) failed to see the changes or failed to adapt their actions to exploit or mitigate them. Until the leadership of the LPC is purged, they are fated to remain in decline (the same thing happened to the PCPO, I noticed many of the people who surrounded John Tory also surrounded Tim Hudek, much to the detriment of Mr Hudek, the Party and Ontario in general).


----------



## Underway (17 Jun 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> What's a hypocracy, a country led by horses? Or asses?  ;D
> 
> If you actually meant to say that about the Bloc



Lol no I didn't, I just failed to spell check as I was typing that on my phone.  I wish I was that clever.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (17 Jun 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> Don't put words into my mouth.  I said _political organizations_.



Okay, I see where you are coming from. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Jun 2015)

Still more evidence of poor judgement by the PM in his senate nominations.  Fake "Doctor" and Senator Don Meredith, 50, apparently spent two years grooming a sixteen year old girl, then finally having intercourse with her earlier this year after she turned eighteen.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/06/17/teen-alleges-two-year-affair-with-senator-don-meredith.html


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Jun 2015)

The most important thing Harper did was unify conservatives, just in time to take advantage of the Chretien/Martin civil war.

Every major party must deal with internal factionalism.  (Yes, even the NDP - think old-school CCF vs urban dilettante socialists.  The NDP has not really been the party of the proletariat for some time.  An opportunity exists for the Liberals or Conservatives to carve out more "average Canadians", if the latter can be shown - without convoluted discussions - that their interests are secondary to whatever is fashionable among the highly-educated and -monied set which controls Team Orange.)


----------



## Underway (18 Jun 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Changing election funding was done by that great conservative leader   Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien.....



And Harper changed it twice more, once to reduce the individual amount some more, and another time to remove/reduce the amount of money parties got for a certain percentage of the vote from the federal gov't.  That second one has hurt the Greens and the Bloc most of all, as Bloc don't do their own fundraising and let the PQ take all the money.  

But yes Jean started the whole thing not realizing it would cripple his party who became really lazy in party organization.  Actually this might have been one of the main reasons the Liberals have had such a hard time in recent elections.  

They just don't have an ability to raise funds like the parties with the "fanatics" in them on both ends of the spectrum.  Liberals have been improving but its hard to compete with hard core conservatives and socialists in party donations.


----------



## Remius (19 Jun 2015)

So now James Moore will not be running.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/james-moore-conservative-cabinet-minister-leaving-federal-politics-1.3120148

I realise that every election some MPs will not run again.  I suppose that this is exasperated by the new pension eligibility requirements that has been put in place but I'm starting to think that CPC is going to have an incumbent problem.

Generally (not always) elections favour the incumbents.  But it seems that with so many leaving, and not just unknown MPs but also high ranking several solid ministers, that Stephen harper will be facing an uphill battle going into this election.


----------



## Pencil Tech (19 Jun 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> So now James Moore will not be running.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/james-moore-conservative-cabinet-minister-leaving-federal-politics-1.3120148
> 
> I realise that every election some MPs will not run again.  I suppose that this is exasperated by the new pension eligibility requirements that has been put in place but I'm starting to think that CPC is going to have an incumbent problem.
> 
> Generally (not always) elections favour the incumbents.  But it seems that with so many leaving, and not just unknown MPs but also high ranking several solid ministers, that Stephen harper will be facing an uphill battle going into this election.


They're leaving because they don't think their party can win the election.


----------



## Remius (19 Jun 2015)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> They're leaving because they don't think their party can win the election.



And you know this because?


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jun 2015)

This poll, from EKOS, is interesting because it shows that the NDP have regained everything they had in 2011, but _I think_, they have peaked/are peaking too soon:







M Mulcair must, now, not just sustain, he must improve upon this momentum for another four months .... that's a really, seriously looooooong time in politics.

The Liberals are in a not bad place: they peaked way too early, a year too early, but there is still plenty of time time for  a bounce back.

The CPC are in a sweet spot ... they _appear_ to have hit bottom last fall, now they are holding steady and they can try to help provoke and then exploit an real Liberal vs NDP battle royal.

It seems to me that the CPC's desired results are:

CPC:      37.5% 
Libs:      22.5% 
NDP:      25%
Others:  15%

That means, essentially, that the CPC must regain some ground, principally from the NDP.

Edit: spelling  :-[


----------



## Underway (19 Jun 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> ....................
> I realise that every election some MPs will not run again.  I suppose that this is exasperated by the new pension eligibility requirements that has been put in place but I'm starting to think that CPC is going to have an incumbent problem.
> 
> ................



Pension eligibility issues and also some of these warhorses have been in Haper's gov't for a long time.  Average time in a job in Canada is 7 years.  Sometimes you get tired of the job and want to move on.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Jun 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> So now James Moore will not be running.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/james-moore-conservative-cabinet-minister-leaving-federal-politics-1.3120148
> 
> I realise that every election some MPs will not run again.  I suppose that this is exasperated by the new pension eligibility requirements that has been put in place but I'm starting to think that CPC is going to have an incumbent problem.
> 
> Generally (not always) elections favour the incumbents.  But it seems that with so many leaving, and not just unknown MPs but also high ranking several solid ministers, that Stephen harper will be facing an uphill battle going into this election.



While the media are unwilling to pick it up, #RideMeWilfred is trending on twitter.  This retirement may not be due to pension issues, but due to a family values problem.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Jun 2015)

>Jean started the whole thing not realizing

The concensus of the commentariat I recollect is that Jean started the whole thing under advice and wanting to turn attention away from shadier Liberal funding practices, but well aware that it would be a hardship upon those who so nicely were turning him out.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jun 2015)

Well, who would have thought? Perhaps hell is freezing over: I agree with the _Good Grey Globe_'s Jeffrey Simpson on two points ~ bot only on two points, I hasten to add ~ in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/with-liberal-plan-voters-have-real-options-for-change/article25039604/


> With Liberal plan, voters have real options for change
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




The two points on which Jeffrey Simpson and I agree are:

     1. _"... the Liberals deserve kudos for their thinking about these issues – as do New Democrats;"_ but

     2. If recent history is our guide, we must agree that we are _"without much evidence that most Canadians care."_

And that's the problem: the Conservative have, I agree, played fast and loose with many of our institutional democratic values ~ but so did the Liberals when they were in power and so have NDP provincial governments. I do applaud "Team Trudeau" for bringing forth these ideas; _I don't think_ they will mean much on voting day.


----------



## Old Sweat (20 Jun 2015)

In the two elections that led to the collapse of the Paul Martin government, the Liberals had tried to make major issues of (a) a claim that the Conservatives should agree to never use the Notwithstanding clause, and (b) an assertion that Stephen Harper did not love Canada. In the latter case PM Martin demanded that the media ask of Mr Harper if he loved Canada and then began to chant in a loud voice "I love Canada, I love Canada . . ."

Both items bombed horribly, although they probably were popular issues in Political Science seminars. Is the Liberal Party fixated on major policy issues that aren't?


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jun 2015)

And don't forget "Soldiers with guns. In our cities. In Canada"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMsqEph7a8I

I always preferred this one instead:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rEkFG5MNTk


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jun 2015)

And I agree with Mr. Simpson on this point:

"Remember, however, that opposition parties usually denounce the practices of their adversaries in office, only to discover upon taking power that some of those practices come in rather handy."

Hence most of what the NDP and LPC are currently saying goes into my bit bucket.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jun 2015)

Andrew Coyne, writing in the _Ottawa Citizen_, says this is the most interesting election in modern times, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Andrew+Coyne+federal+election+unlike+seen+before/11152111/story.html


> A federal election unlike any we’ve seen before
> 
> ANDREW COYNE
> 
> ...




I don't agree with everything Mr Coyne says, but he's correct in that:

     1. The _nature_ of campaigning has changed, and _I suspect_ it will never change back;

     2. IF either the Liberals or the NDP can (or want to) follow through on promises for electoral reform then it will be bad news for the conservative movement in Canada; and

     3. The Conservatives _appear, for now_, to have a firm hold on 30% of the vote. That's actually amazing after, say, 1993 when they were reduced to only two seats in the HoC, albeit with 16% of the popular vote.

As Mr Coyne points out, we're still four months away from the only poll that matters, but, _for the moment_, it's a dead heat between the Conservatives and the NDP with the Liberals in 3rd place by a statistically significant measure. I'll repeat:

     1. The NDP has, _probably_, peaked too early ... it will be hard to sustain their current support for four months, much less improve upon it in Oct;

     2. The Liberals are playing "catch up," e.g. by releasing policies earlier than they wanted, because M Trudeau's charisma has worn too thin; and

     3. The CPC is in a "sweet spot" IF it can shift enough of the the "Manley Liberal" and "undecided" votes into its version of the_ centre_.


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Jun 2015)

http://epaper.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx?noredirect=true

20 Jun 2015-National Post-Rex Murphy
    
*Trudeau’s Gambit*

_Can a man who ignores his own promise to hold open nominations credibly claim to be a great reformer?
Murphy: ‘The most blatant carry-away from Trudeau this week is the purely political one: the party is not in crisis, but it is in trouble.’
_
It may be stated as an axiom that the desire to reform Parliament and the democratic system that underwrites it is proportional to any given political party’s distance from achieving power.

Parties already in power bathe in the pleasure that they have mastered the arcane and often outdated rules by which they have achieved office. While in opposition they rail at the putative inequities of the electoral system, the closed or secret nature of cabinet government, or the “topdown” nature of modern day Prime Ministerial administration.

They almost certainly declaim at the deficiencies of Parliament itself, the ritual exchange of talking points and insults (these are not mutually exclusive) during Question Period, or the disgusting incivility of parliamentary exchange in general. Parties waiting for their chance at government take an almost pastoral view of politics: they see a sky unclouded by partisan interest, ministers who stand to give real information, uninflected by partisan impulse, when asked a question; they see a prime minister as an ideal leader, one formed of the sagacity of a Socrates mixed with the temperament of an Abraham Lincoln, a creature of the greatest wisdom married to the deepest morality. They see democracy and parliamentary debate as a sweet Disney-world, drained of all rancour, emptied of all anger and bluster, utterly uncontaminated by the messy, compromising, shallow and self-serving measures and halfmeasures that — in reality, and sadness — constitute the living reality of almost every democratic government that is or ever has been.

I might offer as a corollary to this axiom that the slimmer a party’s chances of winning power, the more extravagant the vision it will offer voters should it ever achieve it. I have no doubt, for example, that if the Green party could promise to eliminate global emissions in a week and install Al Gore as the head of a new world government in two — both dreams securely fastened to their sheer impossibility — it would.

To descend to plausible reality, we may look at Justin Trudeau’s new broad-ranging, 32-point reform package as a more contained example of opposition projection. Its themes of electoral reform, ministerial accountability, a refreshed parliament, and a prime minister bound to openness and answerability are — setting aside a few points that are little more than sloganeering — a plausible set of ideas, which, if introduced and faithfully adhered to, would work to the betterment of our democracy.

But they have to be tested on a number of grounds. The first and primary one is that of trust. Even should we agree on all of these proposals, how likely is it that this fair catalogue — so bright and shiny in the months before an election — would survive and find execution in legislation and practice, should Mr. Trudeau and the Liberals actually win next fall. How many of Mr. Trudeau’s mini-magna carta for Canadian democracy would survive his victory? What do voters know of Mr. Trudeau, actually know, that would rationally lead them to believe that he would be different from so many other opposition politicians before him, who promised the world and all its delights, while on the campaign trail – and if and once successful – shuddered into being just like every other politician, who promised and reneged.

The one reform over which, indeed, he has had control, and which he did commit himself to, was that of open nominations for his party now — while still in opposition. That has gone the way of all political flesh. Liberal nominations are still as much within the gift and whim of the leader as ever they were. So, why trust him on the bigger scheme?

A second test comes to motivation. And timing. For the better part of his tenure as leader, Mr. Trudeau, in his public appearances, has confined himself to buoyant meet and greets, harvesting his undeniable celebrity persona and the gift of his truly great name. On policy — to now — he has been as taciturn as the Sphinx. The theory from his advisers was it was best to hold fire, not to give the demonic Tories ammunition to attack him too early. Recent motions in the polls, however, particularly the surprising but substantial rise of Tom Mulcair and the NDP (perhaps aided by the miracle of NDP Alberta) has shaken the Liberals. Their own fall from 39 per cent to 23 per cent has been noted not just outside the party, but also within.

How to stop the slide has to have been the question of the last month or more. The embargo on policy had to go — smiles and handshakes were clearly not enough. Thus, this week, he made his move.

Voters therefore may look at the reform package from the point of view of what prompted it, as much as for its substance; and they would be justified in doing so. Does it appear as a consequence of the Liberal’s newfound fear that their party and their leader are in a real decline? That the original flash and favour they found with their leader has dimmed and that they must, quickly, come up with proposals large enough and of sufficient headline-commanding power to slow or still Tom Mulcair’s gradual emergence as a favourite? If voters so conclude, that this package is one of partisan and not democratic necessity, that reform as an idea is itself a vote-getting gambit, then they may dismiss the whole catalogue as just another manoeuvre in the always dismal and cynical game of politics.

What is done under necessity is not always what is in the heart. So there are two areas in which this latest and largest presentation has real challenges. First, will voters trust any comprehensive reform package from any party in opposition as anything more than they have heard long and often before?

Secondly, how much will they trust so large a package that came — relatively late — from a leader sinking in the polls, who up to this point was determined to shield his policy measures till such time as the writ was near dropping, and with an already established willingness to ignore his own prior declarations on such a fine democratic notion as open riding nominations whenever he sees fit to impose his will on his party?

The most blatant carry-away from Mr. Trudeau this week is the purely political one: the party is not in crisis, but it is in trouble. And it needed something big to get it started again. Democratic reform was their answer. Will it be believed?


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... I'll repeat:
> 
> 1. The NDP has, _probably_, peaked too early ... it will be hard to sustain their current support for four months, much less improve upon it in Oct;
> 
> ...





			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> http://epaper.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx?noredirect=true
> 
> 20 Jun 2015-National Post-Rex Murphy
> 
> ...




Although Rex Murphy and I agree on _Why_ M Trudeau's team released their interesting policies, I still agree with the _Globe_'s Jeffrey Simpson than the Liberals (not M Trudeau, specifically because I think these policies are far too sophisticated to be the product of the imagination of a high school drama teacher) and the NDP deserve credit for, at least, putting the ideas out for discussion.

    (Now, I, _personally_, have no real problem with our "first past the post" electoral system. I did a fairly sound statistical analysis, a few years back, that showed that, yes, the first past the post system does reward
     the first place vote getting party with too many seats (10 to 25% too many, as I recall) and it does punish the _weaker_ parties, but maybe that is not a bad thing, or, at least, an acceptable price to pay for a clear, simple, _constituency_
     based/representative system. I'm not unalterably opposed to some form of preferential voting ~ but it must be an electronic voting system: voters ought not to have to wait for weeks to find out who they have elected. (But I worry that
     many (most?) Canadians will not understand preferential ballots and the number of spoiled ballots will drive participation rates down to new lows, for generations.))


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Jun 2015)

I was reminded by a coleague at work today that the first thing dictators do once elected is to mess with the political system. Not that I'm saying that Mr Trudeau has dictatorial aspirations.

As much as I take the comments with a rather large grain of salt, he has direct personal experience.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jun 2015)

To be fair, the dictators rarely ever announced their proposals in advance.

I am strongly against PR, MMPR, preferential voting, etc, etc; however, if the parties are willing to advertise their intentions in this regard prior to an election, voters can not complain of being hoodwinked.

The problem with these schemes is that the choices generally hinge on what would benefit a party right now, and are ill-conceived with respect to the long view.  I favour FPTP because it allows parties which command only ~40% of the popular vote to form a majority government; a majority government can get things done; and there is not really a practical risk in Canada of a "permanent <insert colour here> majority".


----------



## Underway (22 Jun 2015)

Brace for Godwin's Law.   ;D


----------



## MilEME09 (22 Jun 2015)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ABvLHvwMAs

heres a new one gents against the cons, straight to the point


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jun 2015)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ABvLHvwMAs
> 
> heres a new one gents against the cons, straight to the point




It's slick, polished, very well produced and, of course,  misleading.

_Engage Canada_, which produced this, is a _consortium_ of sorts of public sector unions and other _progressive_ groups, built upon the foundation of e.g. _RightsAtWork.ca_ and others that were so successful in the Ontario election in 2014. _My sense_ is that _Engage Canada_ is, honestly, not (yet) pro Liberal or pro NDP, it is just anti-Conservative ... until they see a chance to support a "winner," at which time, _I suspect_, the coalition will dissolve and it will reform to support either the Liberals or the NDP.


----------



## Remius (22 Jun 2015)

There's a CBC article on this ad campaign here and echoes some of what E.R. Campbell has noted.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/engage-canada-s-anti-conservative-tv-ad-all-about-timing-1.3122069


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jun 2015)

I think on a more "meta" scale, the real things to be looking at are the issues raised in "The Big Shift", and most particularly the timings of things. Demographic and economic power is still flowing to the West, but has not fully consolidated there, hence a lot of fluidity in the runup to this election.

External events also have more influence than we think (but as second and third order effects; Alberta's NDP government would never have happened if Saudi Arabia wasn't using the oil weapon against Iran, Russia and US shale oil frackers).

We cannot predict the external events. Perhaps a major Russian incursion into the Donbas region of Ukraine, an armed clash on the South China Sea, Greece defaulting on their debt or defeat of the Assad regime by ISIS will create a major global crisis with unpredictable consequences for the election. OTOH, we do have a handle on the Big Shift, and a close study of Ontario and the West may reveal where the election will go.


----------



## Underway (22 Jun 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> There's a CBC article on this ad campaign here and echoes some of what E.R. Campbell has noted.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/engage-canada-s-anti-conservative-tv-ad-all-about-timing-1.3122069



I like the analysis.  It's interesting however to see that the article brought up millenial voters opinions, which are irrelivent.  They don't vote (in numbers big enough to matter) so what they think doesn't matter at all.  Conservative adds are aimed at their parents, their grandparents and anyone else who actually has property or something to protect.  If you don't have anything you tend to vote left, if you have something you tend to vote right.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jun 2015)

Tim Harper suggests that the Liberal-NDP battle this summer is the key, for both parties, in this article which is reproduced under the Faior Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Star_:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/06/21/the-summer-mulcair-trudeau-battle-a-key-to-election-tim-harper.html


> The summer Mulcair-Trudeau battle a key to election: Tim Harper
> *Mulcair has momentum but if he and Trudeau head into Labour Day splitting the anti-Harper vote, the prime minister will be all smile*
> 
> By: Tim Harper National Affairs, Published on Sun Jun 21 2015
> ...




I think Tim Harper is pretty much correct ... there are three key challenges:

     1. M Trudeau must (try to) regain some momentum. He's been lagging since late last year. he needs to turn on the after-burners;

     2. M Mulcair must (try to) maintain the initiative, and the lead; and

     3. Prime Minister Harper must develop a campaign that pulls _Manley Liberal_ voters away from the LPC and helps M Trudeau pull _centrist_ voters back from the NDP so that he (PM Harper) can come up the middle with 35-38% of the vote.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Jun 2015)

>Engage Canada

Waiting for them to be savaged by the "no money in politics!" activists...


----------



## JS2218 (24 Jun 2015)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ABvLHvwMAs
> 
> heres a new one gents against the cons, straight to the point



Why do we care (and why are we surprised?) that a much of back-room Liberals and New Democrats don't like Conservatives?


----------



## Rocky Mountains (24 Jun 2015)

Justin Trudeau's Concession Speech? 

"Justin Trudeau: I'll end ISIS combat mission, restore relations with Iran"

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/justin-trudeau-ill-end-isis-231934956.html

I see he inherited his old man's backbone.

If he's trying for the Arab Muslim vote - they hate Iran more than they hate Israel.


----------



## GAP (24 Jun 2015)

He is proving the point that "promising anything that will get votes to get into power works"....


this kid, and that is what he is, has no clue whatsoever  :


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Jun 2015)

Turns out CSIS didn't even need the information sharing measures. Yet more evidence that C-51 is primarily a political move, and has little to do with actual security. Any government playing politics with security and privacy needs the boot.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/csis-didn-t-need-c-51-to-improve-information-sharing-briefing-suggests-1.3125611



> Venner cited a number of recently successful pilot projects and outlined "future opportunities" for sharing — all of them deleted from the memo.
> 
> CSIS clearly saw "room for workarounds" in the existing law "with a little bit more co-ordination within government," Forcese said in an interview.
> 
> ...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (25 Jun 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Justin Trudeau's Concession Speech?
> 
> "Justin Trudeau: I'll end ISIS combat mission, restore relations with Iran"
> 
> ...



It is a completely valid approach, and refreshing in its intellectual honesty


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jun 2015)

Glad to see the NDP has reaffirmed its policies to fan the candle of QC separatism.  I was afraid it was almost snuffed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jun 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> It is a completely valid approach, and refreshing in its intellectual honesty




I agree.

I oppose Canadian involvement in the Arab-Persian/Iranian morass because I cannot see any _strategic_ imperative, and _vital national interest_ at stake. Is IS** a _barbaric_ organization? Yes ... but the fact remains that it is just one of many in the world and we, Canada, stand idly by when equally barbarity happens elsewhere.

The mistake M Trudeau made was _tactical_, not _strategic_. Valid as his _policy_ might be ~ and I would withdraw trainers, too, if it was up to me, he needed to enunciate it in a far, far better way. I'm pretty sure he was briefed on the likely question ~ the latest IS** atrocities were "news," after all ~ and it was, in its way, a "softball" question: designed to allow him to give a thoughtful answer. Instead he "shot from then lip" and gave David Akin the right, even duty to say, _"No, it is hardly a nonsensical question for a reporter — or a voter this campaign season — to ask, given all of this, what would it take to get either Trudeau or Mulcair to support real military action."_ And, of course, this was a "natural" consequence:






The _right_ answer was, something like: "Terry, Canadians have 'values' that we, Liberals, share, and they do not involve sending our military, in penny packets, into every local "hotspot" that _might_ win us a few votes, here and there. Yes, IS** are _barbarians_, but they need to be stopped in the Middle East by Middle Eastern powers, and those Middle Eastern powers are rich and well armed, Terry ~ able to fight their own battles on their own home ground."


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jun 2015)

Someone ~ I cannot find the reference now ~ said, within the last 48 hours, that the Liberals are _overreacting_, now, and rolling out too much policy, too fast. His _*important*_ policy statement on Canada-US relations was, for example, sandwiched in between his electoral reform policy release and his "nonsense" remarks on CBC TV and it's now "lost" in the noise.

_I suspect_ that assessment is right and I'm guessing that there must be some HUGE _tactical_ disagreements within "Team Trudeau:" real fear, perhaps, that Prime Minister Harper and M Mulcair are going to make it a two horse race.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jun 2015)

Anyway, about things that _*really *_matter ... the _Globe and Mail_ reports that, _"Canada’s protected dairy and poultry industries are in the crosshairs of the United States and other farm export powers as momentum builds toward a massive Pacific Rim trade deal ... Negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are expected to resume shortly, with a deal possible as early as August."_

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, John Ibbitson explains that Prime Minister Harper appears poised to display real, _strategic_, national leadership, despite the fact that it will hurt his partisan, political interests:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-poised-to-sign-pacific-rim-trade-deal-putting-safe-rural-ridings-in-play/article25100149/


> Harper poised to sign Pacific Rim trade deal, putting safe rural ridings in play
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Those who follow my ramblings here will know that I have only a few, quite clear and simple, political _beliefs_: in the absolute sanctity of a few quite fundamental rights (which puts me at odds with the Conservative Party), in an active, responsible foreign policy, and in sound economic management. It is my firm belief, based on what I regard as a careful reading of history, that free(er) trade _always_ works to provide the greatest good to the greatest number.*

_I am convinced_ that the TPP is a good deal, in the mid to long term for Canada. Of course there will be disruptions ~ and, yes, the dairy farmers will be victims: some, especially small to mid sized "family farm" producers (like the fellow in the TV ad) will be unable to withstand the competition from some of the giant, hyper-efficient, American producers. But that's part of the _*eternal*_ process of creative destruction and we cannot shield ourselves from it.

So, if John Ibbitson is right: good on Prime Minister Harper for being a real leader.

_____
* You can look at Angus Maddison's "The World Economy: A Millennial Perspective," published by the OECD in 2001, and draw your own conclusions.

Edited to add:

See some excellent, current data, from _The Economist_ newspaper


----------



## Underway (25 Jun 2015)

If Harper actually goes through with this in August and then doesn't come back as PM don't you think that the NDP govt would scuttle the deal.  Or do you think it will tie the hands of those who come next.

The other thought is again isn't Harper putting the Liberals in a bind?  You don't think that this timing is perfect to sqeeze them out again.  Harper doesn't need Quebec, the Liberals do.  Rural Ontario does not vote liberal, and definitely doesn't vote NDP at least not where poultry and dairy are king.

If he pulled this off and kills the marketing boards I'm definitely voting CPC.  I despise supply side economics especially as it makes all of my food more expensive.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jun 2015)

Excellent tactics and strategy.

IF the TPP gets signed, then any future government will have to weigh the economic output of being able to sell to Japan, Korea and other powerful economies, which will be a big draw for the business lobby. As noted, marketing boards and other forms of supply manipulation hurt a lot more Canadians than they help; millions of lower and middle class Canadians will certainly notice that their grocery bills have gone down, and not welcome any attempts to raise them again. Future governments will face a "sandwitch" between hordes of voters (even low information voters "get" their grocery bills) from below and business (and labour, once they figure out where the new jobs are coming from).

As an electoral ploy, I agree with Underway on how this will play in rural Ontario and Quebec. The CPC is not going to "lose" any votes in places that don't vote CPC anyway, and squeezing the LPC is always a "good" thing.


----------



## Clerk Wannabe (25 Jun 2015)

I plan on voting NDP for a few reasons. Firstly that I think the government needs to see that it's not going to be a liberal/conservative battle every time like it has been in the past. 

Second is that I don't think the Cons or the Liberals are in any position to lead change since they've been around so long and a fresh perspective is needed. And in my mind that comes from a change in party, not just a change in PM from one party to another like the Americans do with their 2 party system.

Still plenty of time to do more research leading up to it, and for people to fuck up and lose my vot, but that's my 2 cents.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Jun 2015)

So you're willing to let the dippers likely destroy what little stability we have in the economy by raising taxes on anyone who they think has money, and spend like drunken sailors to prove a point? Thomas Muclair doesn't even know what the current corporate tax rate is, but he's gonna raise it. He's also misused millions of dollars of HoC money for partisan offices in ridings, and won't get off his high horse about how they were right, despite numerous reports saying the opposite. He's still better than Trudeau, but no where close to being capable of leading the country. His cabinet would be full of party hacks and 20-something parachute candidates from Quebec, who are literally the only reason Muclair is in 2nd place.

The Tories are old and tired, but the best we can hope for is a Tory minority. Anything without them in power is going to send us rapidly into the poorhouse, especially the CAF.


----------



## Kilo_302 (25 Jun 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So you're willing to let the dippers likely destroy what little stability we have in the economy by raising taxes on anyone who they think has money, and spend like drunken sailors to prove a point? Thomas Muclair doesn't even know what the current corporate tax rate is, but he's gonna raise it. He's also misused millions of dollars of HoC money for partisan offices in ridings, and won't get off his high horse about how they were right, despite numerous reports saying the opposite. He's still better than Trudeau, but no where close to being capable of leading the country. His cabinet would be full of party hacks and 20-something parachute candidates from Quebec, who are literally the only reason Muclair is in 2nd place.
> 
> The Tories are old and tired, but the best we can hope for is a Tory minority. Anything without them in power is going to send us rapidly into the poorhouse, especially the CAF.



[/http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/d...een considered centrist just 15 years ago.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Jun 2015)

I could fill an entire thread page of Liberal crooks and liars, take a look at the Senate auditor general's report.

We need more revenue from people having good paying jobs. Taxing the crap out of the companies that provide those jobs means they're just going to pass those costs onto the consumer, or hire one less person. Or they'll just pack up and move because they can afford to do it. Do you have any sources for your information? I think you're confusing wealthiest of Canadians contributing 80% of the tax revenue and the tax rate for the highest bracket at 80%. If you're seriously advocating an 80% tax rate for the top 1% as a way to infuse cash, I've got a bridge to sell you.


----------



## Kilo_302 (25 Jun 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I could fill an entire thread page of Liberal crooks and liars, take a look at the Senate auditor general's report.
> 
> We need more revenue from people having good paying jobs. Taxing the crap out of the companies that provide those jobs means they're just going to pass those costs onto the consumer, or hire one less person. Or they'll just pack up and move because they can afford to do it. Do you have any sources for your information? I think you're confusing wealthiest of Canadians contributing 80% of the tax revenue and the tax rate for the highest bracket at 80%. If you're seriously advocating an 80% tax rate for the top 1% as a way to infuse cash, I've got a bridge to sell you.



If you think I'm a Liberal supporter, you're mistaken. I agree 100% with you that they are crooks too.

I'm not confusing anything, we used to have far higher income tax rates. The Canadian Income Tax Act of 1948 had brackets from from 15% to 84%. You can easily find a history of income tax rates online. 

I am not advocating an return to 80% income tax rates, the point is that revenue and growth are closely linked, as are austerity and economic stagnation. Companies are not being overtaxed, they are being under-taxed. Everything in your last two posts are based on economic theories that simply don't pan out. The "trickle down" theory has been disproven over and over again, it's a wonder that politicians still bring it up and aren't laughed out of the room.

The American report below concluded  cutting taxes has “little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth".



Here's a handy visual graph:

[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-01-02/correlations-high-corporate-taxes-economic-growth-can-coexist][/http://democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/sites/democrats.waysandmeans.house.gov/files/Updated%20CRS%20Report%2012%3A13%3A12.pdfurl]

Here's a handy visual graph:

[url]http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-01-02/correlations-high-corporate-taxes-economic-growth-can-coexist


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jun 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> If you think I'm a Liberal supporter, you're mistaken. I agree 100% with you that they are crooks too.
> 
> I'm not confusing anything, we used to have far higher income tax rates. The Canadian Income Tax Act of 1948 had brackets from from 15% to 84%. You can easily find a history of income tax rates online.
> 
> ...




All taxes, every last penny of every tax ever levied by anyone on anyone else since time began is paid, ultimately, by someone like you and me.

There are some "bad" taxes and some "not so bad" taxes, but, if we want to live in any sort of organized society, there will be taxes ~ terrible, bad, indifferent and not so bad.

The only thing we should ask about a tax is: _is it being collected efficiently and effectively?_

Corporate taxes are nothing more, and can never be anything more, than a business expense which, ultimately must be paid by the consumer ~ you and me. The _corporation_ has one and only one duty: to pay a fair return to its owners. If a corporation says it is doing anything else then it is lying to you or, worse, to itself. Corporate taxes are just a "business/licence fee" but collected in a round about, inefficient, expensive and ineffective manner (because the corporation's accountants will be busy finding ways to avoid taxes). The corporation's hydro bill is passed, 100%, on to you through prices, ditto the gas bill and the wage bill and the bill for consumables ... and the tax bill, too.

The only sane corporate tax is 0%. But the _incredibly f'ing stupid people_ who we allow to vote love 'em and want 'em raised even more. Sorry if I'm being offensive, but ...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (25 Jun 2015)

Clerk Wannabe said:
			
		

> I plan on voting NDP for a few reasons. Firstly that I think the government needs to see that it's not going to be a liberal/conservative battle every time like it has been in the past.
> 
> Second is that I don't think the Cons or the Liberals are in any position to lead change since they've been around so long and a fresh perspective is needed. And in my mind that comes from a change in party, not just a change in PM from one party to another like the Americans do with their 2 party system.
> 
> Still plenty of time to do more research leading up to it, and for people to frig up and lose my vot, but that's my 2 cents.



No offence, but that is a terrible reason to vote NDP. Vote for the party that you agree with the most and that's policies meet your personal belief system. Voting for a party to "prove something" is just a waste of a vote as you're not voting FOR something but AGAINST something.


----------



## Kilo_302 (25 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> All taxes, every last penny of every tax ever levied by anyone on anyone else since time began is paid, ultimately, by someone like you and me.
> 
> There are some "bad" taxes and some "not so bad" taxes, but, if we want to live in any sort of organized society, there will be taxes ~ terrible, bad, indifferent and not so bad.
> 
> ...



Your argument is ridiculous. Corporations use public infrastructure and rely on a stable society operating under the rule of law. These realities require taxes which we should all be paying. As for incredibly stupid people, you're lumping in very well respected economists into that group for not sharing your somewhat radical views.

As for taxes being passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, I view myself as a citizen first and a consumer second. I am ok with paying more for booze because Ontario then takes that 13 billion in profit and reinvests it. We can argue about how that should be done, but a corporation just takes that money and puts it overseas, rewards shareholders and gives bonuses to execs. Not a great use of my money.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jun 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> ...
> As for taxes being passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, I view myself as a citizen first and a consumer second. I am ok with paying more for booze because Ontario then takes that 13 billion in profit and reinvests it. We can argue about how that should be done, but a corporation just takes that money and puts it overseas, _rewards shareholders_ and gives bonuses to execs. Not a great use of my money.




That's ALL the corporation is supposed to do .. in fact, in law, that exactly what the corporation MUST do. It's not your money unless and until you invest it ... then you own part of the corporation and it is duty bound to reward YOU.


----------



## Privateer (25 Jun 2015)

To what extent are dividends paid to foreign shareholders taxed in Canada?


----------



## ballz (25 Jun 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Most mainstream economists would agree



Most mainstream economists failed to see the 2008 recession coming despite the fact that it was painfully obvious that it was coming.

One who did, Peter Schiff, was laughed out of the room by all of them (much like you said some politicians should be).

He disagrees with everything you say WRT tax rates and the government "investing" money on my behalf. And so do I.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (25 Jun 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Your argument is ridiculous. Corporations use public infrastructure and rely on a stable society operating under the rule of law. These realities require taxes which we should all be paying. As for incredibly stupid people, you're lumping in very well respected economists into that group for not sharing your somewhat radical views.
> 
> As for taxes being passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, I view myself as a citizen first and a consumer second. I am ok with paying more for booze because Ontario then takes that 13 billion in profit and reinvests it. We can argue about how that should be done, but a corporation just takes that money and puts it overseas, rewards shareholders and gives bonuses to execs. Not a great use of my money.



We do all pay them. As in investor in RESPs, RRSPs, stock, etc the entire portfolio I have invested in is literally based on corporate profits. If the government taxes more than I just suffer on my investments and/or my paying more for the same product to maintain the same level of return I had before. That's why corporate income tax and higher minimum wages make no sense. If you pay someone $25/hr to do a job the prices of the produce will just reflect what the costs of labour is. So we can all say we mae $40K/year but no one is really wealthier


----------



## ballz (25 Jun 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> As for taxes being passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, I view myself as a citizen first and a consumer second. I am ok with paying more for booze because Ontario then takes that 13 billion in profit and reinvests it.



Would you not be willing to give the extra money to charities / causes / projects you believe in without the government doing it for you?



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> We can argue about how that should be done, but a corporation just takes that money and puts it overseas, rewards shareholders and gives bonuses to execs. Not a great use of my money.



Wow, a corporations profit is _yours_ before it is even taxed away from them, is it? They are just chaperones of it I guess.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jun 2015)

>If Harper actually goes through with this in August and then doesn't come back as PM don't you think that the NDP govt would scuttle the deal.  Or do you think it will tie the hands of those who come next.

Chretien didn't axe the FTA or the GST.  The thing about incoming governments - aside from the fact that much of what passes all politicians' lips during a campaign is ill-informed blackguardly bluster - is that they learn things they didn't know which prompt them to re-evaluate their positions.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Jun 2015)

I like corporations.  They allow employees to specialize, which raises productivity, which is a gain for everyone.  I don't think I'd be able to make near as much money (and pay near as much taxes) if I had to write software, package it, write my own ad copy, buy my own advertising space, go door-to-door selling my product or flogging it on some e-trade site, do my own accounting, etc, etc.  Nor would anyone else.

Irrespective of income taxes on profits, most corporations pay local taxes and fees.  Those are what really cover infrastructure.  If the thought of untaxed dividends makes your butt itch, agitate for dividends to be taxed as regular income and for all dividends payed out on profits earned in Canada to be taxed in Canada (if they are not already - I have no idea).

The idea that corporations don't pay "a fair share" or must be compelled to pay "a more fair share" is devoid of sensibility - assuming the person uttering the grievance can even articulate what exactly is "a fair share".


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jun 2015)

Canadian income tax provides preferential treatment of dividends from Canadian corporations.  That said, due to the excessive complexity of the current income tax system, Canadian dividend income can result in disproportionate reductions to means-tested benefits (such as OAS) because of the calculations applied to provide the preferred tax treatment.

Overly complex systems, such as the current tax codes, permit gaming of the system and can produce undesired results.  Simplification is always good (even if it does result in unemployed accountants).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Jun 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Your argument is ridiculous. Corporations use public infrastructure and rely on a stable society operating under the rule of law. These realities require taxes which we should all be paying. As for incredibly stupid people, you're lumping in very well respected economists into that group for not sharing your somewhat radical views.
> 
> As for taxes being passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices, I view myself as a citizen first and a consumer second. I am ok with paying more for booze because Ontario then takes that 13 billion in profit and reinvests it. We can argue about how that should be done, but a corporation just takes that money and puts it overseas, rewards shareholders and gives bonuses to execs. Not a great use of my money.



Like the way the liebrals invested a billion dollars in gas plants that never happened. (Your liquor tax money)

How about how they gave a ferry contract worth $40 million to a Chilean firm and froze out Canadian shipbuilders in SW Ontario, where the ferry is going to be used.(Your liquor tax money)

Finally, what about the golden parachutes they give to their cronies of the PanAm games, Ornge and Ontario Hydro, just to mention a few. (Your liquor tax money)

Doesn't seem all that different to me


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jun 2015)

Liberal heavyweight Scott Reid offers what I think is a sound analysis in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/reid-in-the-midst-of-the-ndp-phenomenon-only-the-stupid-arent-terrified


> In the midst of the NDP phenomenon, only the stupid aren't terrified
> 
> Scott Reid
> 
> ...




The only points on which I would differ with Scott Reid are that:

     1. There is no reason at all to assume that the "anti-Harper vote will congregate." It may, just as easily, remain deeply divided; and

     2. All three major parties, Conservatives, Liberals and NDP ought to be terrified. Mr Reid is right than phenomena are terrifying and that no one really understands them ~ and that applies to Liberals, too.

Here's why I think all three major parties ought to be terrified:

     1. The "anti-Harper vote" _might_ congregate and even grow ~ making either M Mulcair or M Trudeau the 2015 equivalent of Jean Chrétien in 1993: the hammer of the Conservatives. That should terrify the CPC;

     2. the "anti-Harper vote" _might_, equally, shrink and remain deeply divided giving Prime Minister Harper a "come up the middle" majority government. That should terrify both the Liberals and the NDP;

     3. The "anti-Harper vote" _might_ congregate behind the NDP. That should terrify the Liberals, above all; and

     4. M Trudeau _might_ turn his campaign around and convince the "anti-Harper vote" to congregate behind him. That should terrify both the Conservatives and the NDP.

There is a reasonable probability that any of those four, and other, scenarios _might_ come to pass in October ... terrifying.  :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jun 2015)

Interesting ...

The _Ottawa Citizen_ reports that the very, very recently formed _Harper PAC_ has shut down.

Harper PAC was formed, according to Stephen Taylor (@stephen_taylor) to counter what its members perceived to be outrageous union spending in the recent Ontario campaign ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



     
          ... according to the Manning Centre.

But, says Stephen Taylor, media comments about "third party spending" were muted until it was _Conservative_ supporters spending money ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          ... and I did notice a sudden upsurge in comment: is it only pro-Harper third party campaigning that is "bad?"


----------



## Underway (26 Jun 2015)

I don't think that was entirely true.  There was a lot of criticism of Engage that I was reading.  I also wonder if Harper PAC (unfortunate name) goal was to create the environment where 3rd party spending was an issue.  If that was the case mission accomplished.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jun 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> I don't think that was entirely true.  There was a lot of criticism of Engage that I was reading.  I also wonder if Harper PAC (unfortunate name) goal was to create the environment where 3rd party spending was an issue.  If that was the case mission accomplished.



It is an issue, but only one of the "third parties" eneed up closing down. More disturbing, Avvaz and Moveon are not even Canadian operations, but branches of US "Progressive" foundations and political activists. Nothing like having foreigners openly trying to sway elections. _They_ don't have any agenda's, do they?


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jun 2015)

"I am ok with paying more for booze because Ontario then takes that 13 billion in profit and reinvests it. We can argue about how that should be done, but a corporation just takes that money and puts it overseas, rewards shareholders and gives bonuses to execs. Not a great use of my money."

That is one view of the world.  Here is another: "I am ok with paying more for booze because Ontario then takes that 13 billion in profit and spends it. We can argue about how that should be done, but a corporation just takes that money and invests it, rewards investors and continues employing employees."


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jun 2015)

>I also wonder if Harper PAC (unfortunate name) goal was to create the environment where 3rd party spending was an issue.

If they wanted to create an issue, the name is excellent, not unfortunate.  It pushes two buttons, emphatically, by displaying Harper's name and an Americanism for "money in politics".


----------



## Remius (26 Jun 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I also wonder if Harper PAC (unfortunate name) goal was to create the environment where 3rd party spending was an issue.
> 
> If they wanted to create an issue, the name is excellent, not unfortunate.  It pushes two buttons, emphatically, by displaying Harper's name and an Americanism for "money in politics".



Maybe.  Or maybe the Harper Campaign wanted it taken down because it quite explicitly links Stephen Harper's name and links it to money for politics, giving him bad press.  Plus the ad they produced was like a community cable channel production compared to what Engage Canada produced.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> .... this was a "natural" consequence:


Oopsie (maybe?) ....


> A new Conservative attack ad takes aim at Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s position on the mission against the Islamic State, but it uses the terrorist group’s own horrifying propaganda images.
> 
> In the online ad, posted on the Conservative Party’s Facebook page, Trudeau is shown in a CBC interview saying he would end the CF-18 bombing campaign against the terrorist group, also known as ISIS or ISIL.
> 
> ...


As always, consider the source - here's what the bill itself says ....


> .... (The bill) further amends the Criminal Code to provide for an offence of knowingly advocating or promoting the commission of terrorism offences in general. It also provides a judge with the power to order the seizure of terrorist propaganda or, if the propaganda is in electronic form, to order the deletion of the propaganda from a computer system.
> 
> (....)
> 
> ...


Nice try, though, NDP ....


----------



## Rocky Mountains (26 Jun 2015)

Corporations may write the cheque for taxes but it is largely the consumer that pays them.  There is only one reason to have corporate taxes in Canada, to tax foreign investors.  A Canadian investor gets most if not all the corporate income taxes back as a dividend tax credit when he files his personal income tax return.  A foreign investor gets no such credit.  The purpose of the dividend tax credit is to eliminate double taxation and put the taxpayer in a situation similar to that if he had earned the income directly.  Also, it is not a refundable tax credit.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (26 Jun 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> [Nice try, though, NDP ....



I saw a report on this at CTV Pravda and was scratching my head as to how the Conservatives by reporting a fact was promoting terrorism.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jun 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> I saw a report on this at CTV Pravda and was scratching my head as to how the Conservatives by reporting a fact was promoting terrorism.



Because the fact does not support the "Narrative". Next question.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jun 2015)

Further to the Tories using ISIS imagery and audio in ads attacking Trudeau fils, here's the most interesting tidbit for me from this account:


> .... (Conservative Party campaign spokesman Kory) Teneycke would not answer questions about whether his party would object to other groups using terrorist videos and songs to join the debate. He called that a “hypothetical ad or use” and would not comment. He also wouldn’t rule out the Conservatives using more terrorist video as the campaign goes on.
> 
> “Wait and see.” ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jun 2015)

The ad features IS** and the Conservatives are accused of "supporting terrorism." The ad also features Justin Trudeau. Are the Conservatives "supporting" him, too? Some (many) in the very anti-Conservative slice of the media are even more muddle headed than usual ~ and they're usually not famous for their ability to think.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (27 Jun 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Oopsie (maybe?) ....As always, consider the source - here's what the bill itself says ....Nice try, though, NDP ....



So it may be legal, but it is still distasteful.  It strikes me that they are doing their mean-spirited level-headed best to drive away the middle....


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Jun 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> ...and spend like drunken sailors.../quote]
> 
> Not an apt comparsion. Drunken sailors are ususally done when they run out of their own money. I have no confidence the NDP would do the same.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jun 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> So it may be legal, but _it is still distasteful_.  It strikes me that they are doing their mean-spirited level-headed best to drive away the middle....




Yes, it is ... but _I suspect_ it's effective.

This ~ "Just Visiting" ~ worked against Michael Ignatieff. It was low, dirty and distasteful, but it "defined" Mr Ignatieff, despite his best efforts to _change the channel_.

This ...
          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                    ... is how the CPC wants to "define" M Trudeau and the "Just Not Ready" theme might do the job.

_I (confidently) predict_ a campaign of unparallelled nastiness in 2015. The CPC have never been shy about using rough, dirty tactics and,
as we saw in the 2014 Ontario campaign ...
          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                    ... _Engage Canada_'s predecessor was also "down and dirty."


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jun 2015)

I have scant regard for the _Globe and Mail_'s Jeffrey Simpson; I regard him as an unwitting spokesman for the failing _Laurentian Consensus_ that used to rule Canada; but I do admire his depth of knowledge of Canadian, especially the _Laurentian Elite_'s Canadian political machinery. Thus I find this column, which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, interesting:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/are-we-witnessing-the-strange-death-of-liberal-canada/article25141317/


> Are we witnessing the strange death of Liberal Canada?
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I agree with what Mr Simpson says about the workings of the machinery of politics but I wish he had gone father in comparing and contrasting early 21st century Canada to late 19th/early 20 the century Britain when _Gladstonian Liberalism_ fell on to its deathbed. Jeffrey Simpson is right, Canada in 2015 is not at all like Britain in, say, 1895, 1905 or 1915, but the _"middle class"_ in which King's Canadian Liberalism flourished in hard times and in which St Laurent's (very different) Canadian Liberalism flourished in boom times wasn't, _in my opinion_, the issue. Jeffrey Simpson got the issues right: _social, economic, demographic and nationalistic forces_ [which were]_ eating away at Liberal support and changing the structure of British politics._ I believe that similar "forces" are eating away at Liberal support and changing the structure of Canadian politics. 

First: social ~ we remain a *socially liberal* country, something which Prime Minister Harper understands (but which may be news to most of his party), but it is, increasingly _conservative_ on some keys issues ~ fiscal and _administrative_, rather than social. New Canadians, especially Asian Canadian have their own brand of _conservatism_ which is far, far removed from the _social conservatism_ of e.g. the "religious right," and even more far removed from the "liberalism" of the Liberal Party of Canada and of the NDP. The CPC has assiduously courted that New Canadian vote, leaving the _"progressives"_ to fight over the 'scraps' of the African, Caribbean, Middle Eastern and Latin American votes.

Second: economic ~ these are moderately "hard time," and that ought to be good for the Liberals who have, traditionally, offered "responsible generosity."But, ever since Paul Martin resigned the Liberal Party has been adrift on economic policy. Stéphane Dion offered a mish-mash of spending promises and green tax increases; Michael Ignatieff offered a left_ish_ plat form, but no one believed him; Just Trudeau has made some intersting promises but he has failed to sell them, as far as i can see ~ _my guess_ is that he, personally, really doesn't understand what his fiscal team have put out there.

Third: demographics ~ all you need to see is this, 

Year	Number of Canadians 	  Percentage of 
                    Aged 65 +     Total Population
1851	             65,000	              2.7%
1901	           272,000	              5.1%
1951	         1,09 million	         7.75%
1998	          3.7 million	        12.3%
2016	          5.9 million	        15.9%
2021	          6.9 million	        17.8%
2041	          9.7 million	        22.6%

It's the percentages that matter, and Prime Minister Harper knows that ... we seniors are a massive component of the population and we have two political attributes:

     1. We vote in a higher propoprtion than any other segment of the Canadian population; and

     2. We are cautiously socially moderate but very fiscally conservative. 

Fourth: nationalism ~ it isn't Quebec that is the issue, it is the outside world, especially the Islamic "world" and it frightens many Canadians.

Those are all issues that, either: the Liberals, and to a lesser degree the NDP, just "don't get," or which, almost automatically, favour the Conservatives.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Fourth: nationalism ~ it isn't Quebec that is the issue, it is the outside world, especially the Islamic "world" and it frightens many Canadians.
> 
> Those are all issues that, either: the Liberals, and to a lesser degree the NDP, just "don't get," or which, almost automatically, favour the Conservatives.



Nationalism is not just something that the Liberals and the NDP don't get.  It is something that many/most find anathema.  Whether it is the kindler - gentler form of Burns 

(It's coming yet for a' that,
That Man to Man, the world o'er,
Shall brothers be for a' that.)

Or the gorier lyrics of the Red Flag of the Labour Party

(The people's flag is deepest red,
It shrouded oft our martyred dead,
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold,
Their hearts' blood dyed its ev'ry fold.

Then raise the scarlet standard high.
Within its shade we'll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We'll keep the red flag flying here.

Look 'round, the Frenchman loves its blaze,
The sturdy German chants its praise,
In Moscow's vaults its hymns are sung
Chicago swells the surging throng.)

These people not only don't get Nationalism. They detest it.  And the most anti-nationalists of all are the elite elements of both the Liberals and the NDP - champagne socialists, Fabians, one and all.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jun 2015)

And yet people still don't understand why it is important to know the NDP is a paid up member of the Socialist International.....


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Jun 2015)

The LPC is struggling because it could not hang onto King's legacy.  He created a framework in which regional Liberal blocs told the centre (King) what was needed, and he delivered.  Over time the Liberals emphatically lost touch with the west.  That made them dependent on ON, QC, and the eastern provinces, which made their ability to capture seats more fragile.  They inverted the relationship so that the centre started dictating to the regions.

All during the demographic shift and despite their supposed political brilliance, they failed to re-engage the west adequately.

The patronage system they established has been eroded, and is no longer as politically passable.

Trudeau and his peers succeeded in creating a Canada in which francophones (particularly, francophone Quebeckers) have prospects, a place, and power.  That has not been entirely enough to defeat the lure of "maitre chez nous", and it turns out that Quebeckers are probably Canada's most socialist-inclined province and what they really want is a larger value of the ratio "federal money into QC" / "federal money out of QC".   The NDP is the party best positioned to make promises QC wants to hear - more social programs, more transfers, more recognition pandering, weaker conditions for separation - and is making those promises.

Trudeau taught the Liberal establishment to fear strong-willed intelligent thinkers beholden to no-one.  His son has the name, but is likely thought to be more pliable and more willing to campaign.  Unfortunately, his son is also Margaret's son.

The Liberals misattributed Chretien's reign to their own brilliance rather than the split on the right and the rise of the Bloc.

The Trudeau-Turner and Chretien-Martin feuds weakened the party and the systems/structures on which it relied.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Jun 2015)

I think the P'tit gars from Shawinigan was vindictive enough seeking retribution from Paul Jr. for his father's sins, as perceived by Chretien, the he cared far less about the LPC's longevity than he did about getting his ton of flesh from the Martin clan...  

:2c:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jun 2015)

Paul  Sr. I used to get him his paper when he was home. Canada's last honest politician.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Jun 2015)

RG, concur that PM Sr. was a real gentleman.  JC, well...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (29 Jun 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Fourth: nationalism ~ it isn't Quebec that is the issue, it is the outside world, especially the Islamic "world" and it frightens many Canadians.
> 
> Those are all issues that, either: the Liberals, and to a lesser degree the NDP, just "don't get," or which, almost automatically, favour the Conservatives.



Which probably explains why I've yet to hear/read anything about Mulcair's position on military/foreign relations/fight against ISIL/etc.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jun 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> So it may be legal, but it is still distasteful.  It strikes me that they are doing their mean-spirited level-headed best to drive away the middle....




And PPCLI Guy is not the only one who thinks so, but I'm afraid that effectiveness will overcome good taste and decency.


----------



## Spencer100 (30 Jun 2015)

[urlhttp://www.citynews.ca/2015/06/29/smarter-approach-to-defence-spending-could-save-10-billion-report/][/url]

This is the future for the CAF if the NDP win, and they do look like they are on a roll.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Jun 2015)

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> http://www.citynews.ca/2015/06/29/smarter-approach-to-defence-spending-could-save-10-billion-report/
> 
> This is the future for the CAF if the NDP win, and they do look like they are on a roll.


Fixed your link for you.   


Defence Spending


----------



## Remius (30 Jun 2015)

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> [urlhttp://www.citynews.ca/2015/06/29/smarter-approach-to-defence-spending-could-save-10-billion-report/][/url]
> 
> This is the future for the CAF if the NDP win, and they do look like they are on a roll.



I don't know what the future holds but the present state of the CAF is pretty craptacular right now.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Jun 2015)

Thomas Mulcair - conservative candidate?  CBC is reporting that it almost happened in 2007.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/thomas-mulcair-almost-became-tory-adviser-in-2007-report-1.3132863


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jun 2015)

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> [urlhttp://www.citynews.ca/2015/06/29/smarter-approach-to-defence-spending-could-save-10-billion-report/][/url]
> 
> This is the future for the CAF if the NDP win, and they do look like they are on a roll.



Well, we can save $10 billion from each and every deparment and ministry *if we eliminate core competencies and programs*. I'm waiting to see their lists for the rest of the government....


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jun 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Thomas Mulcair - conservative candidate?  CBC is reporting that it almost happened in 2007.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/thomas-mulcair-almost-became-tory-adviser-in-2007-report-1.3132863


A bit of the REST of the story here.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jul 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting analysis of the campaign to date that confirms what some of us, here on Army.ca, have been saying ~ M Trudeau's _message_, his policy announcement, have fallen flat because, in part at least, the CPC (and the NDP) ignored them and him:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/so-far-the-election-campaign-isnt-unfolding-as-trudeau-hoped/article25223568/


> So far, the election campaign isn’t unfolding as Trudeau hoped
> 
> ADAM RADWANSKI
> The Globe and Mail
> ...



         _ The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about._
                                                                                                       Oscar Wilde

Oscar Wilde appears to have been right ... again. The Liberals _reacted_ to CPC (and NDP) led media criticism that he was too _light_ ("Just Not Ready"), especially on policy ~ in our terms, the CPC and NDP 'have the initiative' and the Liberals are on the defensive: _reacting_. Their _reaction_ was to release lots of policies, assuming that the CPC and NDP would attack them, and even better, attack M Trudeau for them ... but nothing happened. The Liberal policies ~ not all bad ~ are lying, ignored, on the ground, like damp squibs.

           _There's no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary._
                                                                                        Brendan Behan

The Conservatives need to be careful ... their advertising has, traditionally (since 2005, anyway), been hard hitting, even dirty, but the "line" which must not be crossed _appears to be_ somewhere between the recent ad featuring IS** images and M Trudeau's "nonsense" answer to a CBC TV anchor and the infamous Progressive Conservative ad (1993) that seemed to make fun of Jean Chrétien's facial deformity. That ad, arguably, cost Kim Campbell a respectable showing ~ she still got 16%+ in the polls but her "party" was reduced to two seats in the HoC. The ad crossed an invisible line with Canadians: it seemed to make fun of M Chrétien's facial deformity, a result of a disease called Bell's palsy that he contracted as a child, and many, many Canadians, led by a hostile media, turned their backs on Campbell's PCs.* Canadians still "like" M Trudeau, _I think_, and they will not respond well to personal attack ads, but the received wisdom, based on American experience and hard data from the USA, is that 'negative advertising' works, and the "Just Not Ready" ads _seem_ to stay on the right side of the invisible line: they're hard hitting, even dirty, but there is just enough truth in them to make them legitimate.

Ignoring M Trudeau and the Liberals, because neither they nor he "really matters" very much, is a good tactic, for now.

_____
* There were other factors, of course, including Lucien Bouchard's _BQ_ and Preston Manning's _Reform Party_, but the ad really did damage the PCs in many, many ridings. 16% of the popular vote should have given Prime Minister Campbell more than two seats ~ maybe 10- to 15, even given the _inefficiency_ of her vote.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jul 2015)

The _Ottawa Citizen_ reports on NDP MP Paul Dewar's suggestion that community mailboxes will be an issue in the coming election.

_I guess_ that he's right, but not exactly in the way _he seems to think_: I believe that issues like community mailboxes _may_ expose a divide between suburbanites and inner city folk.

I certainly understand that my single home owning neighbours here in downtown Ottawa (Mr Dewar's riding ~ he is my MP, and a good one, despite his party's policies) are u8nhappy to have to walok tot he corner to collect their mail but it's something my friends in Orleans (the Eastern suburbs) and Nepean (the Western suburbs0 have been doing for a generation. Of course no one really wants to see Granny have to negotiate Ottawa's poorly cleared sidewalks on an icy winter morning just to get the third class (junk) mail, but we also _know_ that Granny doesn't get all that many pieces of mail anymore. _I suspect_ the folks out in the suburbs ~ the middle class voters who, increasingly, vote CPC ~ have some, but not much sympathy for their inner city acquaintances, who already vote for the Liberals and NDP. Will it be an issue? Yes. _Engage Canada_, which is funded by unions, will make it an issue because the Canadian Union of Postal Workers is paying (part of) the freight.

There's a reason Canada Post is doing what it's doing: paper mail, the old backbone of the postal system, is all but dead. Canada Post, in 2015, is a very fine parcel delivery service, better than some (most?) of its private sector competitors, but letters, _mail_, is a dying business.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is a new _Predictinator_ from _Sun News'_\ David Akin ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And here is a new _Predictinator_ from David Akin:






The NDP's _peak_ is holding, even growing, but both M Mulcair and M Trudeau are eating away at the CPC's support.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Jul 2015)

It pains me greatly to say it but I honestly think the Dippers will be running the monkey show after October.   God help us all.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Jul 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> It pains me greatly to say it but I honestly think the Dippers will be running the monkey show after October.   God help us all.



As long as its a minority. I know hope is not a COA, but then maybe people will see the giant mess they try to make of the finances, especially with Canada projected into another economic downturn.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Jul 2015)

I doubt many Canadians care much about the financial picture.  Of those that do, I suspect most misunderstand the picture, because they adopt their opinions from whatever they are told by newspapers, TV newsreaders, and Facebook feeds.

Here are some of the commonly held beliefs:

1) The CPC government is the "highest spending ever" (literally true).  (Nearly every successive Parliament is the "highest spending ever" - population growth, inflation, program accretion.  Few of the people who screamed about cuts to transfers in 1997 care - probably few know - that part of the "highest spending ever" has been the restoration of transfers.)

2) The CPC inherited a surplus and began a series of deficits (literally true).  (Does anyone recall certain events in late 2008/2009 involving certain parties demanding a certain amount of "stimulus"?)

3) The CPC cut health care funding (completely untrue).  (This is my favourite: Stephen Harper blamed for perceived shortcomings in Paul Martin's program.)

4) Public revenues as a percentage of GDP have fallen (literally true).  (But public revenues in constant dollars have increased.  It is unclear why revenues should be a monotonically increasing share of GDP.)

The CPC government has, under the circumstances, been an effective and prudent manager of the federal finances.  But the impression of many people is somehow this weird blend of a government which is simultaneously spending too much and not spending near enough.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (4 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The CPC government has, under the circumstances, been an effective and prudent manager of the federal finances.  But the impression of many people is somehow this weird blend of a government which is simultaneously spending too much and not spending near enough.




Further proof of the Barnum concept that you can please all the people some of the time, some people all of the time, but not all people all of the time.


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Jul 2015)

Barnum also claimed there was a sucker born every minute.   I suppose that could also be directed at the electorate.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Jul 2015)

Jeffrey Simpson reminds us about why we shouldn't be counting our (or the NDP's) chickens in the summer in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/summer-isnt-time-to-predict-which-way-the-political-winds-blow/article25249844/


> Summer isn’t the time to predict which way the political winds blow
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




I agree with Mr Simpson: M Mulcair and the whole NDP _team_ are about to face some pretty serious scrutiny, for a change; M Trudeau does have time to turn things around; and, finally, this election will be all about Prime Minister Harper ~ what's he done and what he's promising to do, and how much we can trust him to keep his promises.

------------------

My, _personal dream_ would be for an outcome something like this:

BQ:             3
CPC:       160
Greens:      1
LPC:         33
NDP:      140
Others:      1

There would be an immediate cry for an NDP/Liberal coalition, with, obviously, the NDP holding ALL the really important portfolios (Liberals would be offered Foreign Affairs (as a _sweetner_) and e.g. Defence, Veterans' Affairs and Revenue). Some Liberals, probably many Liberals would want to join, but some others, probably ⅓ of them, would refuse and many (most) of them would offer themselves to the CPC!

So we would have:

    1. Two possible coalitions -
  
        a. NDP/Liberal with, say, as many as 165 seats (all 140 _Dippers_ plus 22 Liberals and 3 BQ members), or

        b. CPC/Liberal with, say, as many as 172 seats (all 160 Conservatives plus 11 Liberals plus one Independent); and

    2. A decisively, perhaps irreparably split Liberal Party.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jul 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Edmonton Sun_ is an interesting bit of speculation from David Akin ~ but all should be be cautious of Jeffrey Simpson's admonition, just above, about dreaming in technicolor in the summertime:

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/07/04/the-easy-ride-in-the-west-may-be-over-for-harpers-team


> The easy ride in the West may be over for Harper's team
> 
> BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF
> 
> ...




So, if David Akin's reports of the summer dreams of the NDP and Liberals come true, Alberta _*could*_ split as follows:

          CPC:     24, but _I *guess*_ a more likely result is  30 (28 to 32)
          Liberal:  3, but _I *guess*_ a more likely result is    1  ( 0  to  2) 
          NDP:      7, but _I *guess*_ a more likely result is    3  ( 1  to  5)


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Jul 2015)

In Alberta things break this way:

Liberals - Professors
NDP - Bureaucrats
Conservatives - Albertans

 ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jul 2015)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Sun_, is from David Akin, again, and this time he suggests that Prime Minister Harper and the CPC may be going "back to the future" to exploit Canadians' _fears_ of a worsening fiscal situation:

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/07/04/economic-uncertainty-could-help-harper


> Economic uncertainty could help Harper
> 
> BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF
> 
> ...




I remain committed to the notion that voters (not just Canadian voters) are more easily motivated by either or both of being _against something_ or afraid of something than they are to be motivated by being _*for something*_ or someone.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jul 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> In Alberta things break this way:
> 
> Liberals - Professors
> NDP - Bureaucrats
> ...




If you are _Ipsos Reid_ pollster Darrell Bricker and _Globe and Mail_ journalist John Ibbitson, then that definition is pretty accurate. They posit, in _The Big Shift_ that those "professors" and "bureaucrats" represent the _Laurentian elites_ who cling to what Bricker and Ibbitson call the _Laurentian consensus_ about how Canada should "be" and who should lead it to that (always elusive) "promised land." They contend that the _Laurentian consensus_ has run  out of steam and the "Albertans," that is the "rest of us" are coalescing around a different political _narrative_: one that is more closely aligned with what the CPC is "selling."


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jul 2015)

In the _Globe and Mail_, Adam Radwanski reports that Thomas Mulcair is facing _"the start of an open season on the NDP Leader that’s expected to continue into the fall, if his party remains high in the polls ... Despite the NDP’s apparent momentum, Mr. Mulcair remains a little-known entity to many voters. His rivals will attempt to define him before he gets a chance to fully define himself."_

Mr Radwanski lists several attributes we should consider:

     1. *"He’s an old-school Quebec politician*

          Much of the NDP’s appeal is predicated on being the most credible change agent, partly because it’s never been in power. But if his federal party doesn’t have much baggage, opponents might try to find some in Mr. Mulcair’s 13 years in Quebec’s National Assembly."

     2. "*He’s a threat to national unity*

          Justin Trudeau has already sharply criticized Mr. Mulcair’s (recently reiterated) support for the Sherbrooke Declaration – an NDP policy that, among other things, calls for Quebec to be allowed to separate with a “50 per cent plus one” referendum vote,
          rather than the “clear majority” required by the Clarity Act.

     3. *"He won’t stand up enough for Quebec*

          It’s an unlikely coincidence that Mr. Mulcair’s recent Sherbrooke Declaration talk followed Gilles Duceppe’s return to the Bloc Québécois helm. With little time to breathe life back into his party, Mr. Duceppe will do everything he can to persuade nationalist
          voters who helped elect 59 Quebec NDP MPs in 2011 that their interests aren’t being represented.

     4. *"He’s a left-wing risk*

          The least surprising attack on any NDP leader is that he or she would raise taxes and jeopardize the economy.

     5. *"He’s a phoney*

          At the least, Mr. Mulcair’s opponents will try to poke holes in his smiley new demeanour by drawing attention to his previous reputation for being a mercurial loner. And even as the Conservatives try to paint him as too left wing, other parties might
          also try to sow doubts about whether he actually aligns with the values of the party he leads.

          Mr. Mulcair was, after all, a minister in a centre-right provincial government. Although he left that government over a dispute about environmental policy, he did not necessarily have a reputation for being a left-wing force within it.

It is that last point, indeed, the last paragraph, that William Johnson looked at, nearly four years ago, in an article, which is reproduced, below, under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_: 



> The real Thomas Mulcair
> 
> WILLIAM JOHNSON
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




One of the (several) things about which _I think_ M Mulcair was right was/is this:

Quote attributed to Thomas Mulcair:


> _“According to the Trudeau vision of Canada, the best way for the Liberal Party to stay in power was to constantly kick Quebeckers in the shins, wait for them to react, and then go to the rest of Canada and say, ‘Look what whiners they are and how hard to get along with. Lucky that Trudeau and his gang are there to keep them under control.’ That was the Liberal way that worked so well in Canada for decades on end.”_



It echoes what I have often said, albeit in reference to Ontario and which _I believe_ drove national 'policy' for both Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien: _ Ontario expects the national government to "keep Quebec in its place" which is within Confederation and in second place to Ontario._


----------



## Kilo_302 (6 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Sun_, is from David Akin, again, and this time he suggests that Prime Minister Harper and the CPC may be going "back to the future" to exploit Canadians' _fears_ of a worsening fiscal situation:
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/2015/07/04/economic-uncertainty-could-help-harper
> 
> I remain committed to the notion that voters (not just Canadian voters) are more easily motivated by either or both of being _against something_ or afraid of something than they are to be motivated by being _*for something*_ or someone.




Very true, but WHY is it worsening?

[/http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/i...putting-canada-in-recession-1.3138914url]


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jul 2015)

_I think_ that from a campaign tactics (as opposed to a fiscal policy) point of view the question of "why" is irrelevant. The point is:

     1. Is there a broad, general *perception* (right or wrong also doesn't matter) that that the economy is worsening?

     2. If "Yes," which party can exploit that to its electoral advantage? and

     3. If "No," then which party can exploit that?

The _narrative_ in the "Yes" case also has to ask: "who is to blame?" That _might_ get a little closer to asking "why?" but it's still not the real question ... for a campaign tactician.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Anyway, about things that _*really *_matter ... the _Globe and Mail_ reports that, _"Canada’s protected dairy and poultry industries are in the crosshairs of the United States and other farm export powers as momentum builds toward a massive Pacific Rim trade deal ... Negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are expected to resume shortly, with a deal possible as early as August."_
> 
> In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, John Ibbitson explains that Prime Minister Harper appears poised to display real, _strategic_, national leadership, despite the fact that it will hurt his partisan, political interests:
> 
> ...




An interesting analysis of the _statist_ nonsense, supported [only by the terminally f'ing stupid in our society, that is supply management, is in this article which is reproduced under the Fasir Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/watson-time-to-stop-milking-consumers


> Time to stop milking consumers
> 
> WILLIAM WATSON
> 
> ...




As to Prof Watson's final question: as far as I can tell (I may be very wrong) M Trudeau (who, again as far as I know is indifferent to economics) is _advised_ (led around by the nose, if you prefer) by a team that used to advise Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne ~ they are not people who believe in free(er) trade, in fact (still as far as I can tell) they are, mostly, protectionists, fools, therefore, of the worst kind.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Very true, but WHY is it worsening?
> 
> [/http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/i...arge and they do things differently....   ::)


----------



## Underway (7 Jul 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Well, since the NDP (your apparent dream team) are now running Alberta, things should just be sprouting up (wild) roses there, economically speaking.
> 
> What? They are the worst performing economy in Canada this year? Can't be true... The NDP are in charge and they do things differently....   :



Yes the NDP have just gotten in but let's blame Albertas structural deficit and tanking oil prices on them  :facepalm:.  Alberta has bigger problems than the NDP, they start with over reliance on a single resource and go from there.  It's gonna hurt in Alberta for a long time and no party is going to be able to make it better without some tough choices.  

Given that eliminating marketing boards will lose votes in Alberta for the Tories I wonder if that will open enough space for the NDP to gain some seats in rural Alberta federally.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Jul 2015)

I was mostly being sarcastic.

However, it will be instructive to watch the next 4 years as everything that goes wrong will still be the fault of the Alberta PCs...


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Jul 2015)

:goodpost:


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jul 2015)

In a column in the _Globe and Mail_, Lawrence Martin pretends to argue that the NDP are seeking a 'Bay Street' type to be Finance Minister in the event they form a government. I'm sure the NDP would like to get a financial _heavyweight_ as a candidate, but, _in my opinion_, the party already has a few candidates with adequate economic credentials ~ of course they're from the political left, they're _Dippers_, after all.

So, what is Lawrence Martin's point?

The column is, simply, a "free" advertisement for the Liberal Party of Canada: it points out that they do have some strong, credible "front benchers" ready to serve finance ministers in waiting. Expect more of this from Mr Martin and, indeed, from Jeffrey Simpson, in the _Good Grey Globe_, almost everyone in the _Toronto Star_ and a few others in other media outlets. And you can expect _counter fire_ from _right wing_ journalists in equally as many media chains.

_My point_ is: the media is not unbiased ~ even the best journalists bring a strong "point of view" to the stories they write ~ maybe that's part of what makes them the best. All the "news' you see (most people get most of their information from TV), hear and read (only a few of us read newspapers, fewer still read several) ~ about politics, about economics, about social issues, about wars and national security ... about _*everything*_ ~ will be filtered through the eyes, ears, minds and, therefore, built in _*biases*_ of the journalist and his/her editors. _Caveat lector_.


----------



## Underway (7 Jul 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I was mostly being sarcastic.
> 
> However, it will be instructive to watch the next 4 years as everything that goes wrong will still be the fault of the Alberta PCs...


Fair enough, however that tactic worked  for Cretiens and Daltons first terms!


----------



## dimsum (7 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> All the "news' you see (most people get most of their information from TV), hear and read (only a few of us read newspapers, fewer still read several) ~ about politics, about economics, about social issues, about wars and national security ... about _*everything*_ ~ will be filtered through the eyes, ears, minds and, therefore, built in _*biases*_ of the journalist and his/her editors. _Caveat lector_.



Agreed.  But, try as I want to, I can't get through most of The Star's or The Sun's political/social issues articles without wanting to force my palm through my face.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (7 Jul 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> Yes the NDP have just gotten in but let's blame Alberta's structural deficit and tanking oil prices on them


 True, the drop in oil prices happened before the election and the PC's had screwed the pooch, which peeved off a lot of the electorate.



> Alberta has bigger problems than the NDP, they start with over reliance on a single resource and go from there.


 True, the energy sector encompasses a large section of Alberta's GDP, but its not as big as some people think. For example, in  1985  the energy sector made up 36% of the provinces GDP; in 2013 it was only 24.6%.  And I'm guessing that 24% also includes hydro-electric and renewable energy so the actual gas/oil percentage is actually a few points smaller. Yes, a significant percentage, but hardly a single resource.



> It's gonna hurt in Alberta for a long time and no party is going to be able to make it better without some tough choices.


 True, and the NDP is making some tough choices, but are they the right ones? 



> Given that eliminating marketing boards will lose votes in Alberta for the Tories I wonder if that will open enough space for the NDP to gain some seats in rural Alberta federally.


 Well first off, apart from some rumors, there are no indications that that the Conservatives are going to eliminate farm marketing boards. If they do decide, various studies have shown the actual loss in votes (country wide) is pretty insignificant, especially if the Conservatives can show that the average consumer can save money. 

The other thing is that NDP support in Alberta may be pretty thin. A poll (ABACUS ?) after the election showed that the majority of people who voted NDP, voted because they were peeved off at the PCs, not because they were NDP supporters. 

Finally, if the federal NDP do pick-up seats in Alberta, it will in the urban areas, not rural.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jul 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> Given that eliminating marketing boards will lose votes in Alberta for the Tories I wonder if that will open enough space for the NDP to gain some seats in rural Alberta federally.



Rather unlikely.  Alberta farmers led the charge to eliminate the Wheat Board and be able to raise and sell their own crops. Also, they and other Western dairy farmers, have regularly been "shorted" quota to feed the Quebec and Ontario Co-Ops.  

(The Dairy Industry in Canada is now all owned by 5000 Quebec farmers (Agropur), the Saputo family of Montreal (Saputo) and an Italian multinational (Parmalat) Agropur's membership more and more consists of Milk Quota holders and traders and less and less of active farmers).

The Co-Op issue is one for rural Quebec and Ontario - and in Quebec it really only affects the CPC around the region of Beauce and Lotbiniere.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jul 2015)

If, and it's a _Big IF_, this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is correct, then Prime Minister's Harper's (reputed) _strategy_ of reshaping Canadian politics into a UK style two party system, with a centre-right Conservative Party and a left of centre NDP, is working, and the Liberals are being squeezed out (see Dangerfield's _The Strange Death of Liberal England_):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-viewed-as-clearest-alternative-to-conservatives-poll-shows/article25348097/


> NDP viewed as clearest alternative to Conservatives, poll shows
> 
> DANIEL LEBLANC
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




_My opinion_ remains that Canadians, generally, don't vote FOR something or someone, they vote for change, to "throw the rascals out." If that's true then the article's contention that _"Change – and who can best deliver it – will be an essential issue in the Oct. 19 election," _is very germane and, at the moment, the preferred _agent of change_ appears to be Thomas Mulcair and the NDP.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Jul 2015)

And that's why I said the buggers will win.  People are tired of Mr. H.  At the very least, I believe the CPC will get mauled.


----------



## Remius (8 Jul 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And that's why I said the buggers will win.  People are tired of Mr. H.  At the very least, I believe the CPC will get mauled.



I'm starting to get that impression as well.


----------



## Underway (8 Jul 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And that's why I said the buggers will win.  People are tired of Mr. H.  At the very least, I believe the CPC will get mauled.


Depending on your definition of mauled that may very well be true.  I think that (assuming the campaign doesn't matter) they will lose their close seats in Ontario and BC.  They will retain their not so close seats like Niagara West, easily but with less of the popular vote.  Official opposition, because even if they form a minority gov't the Libs and NDP will get together and make a coalition gov't, for the short term.

Canadian's choose parlament, parlament chooses the government...


----------



## Remius (8 Jul 2015)

Eric Grenier explains that despite the CPC being at historic lows in the polls, not everything is what it seems.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservatives-at-historic-lows-in-the-polls-but-still-competitive-1.3141563


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jul 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> (assuming the campaign doesn't matter)



A fairly large assumption to make.  See "Election, General, BC 2013".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jul 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And that's why I said the buggers will win.  People are tired of Mr. H.  At the very least, I believe the CPC will get mauled.



The MSM and some vocal groups are tired of the PM. I, personally, am not. Neither are a lot of the grass root and other Conservatives (as well as those not sure which way to go). As with most elections, we (Conservatives) are just never very vocal or participate in polls. Both constantly, and always have, skewed the predictions and surprised the electorate on voting day (most times, not always).

Is he in for a ravaging? Maybe. Is it as cut and dried as the partisan press and special interest groups are hoping and broadcasting? Highly unlikely.

The only poll that counts is the one on election day.


----------



## Remius (8 Jul 2015)

i think that campaigns do matter.  Which is why I'm holding off on too much prognostication until this one officially starts.

However there are a number of things that I think will affect the campaign.

1. The economy.  The R word is being bandied about.  If the job numbers and economic reorts show teh economy is in decline (I believe it is) then I think this will be an issue.  The CPC's credibility will be at stake and the opposition will also have to make a strong case as to why they should be the ones to "rescue" it.  Expect attack ads to ramp up on all sides in regards to this.

2. The Duffy affair.  This will work one way or the other.  In particular Nigel Wright's testimony which will be likely during the middle of the campaign.  Either it will be explosive and damage the Harper brand  (I call it that since it seems the CPC is campaigning on the strength of Stephen Harper and nothing else) or it will be so anti-climactic that it will reinforce the Harper brand.  Either it will have an effect since the media will be displaying this goat rodeo quite prominently.

3.  A serious security issue (or not).  If, gods forbid, we suffer another serious security issue, this will play to the PM's strengths but I belive that the opposite is true, that if everything is relatively quiet, Canadians in their notoriously complacent attitudes might not care about how strong he is or has been in that regard.  

I'm sure we'll see many minor controversies perceived and real and attacks but none will have as much influence, I think, over the election as the three listed above. 

(Understanding of course that many, many smaller issues can add up to bigger ones for all parties)


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The MSM and some vocal groups are tired of the PM. I, personally, am not. Neither are a lot of the grass root and other Conservatives (as well as those not sure which way to go). As with most elections, we (Conservatives) are just never very vocal or participate in polls. Both constantly, and always have, skewed the predictions and surprised the electorate on voting day (most times, not always).
> 
> Is he in for a ravaging? Maybe. Is it as cut and dried as the partisan press and special interest groups are hoping and broadcasting? Highly unlikely.
> 
> The only poll that counts is the one on election day.



So true.  Taking in to account that I am in the Halifax area, where the CPC's name is Mud, they are going to tank here.  This of course comes as no surprise to anyone as ER et al, have pointed out many times that this is becoming more and more of a Liberal bastion.  I don't, therefore, have a better idea of how the winds blow amongst the rest of us outside this area.  

Only October will tell.  I suspect that this will be a bumpy ride for all three main parties with many a slip between the cup and the lip, as they say.  I too do hope the beard is not our new alien overlord come November too.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The MSM and some vocal groups are tired of the PM. I, personally, am not. Neither are a lot of the grass root and other Conservatives (as well as those not sure which way to go). As with most elections, we (Conservatives) are just never very vocal or participate in polls. Both constantly, and always have, skewed the predictions and surprised the electorate on voting day (most times, not always).
> 
> Is he in for a ravaging? Maybe. Is it as cut and dried as the partisan press and special interest groups are hoping and broadcasting? Highly unlikely.
> 
> The only poll that counts is the one on election day.



I supported the CPC initially and actually quite a few Public Servants were happy to see the Libs go, we were hoping for some ethical leadership. There was certainly a grace period while they learned how to drive the government, but now the communication clampdowns, ommibills, poorly written and rushed bills and a Work Force Adjustment which even now we are still to refill the cuts have all whittled that quiet support. The Duffy scandal was the icing on the cake, the difference that the CPC could hold up over the Liberals was gone. I personally expect that Duffy going to trial will cause the issue to whither legally, as it's clear accounting rules were lax and a whole culture of the place is bad. But it taints the CPC and the PM. I also see that the grassroots of the CPC are annoyed, which is not good because that is the foundational strength of the party. Despise volunteering and donating to my MP, it took many attempts just to get a form letter out of him for a hot local issue. I don't want a sock puppet for a MP and it seems sock puppets is what the PMO wants.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jul 2015)

How the FP sees things right now. With the amount of external turmoil growing (Greece, China, ISIS, Ukraine, South China Sea, etc.) it is almost impossible to predict what the conditions in the rest of the world will be like, much less the effects on Canada.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/kelly-mcparland-europe-is-in-crisis-china-is-in-turmoil-isil-is-expanding-mulcair-is-gaining-so-why-isnt-harper-panicked



> *Kelly McParland: Europe is in crisis, China is in turmoil, ISIL is expanding, Mulcair is gaining. So why isn’t Harper panicked?*
> Kelly McParland | July 8, 2015 1:19 PM ET
> More from Kelly McParland | @KellyMcParland
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jul 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I supported the CPC initially and actually quite a few Public Servants were happy to see the Libs go, we were hoping for some ethical leadership. There was certainly a grace period while they learned how to drive the government, but now the communication clampdowns, ommibills, poorly written and rushed bills and a Work Force Adjustment which even now we are still to refill the cuts have all whittled that quiet support. The Duffy scandal was the icing on the cake, the difference that the CPC could hold up over the Liberals was gone. I personally expect that Duffy going to trial will cause the issue to whither legally, as it's clear accounting rules were lax and a whole culture of the place is bad. But it taints the CPC and the PM. I also see that the grassroots of the CPC are annoyed, which is not good because that is the foundational strength of the party. Despise volunteering and donating to my MP, it took many attempts just to get a form letter out of him for a hot local issue. I don't want a sock puppet for a MP and it seems sock puppets is what the PMO wants.



Annoyance and disagreement, with the party, does not necessarily equate to lost votes. Especially when the alternatives are weighed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Annoyance and disagreement, with the party, does not necessarily equate to lost votes. Especially when the alternatives are weighed.




I agree.

I know that some (at least one) _"conservative"_ who is very annoyed with the CPC, and disagrees with, probably, more than half its policies, but ... that same _"conservative"_ disagrees with many, many more of the Liberal and NDP policies and promises and, so, will stick with the CPC as the better (not just least bad) of the reasonable choices.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (8 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree.
> 
> I know that some (at least one) _"conservative"_ who is very annoyed with the CPC, and disagrees with, probably, more than half its policies, but ... that same _"conservative"_ disagrees with many, many more of the Liberal and NDP policies and promises and, so, will stick with the CPC as the better (not just least bad) of the reasonable choices.



Same here. Better the devil you know.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jul 2015)

But here is an interesting _graphic_, from _ABACUS Data_, that shows the view of those who want change in selected key areas:







It's a _horserace_ between the Liberals and the NDP, right now, and the CPC still _can_ (but not necessarily will) "come up the middle" in October.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jul 2015)

_I think_ David Parkins, in the _Globe and Mail_, tells us all we need to know about M Trudeau's campaign dilemma in this illustration:

                    
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




The _ABACUS Data_ numbers suggest a 'dead heat,' but the media perception seems to be that it's all _Harper vs Mulcair_, with "the kid" watching from the sidelines.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Jul 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> _I think that campaigns do matter._  Which is why I'm holding off on too much prognostication until this one officially starts.
> ...
> I'm sure we'll see many minor controversies perceived and real and attacks but none will have as much influence, I think, over the election as the three listed above.
> 
> (Understanding of course that many, many smaller issues can add up to bigger ones for all parties)




I agree.

I was thinking about 30 years ago, the 1984 campaign. The Liberal incumbent, John "Chick" Turner was _rusty_, out of touch, as his infamous slap on Iona Campagnolo's (admittedly very attractive) bum proved. It wasn't a game changer, but it did, _I guarantee_, resonate with some women, especially "women over forty"* who (unlike their twenty-something sisters) vote in large numbers and who were reliably Liberal voters. 

But the turn in the campaign hinged on five words ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



          _"You had an option, sir!"_

Brian Mulroney was already leading, as I recall, but that line, in a televised debate, seemed to seal the election and it gave the Progressive Conservatives a historic, trans-Canadian victory.

The late British Prime Minister Harold Wilson famously reminded us that ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




               ... and we have more than 14 "long times" to go before an October election.

Campaigns do matter, they can turn things upside down.

_____
* Now there's a pop-cultural reference that only a few of us will remember ...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (9 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I was thinking about 30 years ago, the 1984 campaign. The Liberal incumbent, John "Chick" Turner was _rusty_, out of touch, as his infamous slap on Iona Campagnolo's (admittedly very attractive) bum proved. It wasn't a game changer, but it did, _I guarantee_, resonate with some women, especially "women over forty"* who (unlike their twenty-something sisters) vote in large numbers and who were reliably Liberal voters.



And don't forget when Robert Stanfield - literally - dropped the football.


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Jul 2015)

Yet another reason to NOT vote Conservative. It's funny that they cited "intrusion into the private lives of Canadians" as a primary reason to get rid of the long form census, and then they turn around and pass C-51. 

The data captured in the census is crucial for formulating good public policy. A government that wants LESS information to do this, and not more should not be a government period. As the article points out, this lack of data is affecting both the public AND the private sector, and it's actually COSTING us money. The Conservatives can't even seem to govern according to their own ideology. 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/cities-footing-the-bill-for-data-gap-after-long-form-census-scrapped/article22695286/



> More broadly, it has “inhibited research into inequality and identifying winners and losers in economic growth, research into understanding the national problems of the have-nots in the economy, and research into how best to provision local government services.”
> 
> In the private sector, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, whose network represents 200,000 businesses across the country, is publicly calling on the federal government to restore the mandatory long-form census....
> 
> Sara Mayo, social planner at the Social Planning and Research Council of Hamilton, says the result of the census changes has been less data for more money. “In terms of fiscal prudence, this made no sense. Why would any government want to pay more for worse-quality data?”"


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2015)

The "You had a choice, sir" line is perhaps the reason that we still have TV debates at all; since everyone is waiting for a knockout blow like that one. Unfortunately, this is also the reason TV debates are now tripe, since no one will actually say or do anything, or take a position, or articulate a belief in the fear that this could lead to a "You had a choice, sir" moment.

Which is truely sad, since I would actually like to know the positions of the leaders, and hear them articulate their positions and beliefs. Oddly, having had the opportunity to actually see the Prime Minister and the Young Dauphin "up close and personal" on separate occasions in small settings, I know they are entirely opposite of their "media" personas (Yes, the Young Dauphin is not only slow on his feet, he really isn't very charismatic in person either...), which makes watching even more tedious. You might as well hire actors playing Stephen Harper, Tom Mulcair and the Young Dauphin for the debate, since they will at least be able to project some feeling into the performance.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jul 2015)

If census supporters want a more detailed census to return, they first need to exercise self-discipline in two respects:
1) Do not be over-intrusive.
2) Do not mine the data to create far-reaching excuses for public spending.

Those who abuse something relentlessly risk it being taken away by exasperated people.  There is no particular right to demand a more nuanced response.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Jul 2015)

Bruce Anderson (_ABACUS Data_) is, generally, regarded as a Liberal insider, but I think this analysis, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is insightful:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservatives-can-only-win-if-they-own-up-to-their-weaknesses/article25386988/


> Conservatives can only win if they own up to their weaknesses
> 
> BRUCE ANDERSON
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...



Now, embedded in this "good advice" is a _plea_ to "go easy on Justin Trudeau, please," but there is, in fact, some merit in that. *Attack ads work*; _I don't think_ any serious campaign strategists doubt that, but they can also backfire ~ remember the Kim Campbell campaign's ads that were perceived to make fun of Prime Minister Chrétien's facial deformity which was caused by a childhood bout of Bell's palsy. The fact that they are still using them means, _I believe_, that the CPC _believes_ that"Just Not Ready" is working for them; _I'm guessing_ that their polling says the ad campaign is defining M Trudeau.

_In my opinion_ the CPC campaign must aim at provoking battles between the Liberals and the NDP to split the anti-Conservative vote as evenly as possible. The CPC can win with less than 39% of the popular vote IF it gets a very, very efficient vote (Jean Chrétien won a comfortable majority in 1997, with 38.46% of the popular vote and Stephen Harper won, in 2011, with 39.62%) ~ enough "even splits" (33% CPC, 30% Liberal and 30% NDP) in many ridings. That's easier said than done, of course.

I repeat, _I think_ the CPC and the Liberals have "firm bases" of about 20% (each) of the electorate and _I also think_ that the NDP has a stranglehold on 15% and other parties "own" a further 5% ~ those are votes that will (almost) never desert their favoured parties. But that means that 40% of the electorate is "up for grabs," but _I believe_ that nearly ⅓ of that is pretty solidly _progressive_ most of the time so that means that only 25% of the electorate can be persuaded to vote CPC. the CPC needs to persuade most of those voters ~ two out of three of them, at the very least ~ to support them one more time (20% solid + 18% undecided = 38%+ result which = slim majority).

_I don't think_ the CPC can stop bashing the media, not, anyway, until it gets a whole new "front office," maybe it's part of the current (Harper's) team's political-cultural DNA._ I do think_ they can run a carefully balanced, nuanced campaign, that tells voters that both the Liberals and the NDP are fiscally irresponsible and, on a riding by riding basis, "picks a favourite" amongst the Liberals and _Dippers_ in order to try and "come up the middle" in each, separate tight, three way race. (and the CPC needs 150+ of those tight, three way races.)


----------



## Harrigan (10 Jul 2015)

Or......they could run on their record in 9 years in power.

That would be the "Conservatives vote FOR something, rather than AGAINST something", would it not?  It has been said many times on here, and I wish it were true, but most of us here seem to be 'anti-Trudeau' or 'anti-NDP' far more than we are FOR Harper.

Personally, I think all parties are barking up the wrong tree if they think the majority of the electorate cares about what "tribe" is who.  50 years ago, one would never see voters choosing between parties on far opposite sides of the spectrum.  One might have seen voters vacillate between the old Socreds and the Conservatives, or similar left wing parties.  Nowadays, we regularly see people choosing between polar opposites (Wildrose and NDP for example, or even BQ and a Federalist party in Quebec).  This tells me that party loyalty is a thing of the past, and is probably just a function of the modern society we live in, and its 24/7 access (pun intended) to all sides of issues.  

That's not to say that there isn't a "base".  There will always be some that will vote for their "tribe" regardless of what they have done, what they say they'll do, or who the leader is, but I think those traditional bases may be dwindling.  I think you have actually identified that, as your "base" numbers are lower now for each party than one would have estimated in the past.

Harrigan


----------



## Kilo_302 (10 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Or......they could run on their record in 9 years in power.
> 
> That would be the "Conservatives vote FOR something, rather than AGAINST something", would it not?  It has been said many times on here, and I wish it were true, but most of us here seem to be 'anti-Trudeau' or 'anti-NDP' far more than we are FOR Harper.
> 
> ...




I think this discussion is missing some realities about the nature of the political spectrum and what our current parties represent. The NDP, by and large, is NOT on the opposite end of the spectrum as say the Wild Rose Party or the right wing of the Conservative Party. The NDP is in the center, full stop. They embrace liberal economics and market capitalism. They are not a socialist party by any means. Sure, they're for more regulation and a limited "re-distribution" of wealth, but we have had both in Canada since World War 2, and they're mainly calling for a return to the mid-90s. Calling the NDP a left wing party is akin to saying Amanda Lang represented the Left on the Lang/O'Leary Exchange. I don't know many self-identifying left-wingers who would agree with anything she has to say. A party on the true opposite end of the spectrum to the Wild Rose Party would need to be a true socialist party that rejects capitalism, think Syriza. The "fear of the left" that's so prominent on this thread isn't based in reality. The reality is the spectrum of debate in Canada has shifted to right over the past few decades. 

Furthermore, despite what our politicians would have us believe, the spectrum of acceptable political debate in Canada is actually quite narrow. It's definitely broadened a bit with the Conservatives leaning ever further to the right since they absorbed the Canadian Alliance, but the NDP and the Liberals have also shifted to the right to meet that challenge.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I think this discussion is missing some realities about the nature of the political spectrum and what our current parties represent. The NDP, by and large, is NOT on the opposite end of the spectrum as say the Wild Rose Party or the right wing of the Conservative Party. The NDP is in the center, full stop. They embrace liberal economics and market capitalism. They are not a socialist party by any means. Sure, they're for more regulation and a limited "re-distribution" of wealth, but we have had both in Canada since World War 2, and they're mainly calling for a return to the mid-90s. Calling the NDP a left wing party is akin to saying Amanda Lang represented the Left on the Lang/O'Leary Exchange. I don't know many self-identifying left-wingers who would agree with anything she has to say. A party on the true opposite end of the spectrum to the Wild Rose Party would need to be a true socialist party that rejects capitalism, think Syriza. The "fear of the left" that's so prominent on this thread isn't based in reality. The reality is the spectrum of debate in Canada has shifted to right over the past few decades.
> 
> Furthermore, despite what our politicians would have us believe, the spectrum of acceptable political debate in Canada is actually quite narrow. It's definitely broadened a bit with the Conservatives leaning ever further to the right since they absorbed the Canadian Alliance, but the NDP and the Liberals have also shifted to the right to meet that challenge.



Make me believe.

Disavow the "vast left wing conspiracy".  Quit the Socialist International.


----------



## Underway (10 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I think this discussion is missing some realities about the nature of the political spectrum and what our current parties represent. The NDP, by and large, is NOT on the opposite end of the spectrum as say the Wild Rose Party or the right wing of the Conservative Party. The NDP is in the center, full stop. They embrace liberal economics and market capitalism. They are not a socialist party by any means. Sure, they're for more regulation and a limited "redistribution" of wealth, but we have had both in Canada since World War 2, and they're mainly calling for a return to the mid-90s. Calling the NDP a left wing party is akin to saying Amanda Lang represented the Left on the Lang/O'Leary Exchange. I don't know many self-identifying left-wingers who would agree with anything she has to say. A party on the true opposite end of the spectrum to the Wild Rose Party would need to be a true socialist party that rejects capitalism, think Syriza. The "fear of the left" that's so prominent on this thread isn't based in reality. The reality is the spectrum of debate in Canada has shifted to right over the past few decades.
> 
> Furthermore, despite what our politicians would have us believe, the spectrum of acceptable political debate in Canada is actually quite narrow. It's definitely broadened a bit with the Conservatives leaning ever further to the right since they absorbed the Canadian Alliance, but the NDP and the Liberals have also shifted to the right to meet that challenge.



Not entirely correct.  The CPC believe that the less government the better.  Freedom and flexibility in choosing will lead to the best option for the individual.  If you have money, spend it how you like, you earned it and should keep it.  The Liberals are by their very nature capitalists who (broad strokes here people...) have a form of noblesse oblige and believe that government should be a positive force in peoples lives.  They aren't against the rich because they are rich.  The NDP are socialists, who think that governments can do things for the population better than individuals if we all chip in together.

Problem is that what defines left and right in Canada is different from other countries definitions and have significantly different policies.  Socialists in Europe are often very pro-military, they are true socialists where the state is the most important organization.  Democrats in the US are often closer to the right in Canada than the left.  The right wing in Japan looks nothing like the right wing here.

Even within Canada the left and right are fuzzy.  BC's Liberal Party does not resemble Ontario's in policy or their left/right alignment.  Quebec's Liberal Party is very different than the one in Nova Scotia.

As well left and right policies are changing over time and sometimes flip.  There was a time when liberalism was what the liberals did and big government was what the conservatives did (think John A and his railroad).  So the measurement standard has changed as well.

I will agree that debate in Canada has broadened since the Canadian Alliance *absorbed * the Progressive Conservatives (you had it the wrong way around).   If the debate has shifted to the right (and I think it has) its because of demographics and the fact the Conservatives have cut taxes to the point where in order to fund a social program agenda one has to raise taxes or cut other services.  They have boxed in the finances in for the longer term as I don't see Canadians federally supporting tax increases in general and cutting programs is anathema to big government.  And there is no oil boom coming so revenues will be tight for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Harrigan (10 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I think this discussion is missing some realities about the nature of the political spectrum and what our current parties represent. The NDP, by and large, is NOT on the opposite end of the spectrum as say the Wild Rose Party or the right wing of the Conservative Party. The NDP is in the center, full stop. They embrace liberal economics and market capitalism. They are not a socialist party by any means. Sure, they're for more regulation and a limited "re-distribution" of wealth, but we have had both in Canada since World War 2, and they're mainly calling for a return to the mid-90s. Calling the NDP a left wing party is akin to saying Amanda Lang represented the Left on the Lang/O'Leary Exchange. I don't know many self-identifying left-wingers who would agree with anything she has to say. A party on the true opposite end of the spectrum to the Wild Rose Party would need to be a true socialist party that rejects capitalism, think Syriza. The "fear of the left" that's so prominent on this thread isn't based in reality. The reality is the spectrum of debate in Canada has shifted to right over the past few decades.
> 
> Furthermore, despite what our politicians would have us believe, the spectrum of acceptable political debate in Canada is actually quite narrow. It's definitely broadened a bit with the Conservatives leaning ever further to the right since they absorbed the Canadian Alliance, but the NDP and the Liberals have also shifted to the right to meet that challenge.



While I may disagree somewhat with your characterization of the NDP as smack in the "centre", nevertheless I think the crux of your argument is correct.  Parties change.  I believe this is in response to the voter rather than leading the voter, but that's just one opinion.  A case can be made either way.  

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (10 Jul 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> Not entirely correct.  The CPC believe that the less government the better.  Freedom and flexibility in choosing will lead to the best option for the individual.  If you have money, spend it how you like, you earned it and should keep it.  The Liberals are by their very nature capitalists who (broad strokes here people...) have a form of noblesse oblige and believe that government should be a positive force in peoples lives.  They aren't against the rich because they are rich.  The NDP are socialists, who think that governments can do things for the population better than individuals if we all chip in together.
> 
> Problem is that what defines left and right in Canada is different from other countries definitions and have significantly different policies.  Socialists in Europe are often very pro-military, they are true socialists where the state is the most important organization.  Democrats in the US are often closer to the right in Canada than the left.  The right wing in Japan looks nothing like the right wing here.
> 
> ...



Broadly speaking, I think you are right on.  The only quibble I have is that I would say that Conservatives believe that the less government the better.  The CPC _says_ that they believe that, but I refuse to accept that Bill C-51 would ever be tabled by a party that believes in 'less government'.

Harrigan


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Jul 2015)

> Recently, on national TV, a Conservative spokesman said his party’s advertising offers voters information they can trust: “We’re better than news – because we’re truthful.”



If the press took umbrage, too bad. The CPC is playing the MSM's game here. The CPC wasn't really 'reporting' this news, they were _shaping_ it. That they took it right into the lion's den and poked the lion in the eye with a stick makes it even more believable and courageous sounding.

If the MSM want to, truly, be above the fray, they have to start 'reporting' the news and _not shaping it by opining their own spin on it. _Boring presentation? Absolutely. However, by just presenting the known facts, without their own spin, they will force the population into defining their own position on things. At least those that have not become too lazy to care.

BBC World News is a good example of fact reporting without the spin. That is the standard our MSM should strive for.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Broadly speaking, I think you are right on.  The only quibble I have is that I would say that Conservatives believe that the less government the better.  The CPC _says_ that they believe that, but I refuse to accept that Bill C-51 would ever be tabled by a party that believes in 'less government'.
> 
> Harrigan



The issue is partially the tension between the _Transformative_ and the _Transactive_. The CPC is _Transformative_ in that they have a broad st of principles outlined in their constitution and election platforms, which all their policies and actions can (in theory) tie back to. The NDP has similar _Transformative_ roots in their membership in the Socialist International, and defined for Canadian conditions in their constitution and policy platforms. Once again, in theory, everything can be tied back to these roots.

Of course, governance in the real world is never so nice and neat. Politics, as defined in organizational theory, is a means of allocating limited resources. No party, no group or even an all powerful Pharaoh has unlimited resources (and ultimately you would not have enough time, even if somehow there were no limits to the physical resources available). So you have to make compromises and transactions to govern. The LPC was the master of _Transactive_ governance, being able to seemingly cut a deal with everyone to gain support and get power, but eventually the balls fall out of the air, and the Liberals find themselves not being able to appeal to the electorate since they did not take the time to "stand" for anything.

Bills like C-51 or a multitude of other proposed laws and bills may well represent attempts by the CPC to either provide some sort of _transactive_ activity to appeal to some elements of their electoral base, or perhaps the "least worst choice" in trying to deal with difficult problems which their _Transformative_ principles are ill equilpped to deal with. (Remember the example of "The Strange Death of Liberal England", or the dissolution of parties like the Federalists, Whigs, Social Credit or Progressives when they were no longer able to generate any coherent answers to the issues of the day).

This isn't to say any of this is particularly "right"; a government led by Tom Mulcaire will have many of the same issue to deal with. Looking at Greece, Ontario under Bob Rae or the bankrupt American "Blue" states, one can see the NDP's _Transformative_ worldview will be under a lot of pressure once it comes into full contact with the real world.


----------



## ballz (10 Jul 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> Not entirely correct.  The CPC believe that the less government the better.  Freedom and flexibility in choosing will lead to the best option for the individual.  If you have money, spend it how you like, you earned it and should keep it.



That statement is only half true at best, and is a bit of an affront to libertarians and classical liberals. The half that may be true is that the CPC may believe that less government is better on economic issues (and I would argue that they only practice that half the time), but they certainly don't believe in less government is the answer on social issues. They may not be progressive on social issues, but they are clearly _conservative_ (in the actual definition of the word) on social issues, both may be opposites but neither is laissez-faire.

But a great and fair post overall.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (10 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The NDP is in the center, full stop.



Not so sure about that.  The NDP doesn't seem to have any doubt where they stand.

CONSTITUTION OF THE
New Democratic Party of Canada
Effective April 2013

"New Democrats seek a future that brings together the best of the insights and objectives of Canadians who, within the social democratic and democratic socialist traditions ... to build a more just, equal, and sustainable Canada within a global community dedicated to the same goals."


----------



## Harrigan (10 Jul 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The issue is partially the tension between the _Transformative_ and the _Transactive_. The CPC is _Transformative_ in that they have a broad st of principles outlined in their constitution and election platforms, which all their policies and actions can (in theory) tie back to. The NDP has similar _Transformative_ roots in their membership in the Socialist International, and defined for Canadian conditions in their constitution and policy platforms. Once again, in theory, everything can be tied back to these roots.
> 
> Of course, governance in the real world is never so nice and neat. Politics, as defined in organizational theory, is a means of allocating limited resources. No party, no group or even an all powerful Pharaoh has unlimited resources (and ultimately you would not have enough time, even if somehow there were no limits to the physical resources available). So you have to make compromises and transactions to govern. The LPC was the master of _Transactive_ governance, being able to seemingly cut a deal with everyone to gain support and get power, but eventually the balls fall out of the air, and the Liberals find themselves not being able to appeal to the electorate since they did not take the time to "stand" for anything.
> 
> ...



I think you have made some very good points.  I agree that the CPC and NDP are theoretically _transformative_, and the Liberals are theoretically _transactive_.  The CPC does just enough to keep their 'base' towing the line, and presumably the NDP would do the same.  The short form of all this is: governing to the centre, where (gasp) most Canadians are.  It's why I am not concerned that CPC will install a dictatorship, or that the NDP will make us all communist.  They will both talk to their base, but govern where most Canadians are, which is the centre.

One interesting transformative policy plank that is now out there is the Liberal promise to make 2015 the last "FPTP" election.  This would seem to be a policy that would be suggested by the NDP, not the the Liberals.  The reason I find it interesting is that Trudeau is suggesting a policy that does _not_ favour the Liberals at all, and will no doubt be supported by the NDP.  This is win-win for the NDP on many fronts (for more gain for them than the Liberals).  

And, as Mr.Campbell has already suggested, any change from the FPTP system is bad news for conservatives, as it guarantees a majority of seats in Parliament would be from 'progressive' parties.

Harrigan


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Jul 2015)

The CPC as it currently behaves in office is centre-right; the LPC by its own policy proposals is centre-left.  The NDP is further left of the LPC.  The 20% of Canadians further left of the NDP will need to decide whether to support the NDP or some fringe party.  The 20% of Canadians further right of the CPC will need to decide whether to support the CPC or some fringe party.  To claim the NDP is in the "centre" is to render all meaning of "left" and "right" (and therefore "centre" also) meaningless - it's a self-negating claim.

The LPC has unwittingly destroyed most of its traditional "transactive" foundational assets.  Patronage took a blow when Mulroney rapped Turner with it.  The Senate - which was the LPC information channel to corporate Canada - has been thrown aside by Trudeau.  How many old-time Liberals who understood the old party shat themselves when Trudeau did that?

I doubt the NDP really want a replacement for FPTP.  They might have slightly larger representation in Parliament, but will have dramatically reduced chances of ever forming a government - if "every vote counts", people inclined to vote other than NDP will not have a compelling reason to ever vote NDP either "strategically" or in disgust.  Would they rather be slightly larger in opposition, forever, or have a shot at governing as the major partner in a coalition?

The LPC is talking about replacing FPTP because they still haven't figured out where they went wrong or conceived a practical path back to power and are flailing about for solutions.  Replacing FPTP is an electoral analogue to selecting Trudeau as leader.  They are panicking.  What they need is for Trudeau to resign right now and for a serious "interim" leader to take over.

Since the LPC is being hammered flat, I can't imagine that a "left" vote split is the CPC strategy.  If it is, the CPC need to lower Mulcair and raise Trudeau.  Given the way things are going, I suppose their intent is to push the LPC into complete free fall and capture "Blue" LPC voters.


----------



## Underway (10 Jul 2015)

Changes to FPTP often lead to a more fractured political landscape.  It might be bad for all big tent parties when they all explode into their individual sub factions.

As for the conservative strategy it is to destroy the LPC.  If that means sacrificing a pawn (this election) to do it then I think they would call that fair.  In a country with just the NDP and the CPC the CPC win 3 out of every four elections.  The long term threat to the conservatives is the liberals.


----------



## Harrigan (11 Jul 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> In a country with just the NDP and the CPC the CPC win 3 out of every four elections.  The long term threat to the conservatives is the liberals.



I'm afraid I have to disagree 100% with that assertion.  Any coalescence between Liberals and NDPers into one party would doom the CPC to eternal opposition, because they would be facing a left-centre mixture of the two.  Historically, right-of-centre parties in Canada have earned more than half the vote exactly twice since WWII (Diefenbaker in 1958, and Mulroney in 1984).  The rest of the time, it is 40% Conservative and 60% Progressive (in general).  And at the moment it is 28% Conservative, and 72% Progressive.  Trend lines are not in CPC's favour.

Only if you think there are more "Blue Liberals" than "Orange Liberals" would this model not be accurate - and if that is the case, how can you call the Liberals a centre-left party?

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (11 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Patronage took a blow when Mulroney rapped Turner with it.



Are you suggesting that Mulroney, Chretien, Martin, and Harper have not used patronage ad nauseum since 1984???  That line certainly did in Turner in 1984, but it didn't hurt the four following PM's at all, who have shown no reluctance to use patronage whenever it suited them.  

It seems to me the most likely to have "You had a choice, Sir." thrown in their face at a debate in 2015 would be Mulcair at Harper on the issue of the Senate.  After all the sound and fury when in opposition about the ills of the Senate, Harper has filled it with his folks, and its credibility has never been lower.  The NDP, despite what we may think of their other policies, have always been clear and consistent about what they think of the Senate - they want it abolished - and they can call out the other two parties more or less with impunity.  

Harrigan


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that Mulroney, Chretien, Martin, and Harper have not used patronage ad nauseum since 1984???  That line certainly did in Turner in 1984, but it didn't hurt the four following PM's at all, who have shown no reluctance to use patronage whenever it suited them.
> 
> It seems to me the most likely to have "You had a choice, Sir." thrown in their face at a debate in 2015 would be Mulcair at Harper on the issue of the Senate.  After all the sound and fury when in opposition about the ills of the Senate, Harper has filled it with his folks, and its credibility has never been lower.  The NDP, despite what we may think of their other policies, have always been clear and consistent about what they think of the Senate - they want it abolished - and they can call out the other two parties more or less with impunity.
> 
> Harrigan



Except everyone knows the PM took this to the SC, who said it would be unconstitutional. That and every Province and Territory would have to be in full agreement (like that has a snowballs chance in hell of happening). The PM checked his paperwork before launching into a no go campaign that would take all work off the table for, at least, four years.

It's not impossible to abolish the Senate, but it is damn near so.

Mulcair knows this emphatically, however, he continues to _lie_ about him doing it, to capture the vote of the ignorant, easily led sheep.

If he gets in the position of attempting it, you can bet there'll be a run on the union kitshops for the orange shirt bearing the logo of 

              Disband
                 the
              Senate


----------



## ballz (11 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> I'm afraid I have to disagree 100% with that assertion.  Any coalescence between Liberals and NDPers into one party would doom the CPC to eternal opposition, because they would be facing a left-centre mixture of the two.  Historically, right-of-centre parties in Canada have earned more than half the vote exactly twice since WWII (Diefenbaker in 1958, and Mulroney in 1984).  The rest of the time, it is 40% Conservative and 60% Progressive (in general).  And at the moment it is 28% Conservative, and 72% Progressive.  Trend lines are not in CPC's favour.
> 
> Only if you think there are more "Blue Liberals" than "Orange Liberals" would this model not be accurate - and if that is the case, how can you call the Liberals a centre-left party?



Your 28% / 72% split doesn't make much sense to me, it assumes that if the Liberals disappeared and their voters had to choose between the CPC and the NDP, that all the former LPC voters would vote NDP and that's just not going to the be the case at all. In the current climate (the CPC being in power for so long) then yes, it would probably tip the scales in the NDPs favour, but it would be damn-close to 50/50 if I had to guess. 

Going off last elections popular vote / seats (we can't go off the current polls, we have no idea how it will shake out), if the liberals dissolved and their voters had to find a new home in the NDP or the Conservatives, or let's say hypothetically there was a ranked ballot and the LPC voters #2 party was now being considered, it would mean that the sum total of the "conservative" vote would have been over 50% of the popular vote. (39.62% CPC + 3.91% *Green* + ~9% from the Libs).

*Green*: I have included the green vote as conservative. They do identify as a small "c" conservative party and many of their policies support that. However, if it was a ranked ballot, I admit that a lot of Greens aren't actually conservative (they probably don't even know the Green party is conservative) so I am sure a number of them would have the NDP ranked above the CPC.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> It seems to me the most likely to have "You had a choice, Sir." thrown in their face at a debate in 2015 would be Mulcair at Harper on the issue of the Senate improving the lot of Canada's veterans.


FTFY


----------



## Harrigan (11 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Except everyone knows the PM took this to the SC, who said it would be unconstitutional. That and every Province and Territory would have to be in full agreement (like that has a snowballs chance in hell of happening). The PM checked his paperwork before launching into a no go campaign that would take all work off the table for, at least, four years.
> 
> It's not impossible to abolish the Senate, but it is damn near so.
> 
> Mulcair knows this emphatically, however, he continues to _lie_ about him doing it, to capture the vote of the ignorant, easily led sheep.



The Supreme Court didn't say the Senate couldn't be abolished, and everyone knows it.  The Supreme Court said it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to do it unilaterally.  Laws are pesky that way.  

The method to change the senate exists, and was reiterated by the SC: amend the Constitution using the 7/50 formula, or all 10 provinces for abolition.  

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-disappointed-but-will-heed-scc-on-senate-reform-1.1792243

The Federal Government needs to sit down with the Provincial Premiers and actually explain to them why the Senate needs to be abolished.  This is hard.  It takes leadership.  It means standing in front of the nation and explaining what you want to do, why you want to do it, and convincing the Premiers to get on board.  If the public is on the PM's side, and on this issue they probably are, then the Premiers will be the ones on the hot seat, not the PM.  

Or, you don't even try.  And that is disappointing.  It can be done if you are actually committed to doing it and make your case.  If, on the other hand, you only intended to SAY you wanted to do it to get votes from your base, then job well done.  He has been 100% successful.

Actually talking to the Premiers to build a consensus takes leadership.  This government has met with the Premiers only twice in 9 years, and not since 2009.  Is it hard?  Absolutely.  But it wasn't too hard for Trudeau to take it on in 1982.  And it wasn't too hard for Mulroney to take it on in 1987, and again in 1990.  They both showed leadership, even if they didn't get the results that they wanted.  I give both credit for trying and at least engaging the public (crazy talk!) on fundamental issues of our parliamentary democracy.  That's WHY they are Prime Ministers - they are supposed to take on these battles.

That question is equally applicable to Justin Trudeau and Mulcair, not just for Harper.  If you are not willing to put your own personal popularity or votes on the line to do what is best for the country, then don't bother applying for the job.

Sorry if I get emotional about this.  I am just disappointed with our political system at the moment.  I thought we got rid of the rot in 1993, and again in 2006, and now in 2015 we are probably even worse off.  

Harrigan

(OK, I feel better now....)


----------



## Harrigan (11 Jul 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> Your 28% / 72% split doesn't make much sense to me, it assumes that if the Liberals disappeared and their voters had to choose between the CPC and the NDP, that all the former LPC voters would vote NDP and that's just not going to the be the case at all. In the current climate (the CPC being in power for so long) then yes, it would probably tip the scales in the NDPs favour, but it would be damn-close to 50/50 if I had to guess.
> 
> Going off last elections popular vote / seats (we can't go off the current polls, we have no idea how it will shake out), if the liberals dissolved and their voters had to find a new home in the NDP or the Conservatives, or let's say hypothetically there was a ranked ballot and the LPC voters #2 party was now being considered, it would mean that the sum total of the "conservative" vote would have been over 50% of the popular vote. (39.62% CPC + 3.91% *Green* + ~9% from the Libs).
> 
> *Green*: I have included the green vote as conservative. They do identify as a small "c" conservative party and many of their policies support that. However, if it was a ranked ballot, I admit that a lot of Greens aren't actually conservative (they probably don't even know the Green party is conservative) so I am sure a number of them would have the NDP ranked above the CPC.



I am using the latest aggregate from Eric Grenier on http://www.threehundredeight.com/  Yes, of course it is a snapshot, though at least a time-compensated aggregate of all the election polls.  Certainly no worse a figure to use than the last election 4 years ago.  And I assumed the Greens as a Left of Centre party vice Right of Centre one.  I agree that is probably up for debate, but even then would only affect the most recent elections.

I am not assuming the Liberals will disappear, because I think that possibility is simply a CPC wet dream, not anything based in reality (and in my opinion, I think the CPC NEEDS both the Liberals and NDP healthy to split the vote).  What I could foresee is a slow merge of the Liberals with the NDP just like Reform and the PCs did (re-merge in the latter case).  That would most likely happen with the NDP moving more into the centre economically (where the votes are), and staying progressive socially (also where the votes are).  

Ultimately, Canadians have voted at a 60:40 rate in favour of parties perceived to be centre-left (progressive) over parties perceived to the centre-right (conservative) since WWII.  I am not making it up - look at the voting results in all the elections since 1945.  Of course the definition of "centre" wobbles around somewhat (St.Laurent Liberals and Harper Conservatives probably look very similar if one looks at it objectively), but if we generalize into left vs right, Canada has been a "left" nation at a 60:40 rate.  And despite the exhortations of Ibbitson and Flanagan, that ratio is not much different today.

By my reckoning, major parties perceived as "right" at the moment number one (CPC), whereas those perceived as "left" are more numerous (Liberals, NDP, Green, BQ).  According to the aggregation of the polls, that puts 28.4% on the "right", and 69.9% on the "left".  I agree that the 1.6% other should be left out as that could be in the minor parties on either side.  

As for the hypothetical of a world with no Liberal party, even if a 50/50 split were to occur, it still 42/57 if one considers the Green a "left" party vice "right" (which I do).  That is still pretty much at the 40:60 ratio.

Harrigan


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jul 2015)

_I think_ that Canadians, broadly, fit under a bell curve in their politics ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





               ... _I suspect_ that the largest number of us (38.2%, at a _guess_) are smack-dab in the middle and there is, really, no difference in _opinion_ between the 19.1% just to the left of the centre line
                    and the 19.1% just to the right of it. I also believe that the 15% who are centre left are not too far away from the 15% who are centre right. So, almost 70% of us are _centrist_ ~ firmly in
                    the "mushy middle" on almost every issue.

                   That means, in my _guesstimation_, that only 15% of us are _firmly_ on the right and, equally only 15% of us are _firmly_ on the left. (That's why I keep saying the CPC has a 20% base ~ the 15%
                   on the real right have nowhere else to go and some (many, even most) of those in the right of centre segment are not inclined to lean left. That's also why I believe the NDP has a firm lock on 15% of the vote and why the Liberals,
                   if they still are a real "big tent" _transactive_ (another way of saying unprincipled) party have _access_ to their own, firm 20% or even more.)

                   That _centrist reality_ is why, in my opinion, Prime Minister Harper's long range _strategic_ goal is to replicate the UK's two party system in Canada: with the Liberals gone the whole of the _*centre*_, the 70%,
                   is "up for grabs" and it will, as often as not, be "grabbed" by the _conservative_ party ~ more often IF the prime minister can, as some pundits say he is doing, change the political culture in Canada by making us all
                   slightly more _conservative_ in our values and expectations.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jul 2015)

Looking at the bell curve simply provides hard evidence to what I (and many people)already know intuitively about alternative voting programs like PR, ranked ballots and other proposals: the vote wold splinter and fragment into a multitude of very narrow parities rather than allowing a consensus to grow or a majority to set a path (much less a long term program). 

The fragmented vote on the Left will become even more fragmented, since instead of having "LPC, NDP and Green" as your choices nationally (The BQ is irrelevant outside of Quebec, but illustrates the point better inside the province), we can now throw in even more parties which cater to various issues of "identity" politics, or take class warfare to "11" (think of the savage battles for votes between the Trotskyities and the Marxists, with the Maoists running up the middle!). The Right wing vote will also be split between a centrist CPC, and increasingly harder positions taken by "Reform/Wildrose" like parties, Social conservatives and Libertarians.

Like Israel and Italy, there will be a toxic stew of back room bargaining and secret deals to gather enough "sort of" like minded people together to form a ruling coalition, and no voter will ever be able to fully understand who exactly is in charge or accountable for anything. I suspect the LPC made the pledge to end FPTP without even stopping for a second to consider that they would never be a majority in these circumstances, but perhaps thought their "transitive" skills would allow them to build coalitions. Given the amazing amount of power even very minor and extreme parties can have in these coalition building exercises ("You want that last seat to get a majority? These are the concessions *we* want in return..."), the Liberals will reduce themselves to irrelevance even faster than they are doing now.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2015)

I have never believed patronage has not continued since 1984.  I believe it can no longer be practiced as openly and assuredly as the LPC was accustomed to in order to grease their system of recruitment and development of functionaries and candidates, and that has weakened the LPC.

Harper looked at ways to reform the Senate.  Yes, he would have to "lead", but not in the literal meaning of the word.  What that means in practice is that he would have to find gifts outside the framework of the reform to give to everyone with the power to say "No", because nothing inherent in Senate reform has popped up that has moved enough stakeholders to desire reform for its own sake.  It is not like constitutional reform in which the changes to the constitutional framework itself provide the payoffs.  There is nothing he wants to trade away to reform Senate.  It actually has nothing to do with "leadership".  This is a failing of the provincial governments which will not do the right thing in itself, not the federal government.  

The NDP can call out no-one on this matter since their choice is impractical and asinine.  What is missing is a well-deserved media scolding for such a pointless promise.

The fact that an apparent 60/40 progressive/conservative vote split exists does not mean the 60 would be unified in its desire to govern as a coalition.  It is entirely possible that the Red slice of 60 would choose more often to work with the 40, constituting a majority.


----------



## Underway (11 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _I think_ that Canadians, broadly, fit under a bell curve in their politics ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is exactly what I was saying.  The LPC and the NDP are fundamentally different.  One is capitalist the other socialist.  IF the LPC were to collapse many, many liberal supporters would go to the CPC, which most likely would change the CPC to make it more centrist as well.  The NDP would attract those who are not overly committed to capitalism.  Think of all the LPC support in big urban centres.  No way in hell that's going to the NDP esp as you need a 6 figure job just to live there.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jul 2015)

I doubt the NDP would attract much of the Liberal ethnic vote.  As ERC often points out social conservatism is a characteristic of many newcomers.  As well many members will have joined to associate with a winning team, are generally ambitious and are often "refugees" from socialist systems.

None of that bodes well for the NDP.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jul 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I doubt the NDP would attract much of the Liberal ethnic vote.  As ERC often points out social conservatism is a characteristic of many newcomers.  As well many members will have joined to associate with a winning team, are generally ambitious and are often "refugees" from socialist systems.
> 
> None of that bodes well for the NDP.




_My perception_ is that the CPC has, as they so often do, _"sliced and diced"_ the _ethnic vote_, too. I think the CPC has focused on a handful of ethnic groups: selected for their likelihood of actually participating in electoral politics:

     1. The _"Jewish vote"_, which is, conveniently, concentrated in a few urban and suburban areas;

     2. The Asian vote, and, very specifically, the East Asian (Chinese) and South Asian (Indian) votes, which are also concentrated in, mainly, suburban areas ~ especially around Greater Toronto and Greater Vancouver; and

     3. The fast growing Philippine-Canadian vote. This may seem a bit counter-intuitive, given the crackdown on temporary foreign workers, many of whom are Filipinos, but _my sense_ is that the policy actually appeals to Canadians of 
         Philippines ethnicity who, unlike temporary foreign workers, actually can (and do) vote and who are willing, themselves to fill many of those jobs, albeit at slightly higher wages than TFWs earned.

         (That means that _I suspect_ that the Conservatives have, more or less, written off the Afro-Arab/Muslim vote sand the Afro-Caribbean vote, too. But, _my guess_ is that neither of those groups go to the polls in very great numbers.)

The Conservatives have managed to differentiate the social-conservatism of the immigrant, especially the Asian immigrant, from more established North American social conservatism, and the CPC appeals to the new Canadian who, for example, is, very often, in favour of e.g. abortion rights, putting them at odds with the _Christian right_, and who is, equally often, agnostic on e.g. gay marriage ~ they tend to regard sexual orientation as something very private ... many Asians support _equality_ for all, including homosexuals, but they are uncomfortable with e.g. public, in your face, and colourful _Gay Pride_ festivals.

The CPC already had the Eastern European _ethnic_ vote as part of the Western/rural cohort, but our military operations in Eastern Europe (and the hideous monument to victims of communism planned for Ottawa) are ways to shore up that support.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Jul 2015)

Liberal insider Scott Reid offers the opposition parties some good advice in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/reid-the-recession-is-an-opportunity-for-the-opposition-if-they-dare


> The recession is an opportunity for the opposition, if they dare
> 
> Scott Reid
> 
> ...




I think Mr Reid is right, _I believe_ Canadians do trust Prime Minister Harper to manage the economy in a sensible way and I agree that they will not blame him for problems that, clearly, have their origins amongst the "big three:" China, the EU and the USA.

But, _I also believe _that Canadians are ready and willing to vote for _change_ and for _hope_ and we should all remember how well those two notions worked for President Obama in the USA. If, and it's a Big_ IF_, the Liberals or the NDP can back away from blaming the prime minister and offer something better then _I suspect_ they will benefit ... but _I'm guessing_ that the opposition parties will be unable to resist going negative and they will squander the opportunity to offer Canadians _hope_ and _change_ and they will, instead, play into Prime Minister Harper's hands and allow him to counterstrike with _fear_ about Liberal and NDP overspending and so on.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2015)

The problem for either Trudeau or Mulcair is to believably claim that he has a better plan.

"The Conservatives have not done as good a job as might have been done" is not equivalent to "we can do better".  The NDP and LPC could do worse.  "Harper is not optimum" and "Harper is better than Mulcair or Trudeau" can both be true at the same time.

Recapitulate some of the primary measures customarily taken during a recession: decrease taxes, increase temporary useful spending.

Do not increase taxes, do not start new entitlement programs, and do not increase the debt overhang unnecessarily with pointless spending: it limits borrowing options and the cost of servicing debt squeezes out program spending.

The NDP and LPC propose to increase their net tax take and start new spending.  Bad timing.


----------



## Harrigan (12 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _I think_ that Canadians, broadly, fit under a bell curve in their politics ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 I agree that it is a perfectly valid theory, but what evidence is there that Canadian voters are on a Bell Curve?  It's not in the electoral results.  

The problem with most political discourse at the moment (and I am guilty of it as well) is that we tend to see things as linear - left vs right - black or white - on a line or spectrum.  But people's political views are more 3D than that.  One can be socially progressive and fiscally conservative, or vice versa, and still vote for a multitude of parties.  Political parties want to pigeonhole people onto that one dimensional axis of left vs right because they want to profess ownership of a certain segment of that axis, and thus 'you should vote for me.'  Nothing is black and white though, so its a mug's game.

As for transactive parties, I'll pose a simple question:  Is being principled a virtue if that principle is wrong?  

If the NDP said tomorrow that come hell or high water what Canada needs is an end to free markets and pure redistribution of wealth across the board, would it be principled?  Yes.  Would it be wrong?  Also Yes.  
In my opinion, and I feel I am swimming upstream here, *being principled is not a virtue.  What that principle IS is the virtue*.

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (12 Jul 2015)

> I have never believed patronage has not continued since 1984.  I believe it can no longer be practiced as openly and assuredly as the LPC was accustomed to in order to grease their system of recruitment and development of functionaries and candidates, and that has weakened the LPC.



Do you actually think the PCs in the 80's, Liberals in the 90's and 00's, and CPC since '06 didn't (and don't) use patronage to, in your words, "grease their system of recruitment and development of functionaries and candidates"?



> Harper looked at ways to reform the Senate.  Yes, he would have to "lead", but not in the literal meaning of the word.  What that means in practice is that he would have to find gifts outside the framework of the reform to give to everyone with the power to say "No", because nothing inherent in Senate reform has popped up that has moved enough stakeholders to desire reform for its own sake.  It is not like constitutional reform in which the changes to the constitutional framework itself provide the payoffs.  There is nothing he wants to trade away to reform Senate.  It actually has nothing to do with "leadership".  This is a failing of the provincial governments which will not do the right thing in itself, not the federal government.


  

You have defeated your own argument.  If it is failing of the provincial governments to not do "the right thing" in itself, why does the PM get a pass for not pressing for them to do "the right thing", if it is, after all, "the right thing"?

I'm afraid I have a higher standard for the PM than you do.  I DO expect the PM to be a leader *of* the whole nation and *for* the whole nation, in the literal meaning of the word.  And if that leader doesn't have a majority in Parliament, fine by me.  Use those leadership skills and explain to the nation why something needs to be done and how, and convince members of the other parties to vote with the government.  Any party leader who is afraid or unwilling to do this is unfit to be PM.  (and that applies to all parties)



> The NDP can call out no-one on this matter since their choice is impractical and asinine.  What is missing is a well-deserved media scolding for such a pointless promise


.

Other major English speaking Commonwealth nations have abolished or reformed their Senates, so the suggestion is neither impractical or asinine.  (and they also changed their voting systems from FPTP to something better too, without earning the wrath of god or plagues o' locusts...)

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (12 Jul 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> This is exactly what I was saying.  The LPC and the NDP are fundamentally different.  One is capitalist the other socialist.  IF the LPC were to collapse many, many liberal supporters would go to the CPC, which most likely would change the CPC to make it more centrist as well.  The NDP would attract those who are not overly committed to capitalism.  Think of all the LPC support in big urban centres.  No way in hell that's going to the NDP esp as you need a 6 figure job just to live there.



So 41% of Albertans are socialist?  Wasn't it entirely the big urban centres in Alberta that went to the NDP?  

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (12 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The problem for either Trudeau or Mulcair is to believably claim that he has a better plan.
> 
> "The Conservatives have not done as good a job as might have been done" is not equivalent to "we can do better".  The NDP and LPC could do worse.  "Harper is not optimum" and "Harper is better than Mulcair or Trudeau" can both be true at the same time.
> 
> ...



I may not agree with it, but I suspect the Liberals would happily compare their economic performance between 93-06 to the Harper Government's between 06-15 any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (12 Jul 2015)

Apologies for the multiple posts.  I haven't figured out how to have quotes from different sources in the same message box.  

On a separate issue, I haven't seen much talk from any of the three main parties about their election strategy for the military and procurement.  Yes, we have seen lots of photo ops announcing new plumbing or whatnot, and new ship names for a potential fleet in the next decades, and we have seen Byers' report, but has there been any discussion on a new Defence White Paper by any of the Big Three?

Harrigan


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Apologies for the multiple posts.  I haven't figured out how to have quotes from different sources in the same message box.
> 
> On a separate issue, _I haven't seen much talk from any of the three main parties about their election strategy for the military and procurement._  Yes, we have seen lots of photo ops announcing new plumbing or whatnot, and new ship names for a potential fleet in the next decades, and we have seen Byers' report, but has there been any discussion on a new Defence White Paper by any of the Big Three?
> 
> Harrigan




I doubt defence will play much of a role in the election. Canadians are, traditionally, disinterested in their own defences ... they worry that it is too expensive and they wonder why someone else (the British until August of 1940, the Americans since then) cannot/will not/should not just do it for us. Foreign affairs _might_ get more of a mention, but don't expect Prime Minister Harper to tie foreign policy to defence spending, although he will fault M Trudeau for wanting to withdraw our (small) military contingents from Eastern Europe and the Middle East.


----------



## Scott (12 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Apologies for the multiple posts.  I haven't figured out how to have quotes from different sources in the same message box.



I use multiple tabs.

One for the reply I will post.

Subsequent tab(s) to quote other posts and then copy and paste the code you see in the reply box of that post. Drop it into the first box and, voila.

Hope that helps

Scott
Staff


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jul 2015)

I forget which member, here, mentioned it a few days ago, but David Akin, _Sun News_, looks at the a small but "increasingly significant group of voters — the Blue-Orange Switchers," in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Sun_:

http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/07/11/its-orange-versus-blue


> It's orange versus blue
> 
> BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF
> 
> ...




This bit is fascinating: "David Coletto, the CEO of Abacus Data ... in his firm’s most recent survey, from earlier this month, found 9% would consider voting NDP or Conservative but will definitely not vote Liberal." That, 9% is a pretty large number. 

The article says: "Abacus found 39% of Blue-Orange switchers are ready to vote Conservative, 26% would go NDP but a big chunk — 28% -- are undecided. They just know they won’t vote Liberal."

Those voters appear to be most commonly found in the Quebec City area (the only place in _la belle province_ where the CPC has strength) and in the lower mainland of BC, presumably in the suburbs.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Jul 2015)

It sounds to me as if the voter being described is the White Union Member - whose dollars, before they retired, were voted in support of the NDP by their leadership, and who tribally identified with the "labour movement" but who traditionally were traditionalists as well as social and fiscal conservatives.

In the bar they never had much time for ethnics, elites or the more "artistically inclined".

They have always been a very poor fit with the NDP that that party's leadership upholds and struggles to display every night in sound-bites.  

Putting it bluntly - the shop floor is not where I would go to find supporters of gay marriage, LGBTQ rights, women's rights or ethnic rights.  I have worked on many shop floors and drunk many beers with the folks that work there.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jul 2015)

>Do you actually think the PCs in the 80's, Liberals in the 90's and 00's, and CPC since '06 didn't (and don't) use patronage

My point is not "those guys did then, and no-one does now."  Again: "I believe it can no longer be practiced as openly and assuredly as the LPC was accustomed to".

>You have defeated your own argument.  If it is failing of the provincial governments to not do "the right thing" in itself, why does the PM get a pass for not pressing for them to do "the right thing", if it is, after all, "the right thing"?

If the standard is that Harper must always tilt at a windmill even if we can all see that it will kill him politically, then no - he never gets a pass.  (You can find articles and comments to that effect in many places - people who want to see Harper gone are pissed off when he does not self-immolate, so they criticize him for not self-immolating; ie. changing his mind).  The PM was prepared to move on reforming Senate as an issue.  He wasn't obligated to give away the store to do so.  He was smart enough not to exhaust himself on it.  He was smart enough to start filling Senate seats with a purpose when he realized that a coalition of other parties would fill them if they could knock off his minority.

>Other major English speaking Commonwealth nations have abolished or reformed their Senates, so the suggestion is neither impractical or asinine.

What others have done is irrelevant.  The requirements for reforming or abolishing the Senate _in Canada_ have been explored, and the constitutional and political conditions make it nigh impossible (impractical).  (Since I deplore increasing centralization of power in the PMO, it's also asinine.)  Mulcair is grandstanding on the issue, and the media - apart from a couple of articles that pointed out the impracticality of abolishing Senate and the impossibility of doing it from the House alone - is giving him "a pass" so that "blah blah Senate blah blah Duffy blah blah" continues to have legs.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jul 2015)

>I may not agree with it, but I suspect the Liberals would happily compare their economic performance between 93-06 to the Harper Government's between 06-15 any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.

They might, but the Harper campaigning for re-election now is the same Harper from 06-15 while the Liberals responsible for 93-06 are gone and the ones campaigning now do not have anywhere near the same policy chops.  It's basically similar to saying, "See what a big navy we had in 1945!".


----------



## Harrigan (13 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I doubt defence will play much of a role in the election. Canadians are, traditionally, disinterested in their own defences ... they worry that it is too expensive and they wonder why someone else (the British until August of 1940, the Americans since then) cannot/will not/should not just do it for us. Foreign affairs _might_ get more of a mention, but don't expect Prime Minister Harper to tie foreign policy to defence spending, although he will fault M Trudeau for wanting to withdraw our (small) military contingents from Eastern Europe and the Middle East.



I agree with you there.  It is unlikely, which is a shame.  I think we badly need a new Security Strategy and a new Defence White Paper, particulary if we are going to commit to two major projects (Shipbuilding program, and F-35) that will consume most of DND's budgets for decades to come.

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (13 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I may not agree with it, but I suspect the Liberals would happily compare their economic performance between 93-06 to the Harper Government's between 06-15 any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
> 
> They might, but the Harper campaigning for re-election now is the same Harper from 06-15 while the Liberals responsible for 93-06 are gone and the ones campaigning now do not have anywhere near the same policy chops.  It's basically similar to saying, "See what a big navy we had in 1945!".



Yes, Harper is the same, but the Liberals campaigning against them will boast of more balanced budgets than the entire Harper 9-year term.  Ralph Goodale was the Finance Minister from 2003-2006.  John McCallum was the National Revenue Minister at the same time.  They are both running for re-election in 2015.  One would presume one of them would be a potential Finance Minister if the Liberals were to finish with a plurality.

I don't know, but I would expect the Liberals will play up that financial experience.

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (13 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If the standard is that Harper must always tilt at a windmill even if we can all see that it will kill him politically, then no - he never gets a pass.  (You can find articles and comments to that effect in many places - people who want to see Harper gone are pissed off when he does not self-immolate, so they criticize him for not self-immolating; ie. changing his mind).  The PM was prepared to move on reforming Senate as an issue.  He wasn't obligated to give away the store to do so.  He was smart enough not to exhaust himself on it.  He was smart enough to start filling Senate seats with a purpose when he realized that a coalition of other parties would fill them if they could knock off his minority.



Replace "PM" with "CO" and tell me if he still gets a pass.

No, I expect better from my PM, and that is fair warning to Trudeau and Mulcair.  



> What others have done is irrelevant.



Oh, OK.



> The requirements for reforming or abolishing the Senate _in Canada_ have been explored, and the constitutional and political conditions make it nigh impossible (impractical).



We get that Harper believes that the constitutional and political conditions make it impossible.  Of course, those conditions were the same in 1982, 1987, and 1990 but, as you have said, what others have done is irrelevant.



> Since I deplore increasing centralization of power in the PMO, it's also asinine.



Any PMO, or just non-CPC ones?  Not trying to be snarky here, but if you deplore increasing centralization of power in the PMO, surely you must detest the present PMO.



> "blah blah Senate blah blah Duffy blah blah" continues to have legs



And why shouldn't it have legs?  Do you believe the Senate/Duffy scandal is some sort of media conspiracy?  Was AdScam?  Personally, I am only marginally interested in the Senate scandal.  If it turns out to be more or less nothing, then it won't hurt the govt at all, so bring it on.  If it is something big (which I doubt), then is it not rather important that the public knows this before the election  (just as we demanded to know the results of the Gomery Commission before the 2006 election)?

Harrigan


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Jul 2015)

Duffy only has legs because the media is attempting to embarrass the Tories. The auditor general's report showed the Liberals were just as guilty misspending money, and in large amounts, but they're getting 0 press coverage. That being said, $20 million to find $1 million in bad expenses seems ridiculous to me, and the whole thing reeks of gotcha journalism.


----------



## Remius (13 Jul 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Duffy only has legs because the media is attempting to embarrass the Tories. The auditor general's report showed the Liberals were just as guilty misspending money, and in large amounts, but they're getting 0 press coverage. That being said, $20 million to find $1 million in bad expenses seems ridiculous to me, and the whole thing reeks of gotcha journalism.



Sorry, but Duffy is getting more mileage because:

1) Duffy used to be one of them (media)
2) The PMO was involved 
3) the first to go to trial


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Replace "PM" with "CO" and tell me if he still gets a pass.
> 
> No, I expect better from my PM, and that is fair warning to Trudeau and Mulcair.
> 
> ...




I'm going to _suggest_ that many COs have been caught on the horns of a similar dilemma and _I guess_ that many (most?) have reacted much as Prime Minister Harper has done.

What CO has not been given an order than (s)he knows, in her/his heart, is wrong? Who has not gone to the brigade commander and, in a private moment, protested? The brigade commander, who, we might suspect, also objects to the order has, however, being an excellent officer, made the unpleasant order his/her own and has clapped the worried CO on the shoulder and said, "I know this is very hard, <name>, but it is necessary for the good of the service, even if that's not entirely evident from your perspective in 1_NNNN_." The CO might guess that the brigade commander was, himself (or herself), up to see the higher formation commander with a similar complaint, but, here we are ...  

What does the good CO do? Two choices, of course:

     1. Resign and then make a public noise about this issue ... if anyone will listen; or

     2. Go back and, again, "make the order his/her own" and ensure that it is executed in 1_NNNN_ in an exemplary manner.

         (Note, please, that I did not give a "choice" of returning to the unit and disobeying the order; _I do not believe_ that is an ethical choice when faced with a lawful command.)

The _Supremes_ (higher HQ) have given the prime minister (the CO) some pretty difficult _arcs of fire_: arcs that may make accomplishing the task at hand so difficult as to be a practical impossibility in the current political environment. Disobedience is not an option because the _Supremes_ have given the constitutional equivalent of a lawful command.

What is the "current political environment?" In my opinion it is one in which no one in his/her right mind* wants a constitutional _congress_, and, since that is, _de facto_, pretty much the only route the _Supremes_ have left open** there is not much a prime minister (Harper or Mulcair) can do except try to manage with the current _mish-mash_.

_____
* I, on the other hand, being old, bored with life and just a little bit off my rocker would _love_ to see a full blown Constitutional Congress, with absolutely *everything* on the table. _I believe_ that a good prime minister, a tough guy with a fairly fresh majority, could radically reshape the country, for the better: Senate reform, which would be part of the deal, would be part of the fallout, but only a small part. The late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau grumbled that, in constitutional negotiations, the provinces only wanted to "trade rights for fish;" _I agree_ with him; and my "good" PM would give them all the damned fish (and other resources) they wanted in exchange for what (s)he wanted:

     1. The complete repeal of the _British North America Act_, properly the _Constitution Act_ of 1867 and the _Constitution Act_ of 1982 ~ replaced by a few, small_ish_ acts respecting the parliament of Canada and the divisions of powers between the national and provincial
         and city governments. (In effect Canada would have no written constitution ~ a form which _I believe_ to be infinitely superior to what we and the Americans (and Germans and Indians and Russians, and, and, and ...) have). It's important to
         understand that we already have an unwritten Constitution: in _Reference re Secession of Quebec_ our Supreme Court said: _"The Constitution is more than a written text. It embraces the entire global system of rules and principles which govern the exercise of
         constitutional authority. A superficial reading of selected provisions of the written constitutional enactment, without more, may be misleading."_

     2. Only five provinces: Pacific Canada, including the Yukon; Western Canada, including the NWT and Nunavut; Central Canada; _Canada de l'Est_ and Atlantic Canada ~ provinces can rename themselves as they wish; and

     3. Absolute independence for provinces in, including taxing authority for, all matters in their exclusive areas of responsibility (§91 and §92 of the _Constitution Act_ of 1867), except when such matters involve international relations, which remain the exclusive responsibility
         of the national government. 

** _I suspect_ there _*might*_ be a political work-around, but it might, also, be dangerous ~ like walking into a constitutional minefield.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jul 2015)

Every time I read things like that from you, it just strengthens my convictioin that you should become the Regent of Canada after HM passes (long may she reign)...


----------



## Underway (13 Jul 2015)

Interesting insights on the Conservative position from David McLaughlin, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/tories-have-a-healthy-voter-base-but-is-it-strong-enough/article25421145/



> David McLaughlin has been a Conservative Party chief of staff at the federal and provincial levels.
> 
> -------------------
> 
> ...



This: _Second, the government’s success in forging a centre-right consensus on issues such as lower taxes and balanced budgets has forced the Liberals and the NDP to do so, too. The differences between the parties has been muted. In short, elements of the Conservative coalition are being wooed away with no replacements being brought in._

The Conservatives have been very successful of bringing the political discourse to the right when it comes to financial matters.  Or can we attribute that to Paul Martin?  If the election is fought on these taxation and budgets issues can they really win.  Or have they already won because the next government will be instituting conservative financial policies no mater the party....


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Jul 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> The Conservatives have been very successful of bringing the political discourse to the right when it comes to financial matters.  Or can we attribute that to Paul Martin?  ....



I think the argument can be made that these two gents changed the conversation so that Paul Martin's budgets were possible.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jul 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I think the argument can be made that these two gents changed the conversation so that Paul Martin's budgets were possible.
> ...




Actually, I think it was these three guys ...






  *And *




              Michael Wilson                                                          Don Mazankowski and Brian Mulroney

Despite being scared witless by Mme Solange Denis (of "goodbye Charlie Brown" fame), these three (aided by the _Wall Street Journal_'s "northern peso" quip) _sensitized_ Canadians to the problem of debts and deficits. The Mulroney government, in which Wilson and _Maz_ held the finance portfolio, actually balanced the operations budget ~ programme spending ~ and, when they left office, the deficit (there still was a whopping deficit) was all going toward paying interest on the debt, most of which had been borrowed by Pierre Trudeau but which had _compounded_ under Trudeau's and Mulroney's governments.

By the time the Chrétien/Martin team came to power (1993) Canadian were more than ready for a good dose of belt tightening.

Mulroney, Wilson and Mazankowski actually used their offices to wage a very necessary _fear_ campaign which was exploited, properly and well, by Prime Minister Chrétien.


----------



## Underway (13 Jul 2015)

Gah my  eyes !!!!!  

 I will never forget Royal Canadian Airfarce's Preston Manning.  Oh god it was funny, especially when he came on and played into the  caricature.

Actually I would argue that Mulroney had more to do with that particular budget than those two.  They drove up the deficit so high that we had no choice but to deal with it harshly.  However Mulroney left the key to fixing the problem when he left.  The GST.

*damn ninja'd*


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Jul 2015)

Here, from the NDP, is good, hard hitting attack ad.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Jul 2015)

Michael Sona is a Conservative Robocall Operative? Is he like the CANSOF of robocalls or something?


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, from the NDP, is good, hard hitting attack ad.



Ouch


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2015)

>Yes, Harper is the same, but the Liberals campaigning against them will boast of more balanced budgets than the entire Harper 9-year term.

Context matters.  The Harper 9-year term includes deficits because of the 2008 financial hiccup.  The Liberals (remember Ignatieff putting the Conservative government "on probation"?) wanted deficits too (remember the G20 "2% of GDP" target?).  And since the counterfactual Liberal government had to be a coalition with the NDP, good luck arguing it would have been more frugal.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Jul 2015)

>Replace "PM" with "CO" and tell me if he still gets a pass.

Why?  Apples and oranges.  Propose something that makes sense.

>We get that Harper believes that the constitutional and political conditions make it impossible.  Of course, those conditions were the same in 1982, 1987, and 1990 but, as you have said, what others have done is irrelevant.

"We" also get that people have written articles about the impracticality in the wake of the Supreme Court's advice.  Regardless, the assertion that political conditions were the same in 1982, 1987, or 1990 is foolish; and the constitutional considerations can not be disentangled from the contemporary political conditions.

When I referred to others, I referred to your "Other major English speaking Commonwealth nations", in case that was unclear in my previous post.

If you know of something strictly inside the lines of Senate reform (ie. not involving extraneous transfers of money or authority outside the scope of how Senate is constituted) that would get the necessary parties to agreement, let's hear it.

>Any PMO, or just non-CPC ones?

Any.

>surely you must detest the present PMO.

Yes.  But not as much as I would detest a LPC or NDP one.

>Do you believe the Senate/Duffy scandal is some sort of media conspiracy?

I believe it's a Senate scandal, not a House scandal, involving Mike Duffy, not Stephen Harper.   I also know that it is basically about one guy cheating on his expenses for personal gain and/or a sloppy set of Senate (not House) expense guidelines, not a party-orchestrated systematic looting and kickback scheme to strengthen the party's political power.  Bit of a difference.  As for the media: they managed to educate the public on the finer details of how things work back when the NDP and LPC were trying to form a coalition government; maybe they could be honest brokers about the difference between MPs and Senators and the three distinct elements of Parliament - the Queen, the House, and the Senate - and remind voters that Harper is neither the Queen nor a Senator.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jul 2015)

Sharing this hear because of the political angle ....


> *5 ridings where Stephen Harper's trade deal with Ukraine gets noticed*
> 
> (....)
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jul 2015)

Also from the prairies ... this ad is in the _Saskatoon Star-Phoenix_:

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          David Akin (_Sun News_) says, _"Yet more third party ads -- this time
          its the wealthy Public Service Alliance of Canada with an
          anti-Harper, anti-Conservative campaign. The Toronto Star
          reports it's a TV, radio and print campaign." _

This sort of thing, a well funded, very professional, multi-media union sponsored attack advertising campaign, worked very well against Tim Hudak in the recent Ontario election.


----------



## C-Aitchison (14 Jul 2015)

Thought people here would find this interesting. Lynne Yelich, Minister of State for Consular Affairs, lost their riding nomination.



> OTTAWA — A Saskatchewan sportscaster has snatched the Conservative party nomination away from a longtime Conservative MP — and cabinet minister — who had been seeking to run in a newly-created riding.
> 
> Kevin Waugh had only announced last month that he would challenge Minister of State for Consular Affairs Lynne Yelich for the nomination in the riding of Saskatoon-Grasswood.
> 
> ...



Source: http://m.chroniclejournal.com/news/national/tory-minister-lynne-yelich-loses-party-nomination-in-new-saskatchewan/article_d0dc0d5d-83ea-5752-8361-946067e6f9ee.html?mode=jqm


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jul 2015)

If anyone were to really decide to go after the third party public service ads and the PS itself, it would be a fairly simple matter to start high lighting the differential in pay between PS positions and comparable private sector jobs. Add the differential when benefits and pensions are factored in (most of which are NOT available to private sector workers) and the taxpayers who are funding the PS might start to wonder just "why" the PS is involved in the election campaign. 

Voting "_for_" the PS is essentially voting _against_ the taxpayer.

Just saying


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Jul 2015)

Apparently things are worse now than in 1997.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Jul 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If anyone were to really decide to go after the third party public service ads and the PS itself, it would be a fairly simple matter to start high lighting the differential in pay between PS positions and comparable private sector jobs. Add the differential when benefits and pensions are factored in (most of which are NOT available to private sector workers) and the taxpayers who are funding the PS might start to wonder just "why" the PS is involved in the election campaign.
> 
> Voting "_for_" the PS is essentially voting _against_ the taxpayer.
> 
> Just saying



And saying really stupid stuff.  Every plumber, electrician, maintenance individual I work with can make much more in the private sector.   Try and have a clue before you bring out the big brush.................


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Jul 2015)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/daniel-dickin/trudeau-canada-election_b_7779474.html



> Trudeau's Record Shows He's Not a Leader
> 
> 
> Posted:  07/14/2015 12:39 pm EDT
> ...



All wrapped up in a nice, neat bow.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/daniel-dickin/trudeau-canada-election_b_7779474.html
> 
> All wrapped up in a nice, neat bow.




Daniel Dickin's column is the print equivalent of this, albeit with lower _'production values'_. It is the same_ mish-mash_ of half truths and innuendo with just enough factual base to not make it libel. The "Just Not Ready" ads, while tough, even verging on being unfair, are more subtle. The NDP video ad is not meant to be subtle: it is 100% _attack_ and it hits hard and it hits home because it tells many Canadians what they already _feel_. The NDP video is "good" because it starts by reminding Canadians that the Liberals were ~ therefore probably still are ~ _corrupt_ but the Conservatives failed to clean up 'political corruption' in Canada, and, in fact, just wallowed in the mud, like Liberals.


----------



## Remius (15 Jul 2015)

This analysis by Eric Grenier is interesting. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ndp-holding-on-to-lead-with-3-pillars-of-b-c-ontario-and-quebec-1.3150943

I think most of us agree that Ontario is the key but if the vote is split three way there, the other provinces become vital.  The polls may not indicate actual seat to win but he highlights the point that the NDP keep closing the gap every week in Ontario.


----------



## Harrigan (15 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm going to _suggest_ that many COs have been caught on the horns of a similar dilemma and _I guess_ that many (most?) have reacted much as Prime Minister Harper has done.
> 
> What CO has not been given an order than (s)he knows, in her/his heart, is wrong? Who has not gone to the brigade commander and, in a private moment, protested? The brigade commander, who, we might suspect, also objects to the order has, however, being an excellent officer, made the unpleasant order his/her own and has clapped the worried CO on the shoulder and said, "I know this is very hard, <name>, but it is necessary for the good of the service, even if that's not entirely evident from your perspective in 1_NNNN_." The CO might guess that the brigade commander was, himself (or herself), up to see the higher formation commander with a similar complaint, but, here we are ...
> 
> ...



Mr.Campbell, 

I like your response, and your suggestions (will discuss that later).

However, the response is completely based on an incorrect assumption: that the SCC is somehow a HHQ compared to the poor old PM.  That is a CPC myth that they have been pushing for years - ever since they made the conscious decision to repeatedly push judgements to the SCC with full knowledge that they would be struck down.  Clearly they feel there must be some sort of political advantage (with their base, presumably) to playing the victim to the SCC.  But to most, if just looks like they don't do their homework.

The Supreme Court does not give commands.  They interpret existing laws, like one's JAG does when you ask them for advice.  To suggest that they rule over the PM is misleading in every sense.   (Besides, Harper appointed 7 of 9 members of the SCC, and he, not the SCC, can amend the laws and the Constitution - the polar opposite of a HHQ.)

The buck stops on the PM's desk.  (yes, I know _technically_ it stops on the Governor-General's desk, but we all know that the GG does not hold de facto power in Canada).  I get that the CPC narrative is that the poor PM was thwarted by the bogeyman SCC.  The reality is that the PM is scapegoating the SCC to his base in order to bury an issue that he has no intention of spending any political capital on to achieve.  I think it is a smart strategy politically, and it will absolutely work.  I just don't agree with politics being the #1 consideration, that's all.



> the only route the _Supremes_ have left open



The _Supremes_ haven't defined anything - they have only told the govt what _their own law_ says is the method to change the Constitution.  Why would there need to be a "workaround"?  Why don't they just abide by the law and carry on?  Or, if they don't like the law, then change the law and carry on?  And the way to change the law is pretty straight forward - and hard.  As it should be.

---------------
Now, on to the more fun stuff!   ;D



> * I, on the other hand, being old, bored with life and just a little bit off my rocker would _love_ to see a full blown Constitutional Congress, with absolutely *everything* on the table. _I believe_ that a good prime minister, a tough guy with a fairly fresh majority, could radically reshape the country, for the better: Senate reform, which would be part of the deal, would be part of the fallout, but only a small part. The late Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau grumbled that, in constitutional negotiations, the provinces only wanted to "trade rights for fish;" _I agree_ with him; and my "good" PM would give them all the damned fish (and other resources) they wanted in exchange for what (s)he wanted:
> 
> 1. The complete repeal of the _British North America Act_, properly the _Constitution Act_ of 1867 and the _Constitution Act_ of 1982 ~ replaced by a few, small_ish_ acts respecting the parliament of Canada and the divisions of powers between the national and provincial
> and city governments. (In effect Canada would have no written constitution ~ a form which _I believe_ to be infinitely superior to what we and the Americans (and Germans and Indians and Russians, and, and, and ...) have). It's important to
> ...



Awesome stuff, and I totally agree that everything should be discussed.  That is what a democracy should do - what worked in 1867 (or, ahem, 1787) may not be applicable in 2015.

1.  While I agree that these acts should be revisited, I am always intrigued as to why so many conservatives (not party-based, just in general political outlook) are so vehemently opposed to the Constitution?  Most Canadians seem to support it, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for that matter.  If they didn't, then no PM would be scared to call a Constitutional _congress_ to debate it.  

2.  I would even go further, and suggest discussing the removal of the provincial level of government altogether.  Why should there be so many barriers and different standards between regions in Canada?  Obviously there are regional issues in a country of such size, but nothing a ramped-up municipal government system couldn't handle.  All that said, that is dreaming in technicolor, as the laws of the land enshrine the provincial level of government.  It would take something pretty drastic (such as a province going bankrupt) to even get such an idea on the public radar.  

3.  I am more of a "sum is greater than the parts" guy.  Further to #2 above, I believe that a country the size of Canada (geography matters) must have a strong central government or it will eventually balkanize.  I know that isn't popular in this company, but look at USSR, USA, and China.  All are/were effectively "empires" under one flag.  China has kept it together, USSR did not, and the USA went through a dreadful Civil War between the States that was specifically about "states rights".  I am not going to suggest that a civil war is necessarily possible in Canada, but a weak central government would not be able to prevent existential situations such as Quebec (or Alberta) separation.  Some people may say, "so what is the problem?", and fair enough.  
However, as I mentioned before, I am more of a "Canada is greater than the sum of its parts"* guy, I would quite like Canada to remain united coast to coast to coast.  That said, I have no problem with those who are more "community of communities" or "states rights" oriented - I think those discussions are VERY healthy for Canadian democracy.

* Apologies for using a quote from an ex-PM that is probably not well liked on this board, but I couldn't think of another way to describe it.

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (15 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Yes, Harper is the same, but the Liberals campaigning against them will boast of more balanced budgets than the entire Harper 9-year term.
> 
> Context matters.  The Harper 9-year term includes deficits because of the 2008 financial hiccup.  The Liberals (remember Ignatieff putting the Conservative government "on probation"?) wanted deficits too (remember the G20 "2% of GDP" target?).  And since the counterfactual Liberal government had to be a coalition with the NDP, good luck arguing it would have been more frugal.



Context matters.  I didn't say the Liberals would compare a hypothetical Liberal/NDP coalition government in 2008 to the Harper government's term.  They wouldn't need to use an strawman argument.  I said they would compare the Chretien/Martin era from 1993-2006 to Harper's term, and it would look favourable for them.

So if we are freely giving passes to everything negative about the Harper government, do you extend the same courtesy to McGuinty, Rae, and Trudeau, all of which governed through challenging financial times, and have been criticized for their economic policies?  Didn't think so..... (....and I don't either)

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (15 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Replace "PM" with "CO" and tell me if he still gets a pass.
> 
> Why?  Apples and oranges.  Propose something that makes sense.



Really?  That's your response?  
I expect the PM to put the good of the nation ahead of personal political considerations.  You, clearly, do not.  Fair enough - you apparently have the PM that meets your aspirations.



> "We" also get that people have written articles about the impracticality in the wake of the Supreme Court's advice.  Regardless, the assertion that political conditions were the same in 1982, 1987, or 1990 is foolish; and the constitutional considerations can not be disentangled from the contemporary political conditions.



And what contemporary political considerations that are so much more limiting than in 1982, 1987, or 1990 are those?  I mean, other than their self-induced orthodoxy of "no constitutional discussions of any sort at any cost".  



> If you know of something strictly inside the lines of Senate reform (ie. not involving extraneous transfers of money or authority outside the scope of how Senate is constituted) that would get the necessary parties to agreement, let's hear it.



As I said before, the method to amend the constitution has existed for decades.  All it takes is the govt to actually abide by the law, and a PM that has the best interests of the nation as his/her #1 consideration.



> >surely you must detest the present PMO.
> Yes.  But not as much as I would detest a LPC or NDP one.



Why?



> >Do you believe the Senate/Duffy scandal is some sort of media conspiracy?
> I believe it's a Senate scandal, not a House scandal, involving Mike Duffy, not Stephen Harper.   I also know that it is basically about one guy cheating on his expenses for personal gain and/or a sloppy set of Senate (not House) expense guidelines, not a party-orchestrated systematic looting and kickback scheme to strengthen the party's political power.



Well, clearly you have received the memo.  I would be interested to know how you *know* that it is basically one guy cheating on his own, nothing to see here, etc etc, despite clear links to the PMO.  As you clearly are a civics instructor, I don't need to tell you what PMO stands for.  

A "party-orchestrated systematic looting and kickback scheme to strengthen the party's political power" is precisely what AdScam was, and it was why we kicked out the Liberals in 2006 despite pretty good economic performance.  And you aren't going to tell me that only Liberals are corrupt and Conservatives never are, are you?



> As for the media: they managed to educate the public on the finer details of how things work back when the NDP and LPC were trying to form a coalition government;



I am not sure what you mean by this.  Surely you aren't going to claim that a coalition government is illegal....

Harrigan

edit: limited should be 'limiting'


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Mr.Campbell,
> 
> I like your response, and your suggestions (will discuss that later).
> 
> ...




You are quite correct in both _what_ the CPC is doing and _why_ it's doing it.

You're also correct that any governing party has options, but the _Supremes_ have explained, to one and all, that any meaningful _Senate reform_ requires constitutional consultations and that's the ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




                                                                                           _Catch 22_

The only way to change things, like the Senate, is to open up the Constitution for renegotiation , but only a crazy person wants to do that ... and we don';t want crazy people running the country, now, do we?


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> And what contemporary political considerations that are so much more limiting than in 1982, 1987, or 1990 are those?  I mean, other than their self-induced orthodoxy of "no constitutional discussions of any sort at any cost".
> 
> ...



The enthusiasms of youth.  

Dead horses, brick walls and windmills all come to mind.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jul 2015)

>I said they would compare the Chretien/Martin era from 1993-2006 to Harper's term, and it would look favourable for them.

But to make that point you have to evade reality: without the 2008 fiscal meltdown, the likelihood of any deficits would be zero or close to it - a run of surpluses from 1997 to 2015 would not really yield a favourable comparison to either side.

There is a difference between handling a rough economy well or fairly, and handling it poorly.  I suppose we have yet to see where ON ends up.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I suppose we have yet to see where ON ends up.



We're already seeing it. Decimated manufacturing, exponential increases in hydro costs, inability to balance a budget to name a few things.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jul 2015)

>Really?  That's your response? 

Yes.  You need to find a red herring matched more closely than "appointed commander" and "elected leader" to make it worthwhile discussing.

>I expect the PM to put the good of the nation ahead of personal political considerations.

I hope for it; I don't expect it.  That aside, the good of the nation isn't at stake.  The Senate may be unsightly but it isn't a hindrance.  The fact the provinces are not moved to intervene is good enough evidence that Senate reform is not a priority.

>And what contemporary political considerations that are so much more limiting than in 1982, 1987, or 1990 are those?

That there is nothing in reform that can satisfy the provinces who want abolition, and nothing in abolition that can satisfy the provinces who want to keep it and reform it.

Yes, a method to amend exists.  One can only wonder why it is so rarely successfully used.

>I would be interested to know how you know that it is basically one guy cheating on his own, nothing to see here, etc etc, despite clear links to the PMO.

I only "know" what has been reported so far.  What is it that "links" it to the PMO in a manner you find scandalous?  That Harper told Duffy to repay claimed expenses?  That the COS floated Duffy a private loan?  I haven't read yet any proof advanced that Harper instructed Duffy to cheat on expenses.

>And you aren't going to tell me that only Liberals are corrupt and Conservatives never are, are you?

I'm not, and I didn't.  I find it important to distinguish between mere personal corruption and institutional party corruption.  I think the latter merits a much stronger response than the former.  Clear enough?

When the Conservatives are found to be as corrupt as the Liberals were, they should be thrown out (not given a minority government).  We are not yet there.

>I am not sure what you mean by this.

I meant only what I wrote.  "The media" did a good job explaining the difference between the way the system works and the way people felt it ought to work in 2008.  "The media" do not seem to be too interested in educating voters that this is a Senate problem, not a House problem.  I know there are people who want to use Duffy as an anchor around Harper's neck, and I know why they wish to do so.  I don't have to respect them, and I don't.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jul 2015)

Interesting theory ....


> Fixed election dates may have taken the uncertainty out of polling day but we are still none the wiser about when the 42nd Canadian general election will formally commence.
> 
> This is important because there are indications that the Conservatives will drop the writ early in an attempt to drain the resources of their relatively impoverished opponents.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2015)

Although this story, from _Reuters_, is about Europe it should provide a cautionary note for those who favour the sort of proportional representation that Israel and several European nations have. 

We Canadians should all remember the financial crisis of 2008: the (Conservative) government of the day wanted a cautious, muted _response_; the (Liberal and NDP) opposition demanded (as they can in a hung parliament (minority situation)) strong _stimulus_ spending. You can argue the merits of each case until the cows come home but, _I think_ (hope) most will agree that a crisis is when "selection and maintenance of the aim" (a solid, coherent, policy) is paramount and that's the situation that proportional representation makes difficult. Bundeskanzlerin Merkel wants the _eurozone_ to survive, as is; her finance minister, Wolfgabg Schaeuble favours _reform_, beginning with a _Grexit_: a deep policy division. Deep policy divisions are the very _nature_ of coalition governments which, in turn, are the very _natural_ outcome of proportional representation. 

We, rightfully, give credit to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien/Finance Minister Paul Martin for dragging Canada out of the fiscal hole that another Liberal (Pierre Trudeau) dug for us. In fairness there were three _forces_ pressing on those two men:

     1. Prime Minister Chrétien's _"basic instincts"_ ~ he's a _natural_, small town fiscal conservative;

     2. Paul Martin's bureaucrats ~ who convinced him, on solid evidence, to make a 180o _emotional_ course correction and abandon his father's (and his own) _social agenda_ in favour of fiscal responsibility; and

     3. Public opinion ~ which, thanks to the "good work" (_fear_ mongering) of the Mulroney government, had shifted, radically, away from Trudeau_esque_ free spending and towards fiscal responsibility.

Having arrived at a coherent policy _position_, the Chrétien government was able to act because it had a solid majority and didn't need to appease coalition partners.

IF Canada moves towards proportional representation, as M Trudeau wants, we will, always have coalitions (the last time any one party got 50% of the popular vote in a general election was in 1984 when Brian Mulroney's Conservatives scratched out a bare 50.03% of the ballots cast (only 73% of the electorate voted), neither Jean Chrétien's (in the 1990s/2000s) nor Pierre Trudeau's Liberals (in the 1960s, 70s and 80s) ever got 50% of the votes cast, before Mulroney the last 50%+ result was John Diefenbaker, also a Conservative, in 1958).


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2015)

It's too early to believe in polls ~ leave that until after Labour Day, but this _prediction_, based on early indicators, _might_ be music to Prime Minister Harper's IF, as we are led to believe, his overarching strategic objective is to destroy the Liberal Party of Canada and leave the country with a _de facto_ two party system:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservatives-ndp-have-even-chance-of-winning-election-simulator/article25521285/


> THE GLOBE’S ELECTION FORECAST
> Conservatives, NDP have even chance of winning: election simulator
> 
> PAUL FAIRIE
> ...




The perceived aversion to a coalition, especially by the Liberals, is that they (the LPC) are, currently, likely to be the junior partner and that, _I think they think_, would be a sure sign that they, the Liberals, are no longer relevant. Plus, the Liberals, at their _political_ DNA level, are a centrist, capitalist/private enterprise party while the _Dippers_ remain, in some large part, true to their _cooperative_/_labour_ roots: socialism, however weak, is in their hearts. _My guess_ is that some (maybe not most, but rather a lot of) Liberals would be more likely to want to _coalesce_ with the Conservatives before they would join the NDP; that, too, of course, would doom the LPC to history's rubbish heap.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jul 2015)

In the _National Post_, John Ivison speculates that we will go the polls early, in mid Aug, because the rich CPC will want to seriously outspend the (relatively ) poor Liberals and NDP in a prolonged election campaign.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Jul 2015)

House of Commons won't have an opportunity to sit for a fall session anyways, and its a good way to ruin PSACs ability to dump money pre-writ.


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Jul 2015)

Anyone else find it despicable that a Conservative MP trotted out the Air India attack to score political points?

Also this NDP MP is pretty great. 



> “How much bench strength has this government lost, in terms of their ministers and such?” Cullen asked. “She would be a candidate for cabinet. You laugh, but I’m not kidding. Who else they got? She would absolutely be a candidate for cabinet. This is how low the standard has gotten for Harper.”



http://www.straight.com/news/491126/ndp-mp-blasts-conservative-mp-wai-youngs-jesus-comments-profoundly-stupid


Also some of these tweets are pretty hilarious. These are the pylons the Conservatives have in office. What a bloody joke. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/holy-tweets-b-c-mp-compares-conservative-party-to-jesus-1.3152178


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Anyone else find it despicable that a Conservative MP trotted out the Air India attack to score political points?



Nope


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Nope



Ibid.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Jul 2015)

I wonder what effect a protracted campaign would have upon the electorate at large?  Would they be so bloody sick and tried of the monkey show come election day that they would not come out to vote with the exception of the various loyalists?  How might that translate into vote results for the various clans?


----------



## George Wallace (16 Jul 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I wonder what effect a protracted campaign would have upon the electorate at large?  Would they be so bloody sick and tried of the monkey show come election day that they would not come out to vote with the exception of the various loyalists?  How might that translate into vote results for the various clans?



I would say that the same as we have already witnessed in Ontario and Alberta.  The fanatically loyal will vote in which ever party they belong to, against the better judgement of the majority who did not vote; if that makes any sense.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would say that the same as we have already witnessed in Ontario and Alberta.  The fanatically loyal will vote in which ever party they belong to, against the better judgement of the majority who did not vote; if that makes any sense.



Granted.   I'll rephrase.   Which party might this benefit more, which is to say whose grass roots are stronger and more committed?  Would the CPC be able to count on this as an additional weapon in the armoury.   A weapon of mass distraction if you like.


----------



## Harrigan (16 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The only way to change things, like the Senate, is to open up the Constitution for renegotiation , but only a crazy person wants to do that



I didn't say it was easy.  I agree that it is hard.  And I agree that the PM would have to spend some of his political capital to make it happen.  What irks me is that when push comes to shove, the Party's political calculations always come first.  And, I will add, that was also the case with the previous government.

I personally don't care what party is in power, as long as they govern for the good of the country.  When they govern for the good of the party, I will no longer support them.  I am not saying the Liberals or the NDP would be any better, but I am explaining why I no longer can support the CPC in its present state. Everything they do is to serve their party political calculations foremost, and that is not why we have *govern*ments in democracies.

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (17 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I said they would compare the Chretien/Martin era from 1993-2006 to Harper's term, and it would look favourable for them.
> 
> But to make that point you have to evade reality: without the 2008 fiscal meltdown, the likelihood of any deficits would be zero or close to it - a run of surpluses from 1997 to 2015 would not really yield a favourable comparison to either side.
> 
> There is a difference between handling a rough economy well or fairly, and handling it poorly.  I suppose we have yet to see where ON ends up.



Who is evading reality?  The Liberals can point to their actual results from 1993-2006, with real numbers.  You are basing your comparison on what you think the Harper government would have done *if* there had been no recession.  Those are imaginary numbers.  (and besides, you know the trendline from 2006 was downhill well before the recession kicked off).

In the end, it doesn't really matter if evidence doesn't affect your opinion.

My point is that the Liberals will use those comparisons to the general public regardless.  Remember back to the beginning of our exchange, you stated that the CPC will hold the advantage due to the lack of the opposition parties having any evidence of managing the economy better.  I am suggesting there is ample evidence that the Liberals will use (I didn't say the NDP would use it) to suggest that they, in fact, do have the credibility to manage the economy.  They will point to their MP's, including the most recent Liberal Finance Minister, and no doubt will mention that EVERY federal budget he brought down was balanced, and that the surplus was used to pay down the national debt.

Is it fair to Harper?  No, not particularly.  I agree with you that the Harper Government has managed the economy fairly - they have not handled it poorly in my opinion.  But it is wrong to state that the other parties cannot offer a credible alternative.  They can, and they will, and the government will need to come up with a better rebuttal than "if there hadn't been a recession, our budgets would have been all sunshine and roses".

Harrigan


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Who is evading reality?  The Liberals can point to their actual results from 1993-2006, with real numbers.  You are basing your comparison on what you think the Harper government would have done *if* there had been no recession.  Those are imaginary numbers.  (and besides, you know the trendline from 2006 was downhill well before the recession kicked off).
> 
> In the end, it doesn't really matter if evidence doesn't affect your opinion.
> 
> ...


----------



## Harrigan (17 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Really?  That's your response?
> 
> Yes.  You need to find a red herring matched more closely than "appointed commander" and "elected leader" to make it worthwhile discussing.



I don't need to rephrase it - you know exactly what I am talking about and are being deliberately obtuse.  You know what we would think of our CO's if they always put "political considerations" above all.



> >I expect the PM to put the good of the nation ahead of personal political considerations.\
> 
> I hope for it; I don't expect it.  That aside, the good of the nation isn't at stake.  The Senate may be unsightly but it isn't a hindrance.  The fact the provinces are not moved to intervene is good enough evidence that Senate reform is not a priority.
> 
> ...



- How does the federal government know what the provinces would want in return for Senate abolition if the PM never meets with the Premiers to discuss the issue?  Is this the same crystal-ball power that cites 'unreported crime' figures?   

- If you are happy to never change existing laws that the public doesn't support, then why bother having a government?



> I only "know" what has been reported so far.  What is it that "links" it to the PMO in a manner you find scandalous?  That Harper told Duffy to repay claimed expenses?  That the COS floated Duffy a private loan?  I haven't read yet any proof advanced that Harper instructed Duffy to cheat on expenses.



Well, that's the whole point, isn't it?  To find out what happened.  If the PM had nothing to do with it (which is certainly likely), then there is nothing to fear, is there?  In a more general sense, though, it is pretty hard to suggest the PM has nothing to do with the Senate when they sit in Cabinet, and 48 of the 83 active Senators were appointed by him (58%).



> I'm not, and I didn't.  I find it important to distinguish between mere personal corruption and institutional party corruption.  I think the latter merits a much stronger response than the former.  Clear enough?
> When the Conservatives are found to be as corrupt as the Liberals were, they should be thrown out (not given a minority government).  We are not yet there.



LOL, that is never going to happen then, is it?  If one doesn't have more than enough proof that the CPC in the last 10 years is as "institutionally corrupt" as the Liberals were in 2006, then one never will.  Did you ever stop and wonder why the ceiling for the CPC is only around 40%?



> I meant only what I wrote.  "The media" did a good job explaining the difference between the way the system works and the way people felt it ought to work in 2008.



How very Calandra-esque of you.  Which of these two "sides" are coalitions on?  We may have found something that we agree on, but I am not sure.....



> "The media" do not seem to be too interested in educating voters that this is a Senate problem, not a House problem.



I have not seen anything in "the media" that suggests this is a "House" problem, so I am not sure what you mean by that.  Everyone knows this is a Senate problem, and that involves both the Cabinet and the PMO, who hold sway over both House AND Senate.  

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (17 Jul 2015)

Not opinion at all, Kirkhill.  Look at Ralph Goodale's website - it mentions his balanced budgets and those of the Liberal Party.  Did you think they would forget to mention that?

https://ralphgoodale.liberal.ca/

Harrigan


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jul 2015)

> - How does the federal government know what the provinces would want in return for Senate abolition if the PM never meets with the Premiers to discuss the issue?  Is this the same crystal-ball power that cites 'unreported crime' figures?



M'Lud - Conjecture.  It supposes that merely because meetings are not held in great halls with audiences and cameras that meetings, and discussions, and communications do not occur.

We know that discussions in public are more spectacular than productive.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Not opinion at all, Kirkhill.  Look at Ralph Goodale's website - it mentions his balanced budgets and those of the Liberal Party.  Did you think they would forget to mention that?
> 
> https://ralphgoodale.liberal.ca/
> 
> Harrigan



Ralph Goodale was one of a team.  That team does not exist.


----------



## Harrigan (17 Jul 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> M'Lud - Conjecture.  It supposes that merely because meetings are not held in great halls with audiences and cameras that meetings, and discussions, and communications do not occur.
> 
> We know that discussions in public are more spectacular than productive.



Oh, I see.  My comments are conjecture, but you can claim that the govt knows all province's 'demands' on potential Senate Reform from 'secret' meetings.  
Right then, you sure showed me.....

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (17 Jul 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Ralph Goodale was one of a team.  That team does not exist.



LOL, so even presented with evidence of the Liberals using the tactic (which is what you disagreed with me on), you will just pretend the evidence doesn't exist.

Nobody asked you to believe their tactic, but to pretend they just won't mention it is simply fantasy.

Harrigan


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jul 2015)

_Coalitions_

The article below, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, is by Jamey Heath, a well known NDP insider/advocate so it must be read with that fact in mind.

Mr Heath's main point is that some sort of "anti-Conservative" coalition is necessary, because, he says, "Disagreeing with Harper is all well and good. But too often tales are spun about the kind of country he inherited, whose core values he has since allegedly botched. They are mostly untrue. Under Harper, we used fiscal stimulus during a downturn. Equal marriage and abortion are untouched. We’re also still an environmental laggard — as we always were — despite Elizabeth May saying we were a world leader before Harper. It’s piffle." In other words, if Canadians are ever allowed (by the media and the _"Harper Haters"_TM) to consider what Prime Minister Harper actually _means_ (values) and _does_ (record) they will not be depressed and the CPC will continue to govern.

Mr Heath wants _unity_ on the _progressive/left_; he wants a formal _coalition_ agreement; he'll settle for some _realism_ amongst Liberals.

Why do the Liberals renounce coalitions while the NDP favours them? In _my opinion_ the answer is twofold:

     First: Prime Minister Harper ran a short but masterful PR campaign against them that resonated with Canadians. It would not have succeeded had the Liberals had any response, at all, to his critique, but it did not. That, the Conservative
               "No" campaign, was not the key issue, however.

     Second: The key can be found in the 1985 _"Accord"_ between Ontario Opposition Leader David Peterson and (third party) NDP leader Bob Rae that gave Mr Peterson a minority government with NDP support. Liberals still  believe that the ND
                  benefitted most from the _"Accord"_ and that it, rather than L<iberal corruption and ineptitude, led to Bob Rae's electoral victory in 1990.

Coalitions, at least those with the NDP, still _frighten_ most Liberals.

For the same reasons, coalitions, with the Liberals, are attractive to the NDP.

Reminder: nothing that Prime Minister Harper said made coalitions anything other than 100% legal, proper and respectable in our _Westminster_ style of parliamentary government. They have been here before (the _Unionist_ government, here in Canada, in 1917, the (brief) _Progressive_/Conservative coalition in 1925 (the _King-Byng thing_) (which eventually led to formal union of the two parties in the 1940s) and, in the UK, MacDonald's _National Government_ in the 1930s and Churchill's wartime coalition in the '40s, all come to mind) and there is no reason why they cannot be here again. While _I agree_ with Prime Minister Harper that it would be _proper_ for parties to announce their intentions or, at least, willingness to enter into formal coalitions or _accords_ with other, specificaly named parties, it is not mandatory.

That being said, here is Jamey Heath's opinion piece:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/jamey-heath-the-liberals-are-an-obstacle-to-true-progressive-policies


> The Liberals are an obstacle to true progressive policies
> 
> Jamey Heath, National Post | July 16, 2015
> 
> ...



This is one shot in an ongoing, since at least the 1980s, _civl war_ on the _progressive/left_ of the political spectrum. In parallels the one on the _right_, in the 1990s, between the Progressive Conservatives and _Reform_ (and its offshoots). The _progressive_ civil war started, within the Liberal Party in 1960, at the Kingston Conference which led to a sharp _lurch_ to the left in Liberal rhetoric but which was not always (not usually) matched by left leaning _actions_ by Liberal governments ~ not even as often as _*real* progressives_ wanted under Pierre Trudeau.

Edit: format


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jul 2015)

I think you need to take a deep breath and re look at what is being said.

Ralph Goodale represents a time and place which no longer exists, and he himself is no longer in a position to do much, if anything about the budget. Two possible responses to Goodale's website are "So?" and "What have you done lately?" There is little to no evidence that the Young Dauphin's team is committed to prudent spending and fiscal responsibility, if anything ("The budget will balance itself") the evidence would point to quite the opposite conclusion.

WRT what is going on behind closed doors, you don't know that and neither do I or anyone else who is not at the meeting. If the PMO and PCO have been sounding people out in private and come to the conclusion that going further along that line would be pointless or divisive, that is an equally valid explanation as anything you have come up with, and has an equal amount of evidence.

Finally, please re read your assertion that the political parties should not run things for the benefit of political parties. How realistic is that? Define "The good of the country" in a way that Kirkhill, Brad, Edward, Kilo, and I would all agree with. Can you think of a political system, anywhere and at any time where the rulers did not manipulate the system to benefit themselves? The best attempt to prevent this; the US Constitution with its elaborate Enlightenment philosophy of checks and balances is under a great deal of stress as generations of politicians, judges and bureaucrats attempt to exploit weakness and inconsistencies that were discovered in the document. The best we can hope for is to limit the power of the State to minimize the ability of these manipulation and distortions to affect the day to day lives of people.

Governing (as opposed to Politics) is the art of the possible, which generally means moving in small increments and making the "least worst choice" of all those available.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Oh, I see.  My comments are conjecture, but you can claim that the govt knows all province's 'demands' on potential Senate Reform from 'secret' meetings.
> Right then, you sure showed me.....
> 
> Harrigan



No. Not all your comments are conjecture.  I only highlighted two. 

I do NOT know that discussions have been held.  I do NOT know that the PM has a sense of the Provinces' positions.  To suppose that would indeed be conjecture.  I merely suggest that there are more possibilities than that which you supposed.

On the other hand, I do KNOW, that public meetings in front of audiences are not productive.  The Railway Station in Ottawa has more in common with the Colosseum and the Globe Theatre than with a Courtroom.

As to tactics: It was not clear to me that you were discussing tactics.  If we are solely discussing tactics then I can admit that proposing Ralph Goodale as the conduit for Paul Martin's 10 year old policies is a tactic.


Edit: - What Thuc said.

Edit again: On the art of the possible.  One thing that people overlook when electing someone is there ability to get things done.  They are hiring an agent - as in a real estate type of agent - an interlocutor.  They are hiring someone who not only enjoys the respect of his clients but also the people with whom he will be negotiating.

European voters have been getting an object lesson in that fact over the last few years with Eurocrats ensuring that they get the agent that appeals to them and not necessarily to the agents' clients.  Tsipras is only the latest agent to be cold-shouldered.


----------



## Rifleman62 (17 Jul 2015)

http://epaper.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx

National Post - John Ivison - 17 Jul 15

*Memo to Quebec, Ontario: Oil is good*

_Economies have been creating significant opportunities for all Canadians_

Brad Wall’s suggestion that central Canadian premiers might be more amenable to a pipeline through their provinces if it pumped equalization payments will do little to endear him to his fellow minor league leaders.

The Saskatchewan premier flew in late to St. John’s because of the fires in his province, to join the annual Council of the Federation whinge-fest.

One of the eye-glazing communiqués set for release is a new Canadian Energy Strategy. This was first proposed in 2012 by then-Alberta premier Alison Redford, with the goal of improving market access for Alberta crude. Since her departure from the scene, the lead has been taken by Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, and the focus has shifted to climate change and green energy.

The new strategy is heavy on increased emphasis on solar and renewable energy and light on commitments to pipelines, according to a draft leaked to the media.

The premiers have been bombarded by calls from environmental groups to ensure there is no role for oilsands growth in the new strategy and those voices appear to have been heard.

Wall has expressed his frustration that the plan suggests an embarrassment about oil and gas “and the investments they make possible.”

He is particularly upset with his counterparts in Ontario and Quebec, who have been cool toward the Energy East proposal by TransCanada, a $12-billion investment that would convert 3,000 km of existing natural-gas pipeline, augmented by 1,400 km of new pipeline from Quebec to refineries in Saint John, N.B. The Canadian Press reported this week that Philippe Couillard, the Quebec Premier, said the climatechange policies around the pipeline need to improve before his province can get behind Energy East. Polls suggest two-thirds of Quebecers oppose the pipeline.

Wynne, with her plan to reduce provincial emissions by 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050, has been equally ambivalent.

New Alberta Premier Rachel Notley met with Couillard in Quebec City earlier this week and seemed fine with a de facto veto over Energy East by Canada’s big provinces. “If we’re able to move forward on (climate change) in a meaningful and convincing way, there’s more likelihood of Quebec coming to terms with it,” she said.

The implication is that if Quebec doesn’t like Alberta’s action it will kill the entire project, using a veto power it doesn’t have in the Constitution — death by a thousand regulations.

Wall said he “categorically rejects” the idea of one province vetoing pipeline construction because it doesn’t like the environmental record of another. He pointed out that Energy East is three-quarters a conversion — rather than a new project — and that it will benefit the whole country.

“There is a growing sense of frustration in the West that our economies have been creating significant opportunities for all Canadians,” he said. “In terms of a licence to build a pipeline, or in this case, simply convert a pipeline to move western energy across the country, how about $10-billion in equalization?”

He has a point — Canada is a federation, not a patchwork of antithetical interests; an economic, as well as a political, union.

Even in an era of depressed oil prices, the country loses billions of dollars because of lack of market access. Benefits from Energy East would be felt everywhere — a Deloitte study suggested it would contribute $6 billion to the GDP of Quebec and $13 billion to Ontario over its lifespan.

If it is not completed, more oil will go by train, which is a more dangerous and polluting means of transporting crude.

Ontario and Quebec previously released the seven conditions for their consent. On climate change, they were specific — they asked the National Energy Board to look at greenhouse-gas emissions produced by the pipeline in their respective provinces, not an environmental review of the entire oilpatch, and certainly not an audit of another province’s green credentials.

In St. John’s, Wynne said she knows the value of the energy sector, but “we’re running out of time” to deal with climate change.

From Notley and Wall’s comments, it seems the goalposts have shifted.

It’s another example that left-ofcentre governments in Canada’s two largest provinces have lost sight of the need to generate revenue before they can spend it.

Sergio Marchionne, the Chrysler CEO, warned Wynne recently that Ontario needs to create the conditions to be competitive, pointing out that an Ontario Retirement Pension Plan and a new cap-andtrade system would add to the cost of running businesses in a province that already has the highest electricity rates in North America.

A new Industry Canada report suggests Ontario has lost 212,000 manufacturing jobs in the past decade, and Quebec nearly 100,000.

Energy East, of all pipeline proposals on offer, really is a “nobrainer.”

Some of the comments are interesting such as this from DonG:


> The fact that Alberta is even listening to the biggest failures ,as provinces in Canadian history, is frightening.  These two provinces are Greek wannabes Entitled to their entitlements and have been kept afloat by the equlizations payments received from Alberta and Saskatchewan oil. They have been the biggest winners of the oil fields of the two most successful and prosperous provinces in Canada, and now are demanding that we follow them down their path of self destruction. Over the last ten years they have stolen over a hundred billion dollars from our successful economies to cover their failures, and have the nerve to even suggest they know what's best for us is beyond funny.  Ontario and Quebec would drag Alberta and Saskatchewan down into a Greek style failure. We have been financing their failures, and they criticizing the west for not giving them more.  Ontario and Quebec have the highest debt ratio in Canada, highest taxes in Canada and the heightest electricity rates in Canada and and have the nerve to suggest they know what's best for us, God help the west because the east will destroy us.  Their green power plan is blowing up in their face and is a monumental failure and they are demanding that we follow them down this path of self destruction. That our new primeur in Alberta is even listening to these Greeks barring gifts, is the start of the Wests collapse. Ontario and Quebec had best be careful what they wish for because they are going to get what they want, no equalization transfers, and they are going to self distruct with out the Wests money and they will blame Alberta for it.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jul 2015)

Trains move Alberta and Saskatchewan and BC and Newfoundland oil using their own oil.

Pipelines move the same oil using Quebec and Ontario and BC hydro.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Jul 2015)

After today's announcement from NEXEN about this latest spill, I wonder how much this will set pipeline talk backwards.  Just when you think they're making progress, someone sh1ts the bed.  Thanks, NEXEN...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jul 2015)

Yep and Mount Polly kicked the mining community in the groin. It's one thing to say we go by the highest standards, another to actually do so and maintain them when things get tight.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jul 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> After today's announcement from NEXEN about this latest spill, I wonder how much this will set pipeline talk backwards.  Just when you think they're making progress, someone sh1ts the bed.  Thanks, NEXEN...



5 million litres equals 66 rail cars.  A train is something like 100 cars long with consideration being given to 250 car trains.  

http://cprailmmsub.blogspot.ca/2011/09/train-length-how-long-can-they-go.html

Bad things happen all the time.  You can't prevent them.  You can manage them after the fact.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Jul 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> 5 million litres equals 66 rail cars.  A train is something like 100 cars long with consideration being given to 250 car trains.
> 
> http://cprailmmsub.blogspot.ca/2011/09/train-length-how-long-can-they-go.html
> 
> Bad things happen all the time.  You can't prevent them.  You can manage them after the fact.



66 rail cars doesn't sound so bad (and I do have experience in loading cars with molten sulphur) so I can visualize and get a grip on it.  But of course the number that's going to he bantered about by the MSM, environment movement/anti pipeline mob is 5 million litres.  That sounds much worse and will play out well for their side of the game with the hearts and minds of the general public.  It also doesn't help that this is a new line as well.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jul 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> 66 rail cars doesn't sound so bad (and I do have experience in loading cars with molten sulphur) so I can visualize and get a grip on it.  But of course the number that's going to he bantered about by the MSM, environment movement/anti pipeline mob is 5 million litres.  That sounds much worse and will play out well for their side of the game with the hearts and minds of the general public.  It also doesn't help that this is a new line as well.



Agreed on the media spin.  

But if we can keep some people informed on the actual scale of things so much the better.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Jul 2015)

Agreed.  But I'm damned if I could see the "if it bleeds it leads" crowd putting some proper perspective in the story.  There's no glory in that avenue of investigation.  Nexen will be pilloried for this, especially if they try to down play it by mentioning 66 vs 5M.  (Hell, I'll admit guilt here myself with my OP on the subject.)


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jul 2015)

>I don't need to rephrase it - you know exactly what I am talking about and are being deliberately obtuse.

No, I'm just not taking the bait.  I might if the analogy were meaningful.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jul 2015)

Macleans - Where the Provinces Stand on Senate Reform.  Courtesy of Aaron Wherry.  So there are 8 of 10 (another article from an earlier time that I read had one more in favour of abolition) with 50% of pop, but Senate reform isn't a standout priority for many.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jul 2015)

>In a more general sense, though, it is pretty hard to suggest the PM has nothing to do with the Senate when they sit in Cabinet, and 48 of the 83 active Senators were appointed by him (58%).

The PM also appoints Supreme Court justices.  Although the process for SC nominations is more rigorous and open, the salient fact is that senators and justices belong to themselves and are answerable to their own respective institutions, not the PM who appointed them.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jul 2015)

>If one doesn't have more than enough proof that the CPC in the last 10 years is as "institutionally corrupt" as the Liberals were in 2006, then one never will.

I doubt that is true - nothing remains hidden forever - but I don't really care about things unproven.  Anti-Harper partisans will believe whatever they choose, as they are at liberty to do.

>Did you ever stop and wonder why the ceiling for the CPC is only around 40%?

No more than I wonder why the LPC and NDP ceilings are also low.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jul 2015)

>5 million litres

1 million litres is a cube 10 metres on each side.

I'd like to see people get a grip: petrochemicals have to be moved in bulk somehow.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Jul 2015)

>Why do the Liberals renounce coalitions while the NDP favours them?

Liberals are opposed because it weakens their brand and position.

NDP are in favour because it give them a shot at doing something besides talking.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Did you ever stop and wonder why the ceiling for the CPC is only around 40%?



http://www.electionalmanac.com/ea/canada-popular-vote-results/

Liberals have barely made it above 40% in their election wins, going all the way back to 1953. Not sure where you're going with that red herring.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >5 million litres
> 
> 1 million litres is a cube 10 metres on each side.
> 
> I'd like to see people get a grip: petrochemicals have to be moved in bulk somehow.



Unless  you belong to the "leave it in the ground" crowd.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Jul 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> http://www.electionalmanac.com/ea/canada-popular-vote-results/
> 
> Liberals have barely made it above 40% in their election wins, going all the way back to 1953. Not sure where you're going with that red herring.




Quite correct. I've been making this point for years: absolute majorities (even a simple majority of those who actually come out to vote) are very, very rare in Canada ~ or in any multi-party democracy.

Another point: the fact that the CPC got, for example, less than 40% of the popular vote in 2011 _does not, in any way, mean that 60% of Canadians voted against the Conservatives_. That's arrant nonsense. It is so tendentious that it goes beyond being just misleading and becomes a _lie_. 60% of Canadians did, indeed, vote for candidates not representing the Conservative Party of Canada; they made _positive_, not _negative_ choices. The NDP wants to harness that _progressive_ vote, either by displacing the Liberals or by having the Liberals agree to join them in coalition. If they do it will still not be an anti-conservative vote, it will be a vote for a NDP led coalition. The argument that "my vote didn't count because Harper got in with 39%" is dishonest and pathetically stupid.


----------



## Harrigan (17 Jul 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I think you need to take a deep breath and re look at what is being said.
> 
> Ralph Goodale represents a time and place which no longer exists, and he himself is no longer in a position to do much, if anything about the budget. Two possible responses to Goodale's website are "So?" and "What have you done lately?" There is little to no evidence that the Young Dauphin's team is committed to prudent spending and fiscal responsibility, if anything ("The budget will balance itself") the evidence would point to quite the opposite conclusion.



Here is my original comment on the subject:

_"I may not agree with it, but I suspect the Liberals would happily compare their economic performance between 93-06 to the Harper Government's between 06-15 any day of the week, and twice on Sunday."_

Despite arguments by you and your like-minded posters, they ARE using that tactic, as would be expected.  And claiming that only the CPC has "experience" in these matters because the opposition hasn't been in government recently is silly.  In 2006, the Liberals used that same tactic to suggest that we couldn't possibly choose another party to govern because they are inexperienced.  We kicked them out with good reason.  In 2015, the CPC will likely use the same tactic, except that on the opposition benches there are some folks who HAVE done the deed and have experience, such as Mr.Goodale.

The veracity of the argument about who has a better record is certainly open for debate, but to pretend that there is no debate is simply putting one's head in the sand.  Whether the CPC likes it or not, people will see 9 straight years of Liberal surpluses, and they will see a majority of Harper's term was in deficit, and the Liberals will play that up.  Is it unfair?  Yes, absolutely.  So the CPC needs to rationally argue why their term was in fact superior to the Liberals - in other words, run on their record.  They certainly have the money to flood media with their message, so I don't see any excuse for them not to do so.

And reference the Liberal leader, he doesn't get a pass for making dumb statements, but to pretend that "the budget will balance itself" is official Liberal Party policy is ridiculous.  



> WRT what is going on behind closed doors, you don't know that and neither do I or anyone else who is not at the meeting. If the PMO and PCO have been sounding people out in private and come to the conclusion that going further along that line would be pointless or divisive, that is an equally valid explanation as anything you have come up with, and has an equal amount of evidence.



Sure, but apparently only my comment was conjecture.  I see how this works.



> Finally, please re read your assertion that the political parties should not run things for the benefit of political parties. How realistic is that? Define "The good of the country" in a way that Kirkhill, Brad, Edward, Kilo, and I would all agree with. Can you think of a political system, anywhere and at any time where the rulers did not manipulate the system to benefit themselves? The best attempt to prevent this; the US Constitution with its elaborate Enlightenment philosophy of checks and balances is under a great deal of stress as generations of politicians, judges and bureaucrats attempt to exploit weakness and inconsistencies that were discovered in the document. The best we can hope for is to limit the power of the State to minimize the ability of these manipulation and distortions to affect the day to day lives of people.



The operative word is "should".  I didn't say that the parties DO run it that way.  I agree that is unrealistic.  But if we lower our expectations to the lowest common denominator, then we will get what we ask for.  I will hold the PM to a higher standard than (clearly) his supporters on this site do, and this disappoints me.  Just remember to be as equally forgiving of Trudeau or Mulcair if they are PM in future and put their own party's political gains over all.

There will never be a definition of "the good of the country" that everyone agrees on.  That's why one talks, discusses, compromises, collaborates, to come up with the "best" solution to issues.  Why is that so difficult to conceive?



> Governing (as opposed to Politics) is the art of the possible, which generally means moving in small increments and making the "least worst choice" of all those available.



This I agree on.  But I don't feel any government can arrive at the "least worst choice" if they only hear from their sycophants or their favoured lobbyists.  That's why I believe constructive evidence-based dialogue is far better than one-party decree.  

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (17 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I don't need to rephrase it - you know exactly what I am talking about and are being deliberately obtuse.
> 
> No, I'm just not taking the bait.  I might if the analogy were meaningful.



LOL.  Fine.  The other readers on this board can see that you repeatedly refuse to answer the simple question.

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (17 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >In a more general sense, though, it is pretty hard to suggest the PM has nothing to do with the Senate when they sit in Cabinet, and 48 of the 83 active Senators were appointed by him (58%).
> 
> The PM also appoints Supreme Court justices.  Although the process for SC nominations is more rigorous and open, the salient fact is that senators and justices belong to themselves and are answerable to their own respective institutions, not the PM who appointed them.



I agree with you about the Supreme Court justices.

Senators are supposed to be objective, but we aren't seeing that at the moment, are we?

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (18 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >If one doesn't have more than enough proof that the CPC in the last 10 years is as "institutionally corrupt" as the Liberals were in 2006, then one never will.
> 
> I doubt that is true - nothing remains hidden forever - but I don't really care about things unproven.  Anti-Harper partisans will believe whatever they choose, as they are at liberty to do.



Hidden?  How many more Conservatives need to get charged before you might consider that there is a problem?

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (18 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Why do the Liberals renounce coalitions while the NDP favours them?
> 
> Liberals are opposed because it weakens their brand and position.
> 
> NDP are in favour because it give them a shot at doing something besides talking.



I agree with you on this Mr.Sallows.  

I also suspect that the NDP will not be as publically supportive of a coalition prior to the election (especially if they continue to increase in the polls), as all parties want people to vote for them.  Tactically, it makes sense.  If Trudeau were to say now that he is open to a coalition, it would be conceding that he thinks he will finish 3rd, which no party wants to suggest to the electorate lest they switch their vote to a party that may win.  Same for Mulcair at this stage.

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (18 Jul 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> http://www.electionalmanac.com/ea/canada-popular-vote-results/
> 
> Liberals have barely made it above 40% in their election wins, going all the way back to 1953. Not sure where you're going with that red herring.



I apologize for not being clear.  I didn't mean 'historically', I meant at the moment the CPC ceiling is only 40%, (actually 42%.)

http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/Nanos%20Political%20Index%202015-07-10E.pdf

According to this recent poll that asked whether one would consider voting for a party, the results are:
NDP - 53%
Lib - 44%
CPC - 42%

Of course, this can change over an election campaign, but when less than half of the voters would even consider voting for a party, that is not good news for the Liberals OR the CPC.  

No red herring intended.

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (18 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Quite correct. I've been making this point for years: absolute majorities (even a simple majority of those who actually come out to vote) are very, very rare in Canada ~ or in any multi-party democracy.
> 
> Another point: the fact that the CPC got, for example, less than 40% of the popular vote in 2011 _does not, in any way, mean that 60% of Canadians voted against the Conservatives_. That's arrant nonsense. It is so tendentious that it goes beyond being just misleading and becomes a _lie_. 60% of Canadians did, indeed, vote for candidates not representing the Conservative Party of Canada; they made _positive_, not _negative_ choices. The NDP wants to harness that _progressive_ vote, either by displacing the Liberals or by having the Liberals agree to join them in coalition. If they do it will still not be an anti-conservative vote, it will be a vote for a NDP led coalition. The argument that "my vote didn't count because Harper got in with 39%" is dishonest and pathetically stupid.



Who is arguing that?

If you think that I am, you are mistaken.  I agree with your post above.

Harrigan


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Jul 2015)

Harrigan, why don't you let it all hang out and consolidate in one or two rebuttal posts vice a million individual posts? That way my finger will not get stressed scrolling through your replies.


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Jul 2015)

http://epaper.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx?noredirect=true

National Post - 18 Jul 2015 - Rex Murphy
    
*A very refreshing premier*

_Murphy: ‘ Brad Wall is utterly untinged with the mysticism of some of his fellow premiers.’ Why is Brad Wall the only one of the bunch who seems as concerned with 2015 as he is 2050?_

The distant future is a politician’s most useful friend — it is where every good and noble thing they promise actually happens. It is where the clutter of present events and the roiling fortunes of this busy harsh and confounding world do not impinge on their wildest wishes.

For example, under Ontario’s green ambitions, we are given to understand the goal is to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by a full 80 per cent by 2050. This is Premier Kathleen Wynn’s pledge, a commitment that will take merely 35 years to be tested — a generous breathing space by any standards for a political commitment, and which happily just might be the identical term it takes to learn all there is to know about the infamous billion-dollar cancellation of a couple of Ontario gas plants a couple of elections ago.

We have long since learned, and from a thousand examples, that the promises of most politicians barely survive the time it takes to make them. Antiques like me remember the bitter mocking Pierre Trudeau once gave Robert Stanfield on the latter’s promise to introduce wage and price controls — “Zap! You’re frozen!,” said the wily Trudeau — only to pirouette mere days after an election to introduce … wage and price controls.

Pledges three, four or 10 decades out are perfect vapourings. To call them useless is to elevate their dignity. To build present-day policy under the umbrella of such projections is to blend fantasy and irresponsibility.

Essentially that’s what we have been watching at the premier’s conference this week in St. John’s. Those premiers who are extremely confident on the events of 2050 — Quebec’s and Ontario’s being the leaders, Rachel Notley of Alberta looking very much like an ally — and who are awash in self-esteem about how their ardent “commitments” to reduce global warming (the ignis fatuus of our day) want the present to act as hostage for their dreams.

One premier, however, who seems seriously stuck in the present, and who is unaccountably concerned with such trivial matters as Canadian jobs and the contribution the energy industry has made to all parts of Canada, who has the outlandish idea that the use of the word “oil” in public is not a pure blasphemy, takes a different view. Saskatchewan’s Brad Wall is utterly untinged with the mysticism of some of his fellow premiers, and astonishingly — it is very “incorrect” to say obvious things — mounts a public defence of the central industry of this entire country.

How outrageous he has been can be gleaned from just a few of his remarks. “There is a growing sense of frustration in the West that our economies have been creating significant opportunities for all Canadians” is one of those statements. It carries the clear implication that since this is so — the Western oil industry has helped all Canadians — it is a little more than curious there is so little encouragement or support for that industry. Indeed, it’s rather the opposite. Any opportunity to hobble it, or to put it in harness to an environmental agenda, is leaped at by some. In this contest 2050 always wins over 2015.

Premier Wall had the nerve to allude to the new and trendy concept of “social licence.” He didn’t add, but he very well could have, that there was no talk of “social licence” when it came to getting jobs in the oil industry, or contracts with companies outside the west, or working with university science and engineering programs, or contributing to the national economy during the most turbulent economic period in a generation. The venue of the conference, Newfoundland, is the grand illustration of all these points. Offshore oil, and western oil, salvaged Newfoundland during its greatest economic and cultural crisis since Confederation.

On the great pipeline debate Wall was ruthless enough to put the matter in very plain terms, which in the context of global warming is a faux pas of unimaginable dimensions. “In terms of a licence to build a pipeline, or in this case, simply convert a pipeline to move western energy across the country, how about $10 billion in equalization?” This was terribly bad manners. To talk about equalization in 2015, and draw a connection with oil coming out of the sea and land today, when the discussion could have been about the world applauding the forward vision of Ontario and how it will have cooled the world circa 2050, was so very déclassé.

Ms. Notley of Alberta, whom one would have thought would be onside with this line of thought, to the contrary, seemed to take some offence. She accused Mr. Wall of “showboating.” Au contraire. The showboating, if any is to be noted, really is in the camp of those who prattle on about their “specific” commitments in a year when all of them will be so long out of office that it will be necessary to look up their names in the mid-century’s version of Wikipedia. “Showboating” might better describe holding Canada’s major job-creating industry hostage to the ideology of an aggressive and debate-intolerant global warming industry. Or, it might really fit another premier, who hosts the Qatar-rich Al Gore — who received $500 million not long ago from that oil-gurgling fiefdom — to offer advice on Ontario’s stumbling, confused and costly green policies. (I’d mention the recent protest visit to Ontario from another Nostradama, Jane Fonda, but there is no need to be sadistic.)

Finally, Mr. Wall might have thrown one more cat in the midst of the self-satisfied pigeons. Why are the producers of energy given all the weight of environmental opposition, and not the users? The users, of course, are everyone — business, industry generally, manufacturing in particular, automobile companies and all who drive, schools, towns, households and even those who manufacture solar panels and the great whirring windmills of our future. Everyone uses energy. The country’s economy is inextricably bound up with energy. Yet those provinces who supply it, and offer jobs and security to the rest of us, are the only ones continually in the dock.

There is something seriously illogical here, and it is pleasing to see one premier with the daring to state how very illogical it all is. If he’s around in 2050, we should make him prime minister.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Jul 2015)

>Harrigan, why don't you let it all hang out and consolidate in one or two rebuttal posts vice a million individual posts?

I should be blamed for doing that first.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jul 2015)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_cBhdRQgFI

And now, to move on....

ERC: Any new polling data?


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Jul 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_cBhdRQgFI
> 
> And now, to move on....
> 
> ERC: Any new polling data?



Awesome video.   Thanks.

Yes, ER, the polls, the polls...


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jul 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> 5 million litres equals 66 rail cars.  A train is something like 100 cars long with consideration being given to 250 car trains.
> 
> http://cprailmmsub.blogspot.ca/2011/09/train-length-how-long-can-they-go.html
> 
> Bad things happen all the time.  You can't prevent them.  You can manage them after the fact.



You know, I was just thinking. Bad habit - and an indication of how slowly my grey cells spark.

This spill of 5,000,000 litres of oil (20,000 barrels) occurred 35 km southeast of Fort MacMurray.  In the middle of the oil sands.  Is it just me that finds that kind of weird?  Nexen is being criticized because it has returned some of the oil it took from the oil sands, to the oil sands.

Are we criticizing Nexen for removing the oil in the first place or are we criticizing them for returning it?

So anyway, Nexen has to clean up a spill of 20,000 barrels (0.016 km2) in the middle of the oil sands which cover an area of 141,000 km2, which God contaminated with 1,700,000,000,000 barrels of oil and which Nexen and its partners are cleaning up at the rate of 1,300,000 barrels per day.

Canada - cleaning up God's mess.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Jul 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> ...
> ERC: Any new polling data?





			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> ...
> Yes, ER, the polls, the polls...




Sorry, fellows, nothing new from the sources I follow, but I did look back at a 10 day old _ABACUS Data_ report and one bit stood out for me ...



> Would a different government do better or worse?
> 
> We asked if an NDP or Liberal government would make things better or worse across 7 issues:
> 
> ...


- See more at: http://abacusdata.ca/canadian-voters-lots-prefer-change-few-fear-it/#sthash.X7ckZmFx.dpuf










Two factors interest me:

     First: As ABACUS Data says (same article) "The Conservatives have labored to persuade voters that a change in government would weaken Canada’s economy, cost jobs, lower Canada’s standing in the world and increase the danger of
     terror attacks ... These numbers suggest that much of this effort has been ignored or discounted by voters.  The number of people who believe a change in government would make things worse is generally lower than the number of people
     who intend to vote Conservative;" and

     Second: the public's _imagination_ of how things *might* (or might not) change is shifting (since August 2014) in the NDP's favour (those numbers in brackets). We _imagine_ ~ because we, Canadian voters, do not,
     really have any useful hard data upon which we might make a decision ~ that, on most issues, the NDP would make things somewhat better or, at least, they would not make them worse. In other words Canadians can, now, _imagine_ a
     NDP government; the prospect doesn't _appear_ to frighten most of us.

_If I believed_ that Prime Minister Harper was positively Asian/Confucian in his long term _strategic_ view (_if I believed_ that he really wants to make Canada both "more _conservative_" and into a near mirror image of the UK's two party split) then I might believe that he wouldn't mind losing a election to the NDP. A NDP government would be a disaster of HUGE magnitude for the Liberals. _I think_ the Liberals' internal civil war would flare again: the Turner, Martin, Manley Liberals, the blue_ish_ Liberals, would push to eject M Trudeau and replace him with someone from their own ranks (Scott Brison?), but the pinko Liberals (Trudeau, Dion, Trudeau) would want to stay the course and rebuild on the left. (I don't have an _informed guess_ about who would win ... my heart would hope for the blue Liberals, my head says the pinko Liberals will prevail.) _I suspect_ that a long term _strategic_ Conservative leader might believe that a NDP government, no matter how intelligent and moderate the leader (and _I believe_ M Mulcair is both) will, eventually and sooner rather than later, have to _appease_ his left wing base and introduce some policies that will frighten the (broadly and generally) fiscally prudent Canadians. That will lead the way for a return to a Conservative administration and, maybe, will reduce the Liberals to perpetual third party status ~ à la the CCF/NDP from 1932 to 2011.

_My guess_, three months ahead of the election, is that Canadians' _imaginations_ are more important than hard polling data (which, I repeat, will not matter until after Labour Day) and the rise of the NDP _might_ play into _conservative's_ long term, _strategic_ plan.


----------



## GAP (19 Jul 2015)

I think the polling data will take a bump upwards for CPC, and will be reinforced each and every month towards the election.

Great timing!

If any of you that collect Child Tax Credit noticed, it just got bumped up by about 60 to 70%.........

Huge!!

Trudeau says he will do away with it, Mulclair is mute on it, but you try telling that to the millions of families out there that their gravy train is gonna go away.....


----------



## Harrigan (19 Jul 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> I think the polling data will take a bump upwards for CPC, and will be reinforced each and every month towards the election.
> 
> Great timing!
> 
> ...



"do away with it" is technically true, but a bit misleading.  According to the National Post, the Liberals would replace the CTC with a more generous one (paid for by increasing taxes for those making more than $200K it seems), for better or worse....

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/justin-trudeau-unveils-his-plan-tax-hikes-on-the-rich-to-boost-child-care-benefits

Harrigan


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Jul 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> You know, I was just thinking. Bad habit - and an indication of how slowly my grey cells spark.
> 
> This spill of 5,000,000 litres of oil (20,000 barrels) occurred 35 km southeast of Fort MacMurray.  In the middle of the oil sands.  Is it just me that finds that kind of weird?  Nexen is being criticized because it has returned some of the oil it took from the oil sands, to the oil sands.
> 
> ...


Kirkhill,
Don't go using logic. The conversation on energy policy in the western world is now controlled by people who:
Don't understand/don't care about thermodynamics
Don't understand the concept of Energy Return on Investment (EROI)
Don't understand the concept of energy density.

In the Canadian case, we have a particularly loathesome group of people lined up against the oil industry that do not care to understand that Canada is a large, cold industrialized country that can never convert fully to wind and solar,  unless 10-20 million of us are just expected to to die in the process.

It is to weep....


----------



## GAP (19 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> "do away with it" is technically true, but a bit misleading.  According to the National Post, the Liberals would replace the CTC with a more generous one (paid for by increasing taxes for those making more than $200K it seems), for better or worse....
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/justin-trudeau-unveils-his-plan-tax-hikes-on-the-rich-to-boost-child-care-benefits
> 
> Harrigan



granted, but better a bird in hand, etc......

Part of the effort of Trudeau's policy is to remove income splitting......now what demographic votes the most reliably, and also utilizes the income splitting the most......


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Jul 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> ...10-20 million of us are just expected to to die in the process.
> 
> It is to weep....



There are groups out there that espouse the philosphy that the planet can only realistically support about 3 Bn humans. Anthing that reduces the population towards that number is fine with them (as long as they're not amongst those reduced).

But that's a coversation for the other tread...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Jul 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> There are groups out there that espouse the philosphy that the planet can only realistically support about 3 Bn humans. Anthing that reduces the population towards that number is fine with them (as long as they're not amongst those reduced).
> 
> But that's a coversation for the other tread...



I disagree. The attitude towards energy policy displayed by the NDP, Liberals and Greens is magical thinking at best.

Inexpensive and abundant energy is central to having a modern, industrialized complex society. It cannot be done on solar panels and wind mills.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Jul 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I disagree. The attitude towards energy policy displayed by the NDP, Liberals and Greens is magical thinking at best.
> 
> Inexpensive and abundant energy is central to having a modern, industrialized complex society. It cannot be done on solar panels and wind mills.



Quebec and Ontario are happy to wave their green laurels because of their electrical supply - based on hydro and nuclear power
  
Flooded countries, dispossessed natives,  plants that cant be repaired or replaced and glow in the dark waste they still cant figure out how to manage.

Phukkem and the high horse they rode in on.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Jul 2015)

The change in the NDP "better/worse" numbers is the interesting point.  Otherwise, what I see is that about 1/3 of Canadians believe either the NDP or LPC would be better than the CPC - which might just be the "floor" for the number of Canadians who will never believe anything good of the CPC.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Jul 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Quebec and Ontario are happy to wave their green laurels because of their electrical supply - based on hydro and nuclear power
> 
> Flooded countries, dispossessed natives,  plants that cant be repaired or replaced and glow in the dark waste they still cant figure out how to manage.
> 
> Phukkem and the high horse they rode in on.




Good points.  Ontario, in its Green Movement, has probably run into 'institutional incompetence and stupidity'.  Expensive and questionable renewable resources like 'wind farms' and 'solar farms' placing the province further in debt, while existing Hydro dams like Niagara Falls generating station and nuclear power plants are being taken off line.  The environmentalists squashing the suggestions that nuclear waste be buried in the Canadian Shield under Chalk River Laboratories, or the Garbage reclamation proposal put forward by the Town of Kirkland Lake to handle Toronto garbage, are keeping Ontario, and Canada, from finding creative and workable solutions to environmental issues.  The environmental protection movements are great at complaining and closing things down, but unable and unwilling to find creative solutions that are affordable and not going to contribute to massive debt.
If you look closely at the spokesmen for these movements, they are great at rallying the environmentalist fanatics, while being hypocrites themselves.   
Perhaps it is time to turn a deaf ear to the Environmental Movements.  We are making great inroads in saving the environment.  The Great Lakes are now cleaner than they were fifty years ago.  Changes like that do not happen over night.  Environmental protection legislation has been enacted and modern technologies are creating cleaner processes that are much more efficient for industry to manufacture necessities.  Unfortunately Environmentalists are blind to what modern society needs to survive, ignoring the fact that oil is what produces nearly everything we use.  Time to put them on pause or ignore.  (perhaps we should point out the oncoming Ice Age)


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Jul 2015)

The great hindrance in the "green" debate is the people who think in qualitative rather than quantitative terms.  They don't grasp the quantities of energy to be dealt with, and they don't grasp the quantities of capital misallocated - if they even understand that the return on some investments is very poor and leaves us facing the same issues with fewer resources.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The great hindrance in the "green" debate is the people who think in qualitative rather than quantitative terms.  They don't grasp the quantities of energy to be dealt with, and they don't grasp the quantities of capital misallocated - if they even understand that the return on some investments is very poor and leaves us facing the same issues with fewer resources.



Not just "Greens", but virtually anything to do with Socialism in its various forms can usually be identified through the innumerate people espousing it. Why do you think the Greeks or US Blue States are bankrupt, after paying out far more in social programs, government pensions and benefits than they are taking in (rhetorical question). The only remotely "quantitative" trial balloons I have seen WRT proposed spending from either the LPC or NDP involves drawing monies from the CPP to pay for Liberal spending proposals and both parties increasing taxes on the one segment of the population with the ability and will to take measures to avoid these tax increases.

Anyone who thinks about these things for more than a 30 second sound bite will be alarmed, to say the least, but both parties and the various enablers who support them are counting on the fact that "low information voters" and "severely normal" (i.e. disengaged from politics unless it directly affects them in an 'In your face' way) will not put in the few moments of analysis needed to understand these proposals fully, and most people will react in a visceral and emotional manner, rather than a rational one, to electioneering (hence the power of negative ads). The way the ideas of "income inequality" have taken root is perhaps the greatest example; Canada has a much lower rate of "inequality" than other G-8 nations, and the data completely contradicts the "narrative", but guess which ideas are dominating?

Of course the other thing which helps the innumerate put one over on the majority is the fact that these are slow motion disasters, with a long delay between the flash and the bang. It has taken a decade for the Liberals to demolish Ontario's manufacturing base, and the full damage of escalating energy bills is still in process. Pointing out that Dalton McGuinty started these things in process will be essentially meaningless to most people, much like suggesting the Young Dauphin's spending proposals (such as we know of them) will adversely impact us in 5 years time will probably not get any traction. (In this case, Harrington's totally counterintuitive suggestion that the LPC will be trying to run on their past accomplishments of balanced budgets in the 1990's while simultaneously proposing massive spending increases between 2015 and 2020 will probably be both true and effective).

So the battle is not really between looking at the objective merits of any particular parties platforms (and if we are honest, most of the 19 registered political parities capable of running in this election will never even get a look from anyone), but rather how each party can manipulate people's emotions, attitudes, behaviours and perceptions.


----------



## Harrigan (20 Jul 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Not just "Greens", but virtually anything to do with Socialism in its various forms can usually be identified through the innumerate people espousing it. Why do you think the Greeks or US Blue States are bankrupt, after paying out far more in social programs, government pensions and benefits than they are taking in (rhetorical question). The only remotely "quantitative" trial balloons I have seen WRT proposed spending from either the LPC or NDP involves drawing monies from the CPP to pay for Liberal spending proposals and both parties increasing taxes on the one segment of the population with the ability and will to take measures to avoid these tax increases.
> 
> Anyone who thinks about these things for more than a 30 second sound bite will be alarmed, to say the least, but both parties and the various enablers who support them are counting on the fact that "low information voters" and "severely normal" (i.e. disengaged from politics unless it directly affects them in an 'In your face' way) will not put in the few moments of analysis needed to understand these proposals fully, and most people will react in a visceral and emotional manner, rather than a rational one, to electioneering (hence the power of negative ads). The way the ideas of "income inequality" have taken root is perhaps the greatest example; *Canada has a much lower rate of "inequality" than other G-8 nations, and the data completely contradicts the "narrative*", but guess which ideas are dominating?
> 
> ...



This subject isn't my forte, but I'm not sure the stats are definitive either way on Income Inequality.  

Seems that while Canada is better than the US and UK in all charts, and sometimes slightly better than Italy and Japan in others, it is worse than the rest of the "First World" after redistribution (through taxes and transfers).  I notice that some of the charts (like the NP one below) point to the before taxes and transfers figure, which doesn't seem all that relevant to me as we exist in a world with taxes and transfers.  Surely it is the inequality (if it exists) after taxes and transfers that matters.  Also interesting to see the very different trendlines between the Anglosphere countries and the rest of the world.

http://ourworldindata.org/data/growth-and-distribution-of-prosperity/income-inequality/
http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/840011/income-gap-between-the-rich-and-poor-increasing-faster-in-canada-than-in-the-united-states
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/stephen-gordon-what-is-income-inequality

What that data doesn't identify (probably because there is no firm answer), is what is the "ideal" level of income inequality is.  Presumably it would be a different number depending on where one's political persuasion lies.

Harrigan

P.S. Don't shoot the messenger.  I am just providing the links.  I don't have a degree in Economics nor have a balanced a Federal Budget....


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Although this story, from _Reuters_, is about Europe it should provide a cautionary note for those who favour the sort of proportional representation that Israel and several European nations have.
> 
> We Canadians should all remember the financial crisis of 2008: the (Conservative) government of the day wanted a cautious, muted _response_; the (Liberal and NDP) opposition demanded (as they can in a hung parliament (minority situation)) strong _stimulus_ spending. You can argue the merits of each case until the cows come home but, _I think_ (hope) most will agree that a crisis is when "selection and maintenance of the aim" (a solid, coherent, policy) is paramount and that's the situation that proportional representation makes difficult. Bundeskanzlerin Merkel wants the _eurozone_ to survive, as is; her finance minister, Wolfgabg Schaeuble favours _reform_, beginning with a _Grexit_: a deep policy division. Deep policy divisions are the very _nature_ of coalition governments which, in turn, are the very _natural_ outcome of proportional representation.
> 
> ...




Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is more, from an unexpected source, on the political perils (for winners) of proportional representation:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/ndp-may-want-to-reconsider-its-stance-on-electoral-reform/article25548883/


> NDP may want to reconsider its stance on electoral reform
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




_I think_ that there is room for some vote reform: specifically for a _preferential_ voting system which can, _I believe_, be made clear and simple, still maintains single member constituency elections but does require electronic vote counting.

     (On a preferential ballot you might, for example, see a list of names each with, say, three boxes beside each: you may enter a total of up to six ✘s for a maximum of three candidates; You may give your most preferred
       candidate as many as (but no more than) three ✘s and one or two (up to a total maximum of six) to two others. (The electronic system would assign values to your ✘s ~ one ✘=1 two ✘s = 3 and three ✘s = 7 (which preserves the "advantage"
       of being the preferred candidate.) You could, theoretically, give only three ✘s, maybe to three marginal or fringe candidates as a sign of "none of the above." You could, also, give three ✘s to one candidate and none to any others.)


----------



## Harrigan (20 Jul 2015)

So Mr.Simpson posits that because of one favourable provincial result in Alberta, the NDP should consider throwing away a policy plank that has distinguished them from the Liberals and Conservatives for years (decades)?  I would imagine the NDP recognizes that it is not likely to become the "natural governing party" on the basis of one good (provincial) result, and MMP is a far bigger gain for the NDP overall that more than offsets the potential "loss" in Alberta.

Besides, after all the recriminations after the Danielle Smith affair and the defections, I would imagine that Brian Jean would be ON the barbeque if he were to turn around and join/prop up the PC's after the election.

Harrigan


----------



## Underway (20 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> So Mr.Simpson posits that because of one favourable provincial result in Alberta, the NDP should consider throwing away a policy plank that has distinguished them from the Liberals and Conservatives for years (decades)?  I would imagine the NDP recognizes that it is not likely to become the "natural governing party" on the basis of one good (provincial) result, and MMP is a far bigger gain for the NDP overall that more than offsets the potential "loss" in Alberta.



Political power corrupts.  Once in power its a simple fact that the NDP would do whatever it takes to stay there, and that would include the belief that the can consistently win elections, especially if the Liberals die.  I will love watching the fall of the party's "holier than thou" attitude over time.  It will make for fine political soap opera.  If they don't change their attitude they will not find themselves in power very long as the Liberal and Torys have no problem hitting below the belt.  Right now the NDP seem content to let 3rd party advertising do their dirty work for them.

Mr. Simpson also posits that Canadians DON'T want a change in the political system.  Every time it goes to referendum it dies.  Horribly.  By our very nature people fear change, especially in Canada.  Don't like thinking about disturbing things like nasty military folks killing people or politicians arguing.  We are so non-confrontational as a people its almost a joke.  Changing politics to be _more_ confrontational and dramatic is not in our collective DNA.  And the people who do vote don't want to lose their power.  So they like things the way they are.

As well many here in Canada come from countries where some similar sort of alternative voting is in place and don't trust it.  Political backroom deals and all.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> So Mr.Simpson posits that because of one favourable provincial result in Alberta, the NDP should consider throwing away a policy plank that has distinguished them from the Liberals and Conservatives for years (decades)?  I would imagine the NDP recognizes that it is not likely to become the "natural governing party" on the basis of one good (provincial) result, and MMP is a far bigger gain for the NDP overall that more than offsets the potential "loss" in Alberta.
> 
> Besides, after all the recriminations after the Danielle Smith affair and the defections, I would imagine that Brian Jean would be ON the barbeque if he were to turn around and join/prop up the PC's after the election.
> 
> Harrigan




There are two problems with _most_ proportional representations schemes:

     1. They threaten the _representative_ nature of our democratic system, ~ wherein I (help to) pick an individual (normally from my community) who represents my community* in the House of Commons;

     2. They prop up, actually reward, the _weak_ and unproductive political parties and movements. They detract from compromise within parties and promote 
         _appeasement_ and deal making between parties.

Both, _in my opinion_, make _most_ PR schemes bad ideas. _I do not believe_, not for a _µ_second, that Israel or Germany are more democratic than Canada just because they have PR ... but I do believe that "cabinet making" in both countries always results in disappointing compromises for everyone.

It is the second reason ~ rewarding the _weak_ ~ that should concern the NDP, right now.

_____
* And that (communities) is what the "commons" in HoC means; the French name, _Chambre des communes_, is, actually, a better reflection of what "commons" means. It's not "lords" vs "commoners," it is lords vs *communities*, towns, villages and so on.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jul 2015)

I read a good book by John Pepell titled Against Reform in which he covers most of the arguments for dramatic reform of the Canadian system (PR, recall, elected judiciary, etc).  His biggest argument is against Proporitional Representation, and his argument is quite sound.  PR strikes at the heart of two of the foundations of our parliamentary system - effective and elected government.  Our system produces winners because we want effective governments that can accomplish things, not hung minorities haggling over things.  Our system elects people to directly represent ridings, thereby producing accountable legislatures.

Not interested in anything that has the chance to make our parliament any less effective and accountable.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jul 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I read a good book by John Pepell titled Against Reform in which he covers most of the arguments for dramatic reform of the Canadian system (PR, recall, elected judiciary, etc).  His biggest argument is against Proporitional Representation, and his argument is quite sound.  PR strikes at the heart of two of the foundations of our parliamentary system - effective and elected government.  Our system produces winners because we want effective governments that can accomplish things, not hung minorities haggling over things.  Our system elects people to directly represent ridings, thereby producing accountable legislatures.
> 
> Not interested in anything that has the chance to make our parliament any less effective and accountable.



If we want to see why the Senate is set up as it is, we could take a close look at Ontario.  Ontario elections are largely driven by the population of the GTA.   The majority of Ontario Government decisions affect solely the GTA.  All municipalities outside the GTA are in a state of neglect.  Perhaps that neglect would not be as obvious, had the provincial government replicated the national government.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jul 2015)

Here is another interesting bit of political lore, in an article that is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/when-losers-have-the-right-to-form-a-government/article25566174/


> When ‘losers’ have the right to form a government
> 
> DAVID MITCHELL
> Contributed to The Globe and Mail
> ...



I have said, before, that there's nothing wrong, in our _Westminster_ system, with coalitions. But, a few years ago, Prime Minister Harper mounted a brilliant, if misleading campaign against the notion of a Liberal/NDP coalition and convinced a pretty large slice of Canadians that coalition were a bad thing. They're not. It doesn't mean they are good, but they _might_ be preferable to minority governments that try to appease two or three parties on an issue-by-issue basis.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jul 2015)

The thing I didn't like about the coalition crisis of 2008 was it was "after the fact".  I would not cry foul of a coalition if, on election day, after seats were tallied, all involved announced they would go to the GG and ask to form a coalition government - if you don't do it and the minority government is formed, than go to the polls again (instead of waiting 6 weeks after as the opposition parties did in 2008).


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Jul 2015)

Personally, my preference in the event of a hung jury, no party in the majority, is to play by the usual rules of the game.

The usual rules of the game, in my view, for a minority government are: government proposes - parliament disposes.  If the House likes what the Government proposes, Government survives.  If it doesn't - than back to the hustings.

This makes for instability, and the Government can't indulge in long term planning, although the House can*.  The restraining hand on all parties is that people don't like voting.  Parties seen to put people back in the polling booths too soon will be punished.

The only legitimate reasons for a "coalition", in my view, is if the nation faces an existential threat and normal politics must be suspended.

Britain in WW2 is acceptable.  Britain in WW1 is debatable.  I have seen nothing in Canada that has ever justified the suspension of the accepted rules.

* I would dearly love to see a cross-party consensus on Defence, Foreign Aid and Infrastructure.


----------



## Kilo_302 (20 Jul 2015)

Yet some more blatant rule breaking by the Conservatives. Not to mention the UCCB is next to useless.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pierre-poilievre-s-shirt-choice-for-promoting-uccb-raises-eyebrows-1.3160023



> Civil servants are instructed to inform the public about policies and programs "in an accountable, non-partisan fashion," according to rules set out by the Treasury Board, which sets rules for Canada's federal bureaucracy.
> 
> "[Government] Institutions must not participate in, or lend support to, partisan events organized for political party purposes," according to the rules.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Jul 2015)

You got them again Kilo_302!


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Yet some more blatant rule breaking by the Conservatives. Not to mention the UCCB is next to useless.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pierre-poilievre-s-shirt-choice-for-promoting-uccb-raises-eyebrows-1.3160023
> 
> ...


Lucky he's not a civil servant, then ....


----------



## Remius (20 Jul 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Lucky he's not a civil servant, then ....



It has more to do with this part:  Institutions must not participate in, or lend support to, partisan events organized for political party purposes


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jul 2015)

While I find Pierre Poilievre one of the more interesting MP's in the house, I rarely consider him to be an "institution".


----------



## Kilo_302 (20 Jul 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> It has more to do with this part:  Institutions must not participate in, or lend support to, partisan events organized for political party purposes



Exactly. Displays of partisanship (whether it be party logos, political statements etc) are strictly forbidden at events which involve government ministries for what should be obvious reasons. No government is allowed to politicize the delivery of services, even if the service (or handout in this case) is politically motivated. The rules are clear, and to knowingly break them is an affront to democracy. 

This government is in a league of it's own when it comes to these offences (spending public money on ad campaigns for programs that haven't yet been planned never mind enacted, the robocall scandal, smearing non-partisan public servants for doing their job, etc etc ), and the lengths some are willing to go to support the Conservatives out of some misguided ideology (the Conservatives don't even obey their own ideals) is truly pathetic. ANY government who abuses power like this should be tossed out, and the offenders should be put in jail (as Del Mastro, Harper's E). Full stop. It doesn't matter if it's the Liberals, the NDP or the current government.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Jul 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> It has more to do with this part:  Institutions must not participate in, or lend support to, partisan events organized for political party purposes



Besides, the CBC has it all wrong in this case.  He's obviously wearing a polo or golf shirt, not a tee shirt... sheesh.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Jul 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> It has more to do with this part:  Institutions must not participate in, or lend support to, partisan events organized for political party purposes



So: Was this event organized for political party purposes? In what way was it different to any other ribbon cutting? Or any other "The Land Is Strong" announcement?


----------



## Kilo_302 (20 Jul 2015)

It became "for political party purposes" when Poilievre chose to wear clothing bearing the logo of his political party. This is the issue. It might seem minor, but he's basically reminding voters that the Conservatives are giving them free money for having kids (this instead of actual child care). This is par for the course for our government though, and for a party whose supporters seem to be always worried about how their tax money is spent, it's curious that no one here seems to think it's a problem when they spend it on self-promotion.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/social-media-reacts-to-child-care-benefit-package/article25590684/?click=sf_globefb



> Three billion dollars worth of government cheques were sent to millions of Canadian parents on Monday morning – just a few months shy of election day.
> 
> The cash infusions, going to roughly 3.8 million families, are due to the recent changes to the Conservative government’s universal child-care benefit.
> 
> While the MPs and Conservative cabinet ministers were touting the news across the country, Canadian parents and non-parents turned to social media with their reactions.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> ......., it's curious that no one here seems to think it's a problem when they spend it on self-promotion.



Obviously you are looking at the membership through blinders......or not reading many of the posts.........or both.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Obviously you are looking at the membership through blinders......or not reading many of the posts.........or both.



George:

We're not being sufficiently rigorous.  In the interests of ideological purity we should be calling for the reinstatement of the guillotine.  Things have gone downhill since Robespierre lost his head.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jul 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> George:
> 
> We're not being sufficiently rigorous.  In the interests of ideological purity we should be calling for the reinstatement of the guillotine.  Things have gone downhill since Robespierre lost his head.



Just feed them cake.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> It became "for political party purposes" when Poilievre chose to wear clothing bearing the logo of his political party. This is the issue. It might seem minor, but he's basically reminding voters that the Conservatives are giving them free money for having kids (this instead of actual child care). This is par for the course for our government though, and for a party whose supporters seem to be always worried about how their tax money is spent, it's curious that no one here seems to think it's a problem when they spend it on self-promotion.
> 
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/social-media-reacts-to-child-care-benefit-package/article25590684/?click=sf_globefb



You know Kilo- you are right. I really hate it when the government gives meback some of mymoney. That is just about the worst thing any government can do....


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Jul 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You know Kilo- you are right. I really hate it when the government gives meback some of mymoney. That is just about the worst thing any government can do....



 ;D  BAM!


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Jul 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You know Kilo- you are right. I really hate it when the government gives meback some of mymoney. That is just about the worst thing any government can do....



Its not $60 a child, but here's some milpoints.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jul 2015)

>This government is in a league of it's own when it comes to these offences

Probably true, because AdScam is the pro league and the CPC is still in the beer league as far as corruption.  Let me know when the CPC is laundering public funds into a kickback scheme to fill its own coffers.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Jul 2015)

MMP is basically an insult to representative democracy.  Parties have enough electoral advantages without giving them their own special pool of candidates.

The NDP are not uniformly enthusiastic about reforming away FPTP.  Here in BC, they know it would mean permanent opposition status with Liberals and Conservatives forming government in perpetuity.


----------



## Harrigan (21 Jul 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> Political power corrupts.  Once in power its a simple fact that the NDP would do whatever it takes to stay there, and that would include the belief that the can consistently win elections, especially if the Liberals die.  I will love watching the fall of the party's "holier than thou" attitude over time.  It will make for fine political soap opera.  If they don't change their attitude they will not find themselves in power very long as the Liberal and Torys have no problem hitting below the belt.  Right now the NDP seem content to let 3rd party advertising do their dirty work for them.
> 
> Mr. Simpson also posits that Canadians DON'T want a change in the political system.  Every time it goes to referendum it dies.  Horribly.  By our very nature people fear change, especially in Canada.  Don't like thinking about disturbing things like nasty military folks killing people or politicians arguing.  We are so non-confrontational as a people its almost a joke.  Changing politics to be _more_ confrontational and dramatic is not in our collective DNA.  And the people who do vote don't want to lose their power.  So they like things the way they are.
> 
> As well many here in Canada come from countries where some similar sort of alternative voting is in place and don't trust it.  Political backroom deals and all.



You might be right, but as we have never had a federal NDP government, we don't know how they'll react if they were to win.  I tend to agree that all politicians are more or less the same, but we can't say "Well, if the Liberals and Conservatives do it, then obviously the NDP will do it too).  

Personally, I am not in a hurry, or looking forward to, having other parties descend to the "below the belt" levels of the two traditional main parties.  Why would anyone want that?

Mr.Simpson is correct that referendums in the past have failed.  As well they should have - they were confusing concepts that were not explained well, and probably more importantly, were being 'sponsored' by parties that didn't stand to gain from a change from FPTP.  However, in 2015, some of the systems in use around the world are not all that hard to understand.

How many countries have switched from a PR-based system TO the First Past the Post system?

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (21 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There are two problems with _most_ proportional representations schemes:
> 
> 1. They threaten the _representative_ nature of our democratic system, ~ wherein I (help to) pick an individual (normally from my community) who represents my community* in the House of Commons;
> 
> ...



1.  Pure PR systems are awkward, for sure (as is pure democracy).  But my understanding is that the NDP prefers MMP, which is a hybrid system which includes geographical representation AND proportionality, thus not threatening representation at all.

2.  You have given an excellent summary of why the two main parties in an existing FPTP system would want to keep it, because by having everyone in 'their' party, there is a modicum of control.  A good example of this would be the Mulroney Progressive Conservatives, a volatile mixture of Blue Tories, Red Tories, Western Reformers, and Quebec sovereigntists all in one group.  I wouldn't call any of those four groups particularly weak or unproductive.

Your point is exactly why I am so surprised that the Liberals would be proposing to change from a system that clearly benefits them (and the CPC) the most.  It doesn't surprise me at all that the NDP would want to change it.

In the end, the entire debate is not a question of whether our not Country A or Country B is "more democratic", the question is whether or not the electoral process produces a result that is most representative of the voter's intentions.  PR does that by definition, but I don't think anyone would want to throw away the representative aspect which you mentioned - hence MMP.

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (21 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> MMP is basically an insult to representative democracy.  Parties have enough electoral advantages without giving them their own special pool of candidates.
> The NDP are not uniformly enthusiastic about reforming away FPTP.  Here in BC, they know it would mean permanent opposition status with Liberals and Conservatives forming government in perpetuity.



Personally I think that particular concern with "list candidates" is a red herring - if a Party has a list of candidates that they want as MPs, some of those that don't make the PR cut for "listed" MP seats will still be working for the Party after the election in some way or other, and having an influence on decisions.

However, there is a solution that can be enacted within MMP that sorts that issue out:  fill out the PR-portion of the seats with the losing candidates who had the highest vote percentage within their own ridings.  They wouldn't represent the constituency they ran in, but they would at least have demonstrated that they can command a good chunk of the electorate in an area, and are thus deserving of a seat as MP.  I would prefer this to a straight "list".

FPTP, designed in the 19th Century, has its strengths and weaknesses, and I can understand why fans of a two-party system would want to keep it, as it serves their political purposes.  As I have no particular party loyalty, I would rather see Parliament reflect voter preference.  The debate is interesting, though.



> Let me know when the CPC is laundering public funds into a kickback scheme to fill its own coffers.



You mean, other than the 'In and Out' scandal?

Harrigan


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jul 2015)

The last three words in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, are _"things have changed."_ They have, indeed, if they are forcing the Liberals' hand so early ... before the campaign:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-switches-targets-in-bid-to-cut-mulcairs-momentum-in-polls/article25598316/


> Trudeau switches targets in bid to cut Mulcair’s momentum in polls
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




_I think_ that the two reasons given for the "loss of confidence" in Liberal ranks ~ M Trudeau's team of advisors are more interested in their own policy goals than in the needs of the party, and the CPC's "Just Not Ready" attack ads are working ~  may both be correct. But _I also believe_ that Canadians may be, at this moment, in a mood for *real*, change, not just the traditional change from Liberals to (briefly) Conservatives and then back, but a change from the _traditional _to the *new*: the New Democrats.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jul 2015)

Further to the above: Éric Grenier, of ThreeHundredEight.com, says, in a CBC report that the NDP continues to gain while, in his words: _"Polls are starting to be more unanimous on the third place position of the Liberals (the two last surveys put them as low as 24 or 25 per cent), but it is up for debate as to whether the Conservatives are solidly in second or pushing the NDP for the lead."_

So, there may be some doubt about how strong the NDP lead (over the CPC) is, but there is no doubt that the Liberals are the "third party" in Canadians' minds.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jul 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is a column by Lawrence Martin, with my comments inserted:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-downside-of-us-style-elections/article25594717/


> The downside of U.S.-style elections
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (21 Jul 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You know Kilo- you are right. I really hate it when the government gives meback some of mymoney. That is just about the worst thing any government can do....



Giving away what in the end is a paltry sum meant to help families raise children is bribing voters, plain and simple. This is what we get instead of national subsidized child care program. It's a pathetic, and it's an irresponsible waste of money. I thought Conservatives were supposed to be against handouts...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/3-things-to-know-about-the-uccb-payments-impact-1.3161108



> The UCCB goes to parents of minor children whether they pay tax or not — but it is also taxable, both federally and provincially. An Ontario parent earning $50,000, for example, pays income tax at a combined marginal rate of 31.15 per cent. So, with $720 of added income from the UCCB, an additional $224.28 would be clawed back as taxes next year.
> 
> Those two factors leave $158.22 a year per child for that Ontario parent, or an additional $13.18 a month net.



The point of this whole exercise is buying votes, $13.18 a month is nothing. It would be interesting to see what the cost of administering this program is. Giving money to individual Canadians for childcare will never be as effective as an actual childcare program, with the economy of scale that it would provide. Not to mention the fact that this tax in some cases will take money from, for example, a single worker and give it to a wealthy family with a single child of 17. A service targeted to relieve lower and middle income Canadians of the cost of child care would be far more effective and far more direct.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Jul 2015)

> All said, our electoral system is being made less reputable, less regulated, more prone to U.S.-style abuses. The Americanization of our system is an increasing concern in other areas as well, such as gun-registry laws, which have become more relaxed, *X Nonsense. The gun-registry laws, brought in by the Liberals, were overbearing and unjust. It made criminals of law abiding citizens and allowed bureaucratic police appointees to, effectively, make up their own laws with total disregard for our justice system. The Conservatives are simply letting the pendulum swing back to a less adversarial and less costly system, while ensuring that the CFOs follow the law.*
> 
> ....and a criminal justice system with a heavier emphasis on jailing. *X Nonsense. The previous laws, as written, left too much to interpretation by a left leaning attorneys and judiciary. Violent criminals were being appeased with 2-1 and 3-1 waiting times off of sentences. Low jails terms have done nothing to rehabilitate them, then they are dumped back on the street, many, many to reoffend the same laws. The Conservatives are trying to remedy that, including more use of the Violent Offender clause and imposing higher mandatory sentencing.
> *



So there's no mistake, I borrowed Mr Campbell's response style because it's effective. The points put forward in this post are mine, not his.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Giving away what in the end is a paltry sum meant to help families raise children is bribing voters, plain and simple. This is what we get instead of national subsidized child care program. It's a pathetic, and it's an irresponsible waste of money. I thought Conservatives were supposed to be against handouts...
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/3-things-to-know-about-the-uccb-payments-impact-1.3161108
> 
> The point of this whole exercise is buying votes, $13.18 a month is nothing. It would be interesting to see what the cost of administering this program is. Giving money to individual Canadians for childcare will never be as effective as an actual childcare program, with the economy of scale that it would provide.



If you can't afford to raise a family, you shouldn't have children.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Giving away what in the end is a paltry sum meant to help families raise children is bribing voters, plain and simple. This is what we get instead of national subsidized child care program. It's a pathetic, and it's an irresponsible waste of money. I thought Conservatives were supposed to be against handouts...
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/3-things-to-know-about-the-uccb-payments-impact-1.3161108
> 
> The point of this whole exercise is buying votes, $13.18 a month is nothing. It would be interesting to see what the cost of administering this program is. Giving money to individual Canadians for childcare will never be as effective as an actual childcare program, with the economy of scale that it would provide. Not to mention the fact that this tax in some cases will take money from, for example, a single worker and give it to a wealthy family with a single child of 17. A service targeted to relieve lower and middle income Canadians of the cost of child care would be far more effective and far more direct.



It is difficult to remain polite to you. My wife and I choose to raise our own children- not to farm them out to government employees to be raised. This means my wife and I have both taken hits on what we could have earned (my wife far more than me). This also means that I deeply appreciate having my tax dollars returned to me (there- I have said it again. It was my money and I gave it to the government. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY!

I do not care for the creation of another federal bureaucracy that will certainly intrude on areas of provincial concern; will certainly cost more than $ 5 billion dollars per years and will be certainly become a disfunctionsl mess (remember- I work for the federal government and see daily just how "good" it is at organizing things.

You like daycare. Fine. I don't. Please don't experiment on my kids with my money.


----------



## Scott (21 Jul 2015)

Kilo, does your hatred of Stephen Harper, and much associated with the Conservative Party, weigh much on you? I know it would me. That sort of thing would keep me awake at night.

Seriously. I can't take anything you say seriously because of this. If this was the Liberals or NDP's ideas you'd be fine with it.


----------



## Harrigan (21 Jul 2015)

Scott said:
			
		

> Kilo, does your hatred of Stephen Harper, and much associated with the Conservative Party, weigh much on you? I know it would me. That sort of thing would keep me awake at night.
> 
> Seriously. I can't take anything you say seriously because of this. If this was the Liberals or NDP's ideas you'd be fine with it.



His dislike of Harper is no worse or stronger than the professed dislike of Trudeau on this site by many more posters (Mulcair less so).  Kilo just happens to be in the minority here.

Harrigan


----------



## Scott (21 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> His dislike of Harper is no worse or stronger than the professed dislike of Trudeau on this site by many more posters (Mulcair less so).  Kilo just happens to be in the minority here.
> 
> Harrigan



But I didn't ask you. 

I was actually going to vote Liberal. My local candidate really made a good pitch to me as to why I should vote for him. He's since dropped out of the race because of some of the party's policies and I do not see a viable alternative.


----------



## Kilo_302 (21 Jul 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It is difficult to remain polite to you. My wife and I choose to raise our own children- not to farm them out to government employees to be raised. This means my wife and I have both taken hits on what we could have earned (my wife far more than me). This also means that I deeply appreciate having my tax dollars returned to me (there- I have said it again. It was my money and I gave it to the government. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY!
> 
> I do not care for the creation of another federal bureaucracy that will certainly intrude on areas of provincial concern; will certainly cost more than $ 5 billion dollars per years and will be certainly become a disfunctionsl mess (remember- I work for the federal government and see daily just how "good" it is at organizing things.
> 
> You like daycare. Fine. I don't. Please don't experiment on my kids with my money.



Well the difficulty is mutual. Much of your above post is rhetoric and little more. There are numerous countries around the world that have national childcare programs, and these take many forms. We don't need to have federal employees run them, instead we could merely subsidize Canadian families to help PAY for daycare. Again, many options, some better for Canada than others. But ALL are better than nothing, or this tiny handout that we currently have. The economic spin off benefits are measurable and real. Not to mention the advantages that the children get in the most formative years of their lives. But you can believe what you want. 

Here's a statement from the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada on the matter:

http://www.royalcollege.ca/portal/page/portal/rc/common/documents/advocacy/EBBDEL_statement_e.pdf



			
				Scott said:
			
		

> Kilo, does your hatred of Stephen Harper, and much associated with the Conservative Party, weigh much on you? I know it would me. That sort of thing would keep me awake at night.
> 
> Seriously. I can't take anything you say seriously because of this. If this was the Liberals or NDP's ideas you'd be fine with it.



I've said this numerous times, I am NOT a Liberal supporter and while I plan on voting for the NDP I am voting for my local MP because she does a great job in my riding, not because I have any love for Mulcair or the federal party. I have posted on this thread about Trudeau supporting C-51, which I think is a cynical and cowardly move. And I agree with all of *you* that becoming Prime Minister shouldn't be a coronation and that the Liberal Party is as arrogant as it is unimaginative.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Jul 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It is difficult to remain polite to you. My wife and I choose to raise our own children- not to farm them out to government employees to be raised. This means my wife and I have both taken hits on what we could have earned (my wife far more than me). This also means that I deeply appreciate having my tax dollars returned to me (there- I have said it again. It was my money and I gave it to the government. IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S MONEY!
> 
> I do not care for the creation of another federal bureaucracy that will certainly intrude on areas of provincial concern; will certainly cost more than $ 5 billion dollars per years and will be certainly become a disfunctionsl mess (remember- I work for the federal government and see daily just how "good" it is at organizing things.
> 
> You like daycare. Fine. I don't. Please don't experiment on my kids with my money.



SLOW CLAP!!!


----------



## Infanteer (21 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Giving away what in the end is a paltry sum meant to help families raise children is bribing voters, plain and simple. This is what we get instead of national subsidized child care program. It's a pathetic, and it's an irresponsible waste of money. I thought Conservatives were supposed to be against handouts...



We put the money in an RESP, so it is incredibly useful.  Go pound sand.


----------



## Remius (21 Jul 2015)

Scott said:
			
		

> Kilo, does your hatred of Stephen Harper, and much associated with the Conservative Party, weigh much on you? I know it would me. That sort of thing would keep me awake at night.
> 
> Seriously. I can't take anything you say seriously because of this. If this was the Liberals or NDP's ideas you'd be fine with it.



I suspect that if the Liberals or the NDP did certain things the CPC did, many here would also be up in arms.  But whatever. 

To be honest, this is electioneering.  The announcement and delivery of this was carefully crafted and delivered at the right time to maximize vote getting.  Let's not kid ourselves.  This happens at every election.  The party in power has goodies to deliver and they'll do it when it suits them.  Being offended by it like it's some sort of aberration is being disingenuous.  

However that being said, I disagree with Kilo on his take that this is something the Conservatives would be against (ie a handout).  I believe that the CPC truly believes that how people spend their money to raise kids is their business.  So rather than create some national program they hand out money (likely not enough to make any real difference though but it is something) and let people decide.  I frankly like the approach but would have preferred more of a tax benefit or tax deductible thing instead.  

So while I agree with the CPC that parents should decide how to raise their kids, I'm under no illusions (and I think most people are not either) about the timing or the way they are delivering this.


----------



## Infanteer (21 Jul 2015)

Yes, but I do resent the implication from Kilo302's rabid posting that I'm some sort of moron who has been bought off by a cheap political trick.  As I said above, the UCCB is a useful government expenditure, and one far better use of taxpayer dollars than some Pink Floyd rock concert or to provide grants to a Cavier business.


----------



## Remius (21 Jul 2015)

Kilo:  In refernce to a national daycare plan, I think that sort of thing shoul deb relegated to the provinces.  I see daycare as not just babysitting but those are formative, should fall under education, a provincial jurisdiction.  

Take the Quebec example which has arguably a successful program but I wonder at what cost.  While there is no argument that the program pays for itself on the larger social scale I wonder what effect it actually has on the kids themselves. 

Those that I know that have their kids in the daycare program in Quebec certainly enjoy the savings (those at least that aren't on a waiting list) but many are not satisfied with the quality of said daycare.  You get off the waiting list and want to move your child because your daycare is providing subpar service, it is difficult to move to another daycare without going on another list and losing your spot.  The daycares also hold a lot of the cards about their service.   In my province at least I can choose any daycare I want and if I'm not satified I can go somewhere else.  It is market led and therefore service standards will tend to be higher.  There's no noose around my neck.

A national daycare program is not something I can get behind because I don't trust that it will be the best thing for kids.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> ........instead we could merely subsidize Canadian families to help PAY for daycare. A



So you agree with the current payments to families.  Then what is your issue?

As for Mulcair's proposal, if he wants to model it on the Quebec example, how does he propose to have it work nationally at the cost he uses, if Quebec is bankrupting itself trying to operate on the same, or larger, amount?


----------



## Remius (21 Jul 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Yes, but I do resent the implication from Kilo302's rabid posting that I'm some sort of moron who has been bought off by a cheap political trick.  As I said above, the UCCB is a useful government expenditure, and one far better use of taxpayer dollars than some Pink Floyd rock concert or to provide grants to a Cavier business.



Correct.  It is a cheap political trick in regards to the timing and they way they are selling it. No different than what any other party would do or has done.  And honestly from the reactions in the media and and else where, I think most Canadians aren't all of a sudden converting to the CPC cause because of this, so I agree with you.  As I mentioned, I truly believe that this is in line with their (the CPC) philosphy and not just some out of your hat idea.

Most people seem to welcome it.  And why not. Your example of the RESP contribution is a prime example of exactly how and why the UCCB was introduced.  Your money suddenly goes a lot further.  Money that would have to come from elsewhere in your budget.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Jul 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Take the Quebec example which has arguably a successful program but I wonder at what cost.  While there is no argument that the program pays for itself on the larger social scale I wonder what effect it actually has on the kids themselves.



The Quebec example is far from successful, with long lineups to get children into it, in some cases years.  It also is not as universal as one is lead to believe.  The costs to operate it are skyrocketing way beyond what was originally stated.  Far from successful and really not an example to use for a national plan; as far as the media reports I am hearing.


----------



## Remius (21 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The Quebec example is far from successful, with long lineups to get children into it, in some cases years.  It also is not as universal as one is lead to believe.  The costs to operate it are skyrocketing way beyond what was originally stated.  Far from successful and really not an example to use for a national plan; as far as the media reports I am hearing.



Hence why I used the word "arguably" as well as my follow up comments about the quality of the program.


----------



## Kilo_302 (21 Jul 2015)

Here's an article that neatly lays out the need for a *targeted* program, and how it's not that realistic. Of course, Quebec is referenced.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/behind-numbers/2015/04/were-paying-7day-child-care-so-why-only-one-province-getting-i

I understand many of you won't view anything from rabble.ca  (or the CCPA) as being a legitimate contribution to the discussion, but treat the article on it's merits and the data it cites. This is a rational discussion, and I appreciate that people "don't want more government in their lives" or that they believe that the government will inevitably make a mess of things, but there ARE instances of successful child care programs and there's a mountain of evidence that they are good for the economy AND for parents as well as the children.

I'll repost this article as well:

http://www.royalcollege.ca/portal/page/portal/rc/common/documents/advocacy/EBBDEL_statement_e.pdf


Here's a study of the economics of childcare in Quebec:

http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/atkinson/UserFiles/File/News/Fortin-Godbout-St_Cerny_eng.pdf

BC study:

http://www.bcgeu.ca/files/Affordable_Costing_Summary.pdf

Globe and Mail article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/parenting/what-the-world-can-teach-canada-about-building-better-daycare/article15036667/?page=all


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Jul 2015)

Here's an interesting article from the Daily Telegraph.



> Shoppers in small-town high streets should be allowed to park free, a minister has indicated, as figures show that councils are raising more money than ever from motorists.
> Marcus Jones, who was made high streets minister in David Cameron’s post-election reshuffle, suggested that small town centres could become “parking meter-free zones” in an effort to save shops from closure.



Apparently it is imperative that the parliamentarians of a G7 country involve themselves in deciding whether there should be parking outside the local Boots pharmacy.

Some folks might think that that would be better handled locally.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jul 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Here's an interesting article from the Daily Telegraph.
> 
> Apparently it is imperative that the parliamentarians of a G7 country involve themselves in deciding whether there should be parking outside the local Boots pharmacy.
> 
> Some folks might think that that would be better handled locally.


Agreed, but that's also what you get when you have a _*federal*_ minister for municipal affairs - the level of the "nosey Parker" is higher than here, where it's provincial ministers shooting outside their lanes  ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> You might be right, but as we have never had a federal NDP government, we don't know how they'll react if they were to win.  I tend to agree that all politicians are more or less the same, but we can't say "Well, if the Liberals and Conservatives do it, then obviously the NDP will do it too).



As an Ontarian paying taxes in the 90-95 timeframe, I am entirely okay with extrapolating the provincial NDP's deleterious effect on Ontarians to the Federal level.  It think the NDP actually make an excellent opposition party.  I actually respect the Ontario NDP's principals to not take any cabinet positions, when they came to their 1985 agreement with the LPO, choosing to help the Liberals form the Government in Toronto, but remaining as the Official Opposition.

I think the best thing for Canada at this point, is a Conservative minority with a significantly stronger NDP Opposition holding the PM and his cabinet to account and draw out a little nicer (less nasty) behaviour on the PM's part.  The Liberals should get the swift kick to the teeth that their vapid, self-interested party deserves, regroup and come back when they have some long-term, endurable principles...they should feel free to ask either the CPC or NDP how to have long-term, relatively unchanging principles, as both those parties have been fairly close to their baseline principles.  

:2c:

G2G


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jul 2015)

A much simpler program for improving the lives of all Canadians would be to institute government spending cuts to allow for broad based tax cuts, rather than "botique" tax cuts here and there.

Drop the percentage of Canadian's income spent on taxes, government fees and so on from the current 40-44% (estimates vary depending on methodology, but are in the same ballpark) for the average family of four to 30-35%. This delivers an immediate 10% raise in take home pay for these Canadians, and provides the resources for *them to choose what courses of action to take*, rather than depending on the whim of the government/bureaucracy of the day to deliver a more expensive and less effective product which may or may not benefit them.

And there are lots of places to get those spending cuts. Canada puts out over 30Billion/year in subsidies to industry, which _transformative_ Conservatives could slash on the basis that "governments don't pick winners and losers", while the _transformative_ NDP could campaign against this by attacking "corporate welfare". (Since Canada already has some of the lowest business taxes in the OECD, business should not complain too much). Eliminating redundent or duplicate programs has the potential to save billions, as would eliminating departments and ministries that duplicate the roles of the Provinces according to the BNA act. I'm sure there are lots of other places where savings could be had, while still leaving individual transfers, the military, law enforcement and the Judiciary alone.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Here's an article that neatly lays out the need for a *targeted* program, and how it's not that realistic. Of course, Quebec is referenced.
> 
> http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/behind-numbers/2015/04/were-paying-7day-child-care-so-why-only-one-province-getting-i
> 
> I understand many of you won't view anything from rabble.ca  (or the CCPA) as being a legitimate contribution to the discussion, but treat the article on it's merits and the data it cites. This is a rational discussion, and I appreciate that people "don't want more government in their lives" or that they believe that the government will inevitably make a mess of things, but there ARE instances of successful child care programs and there's a mountain of evidence that they are good for the economy AND for parents as well as the children.



Do you live in Quebec and have children?  

My brother and his Quebecois wife moved from Ontario to Quebec to benefit from what he had assessed as a more supportive environment to raise his two daughter while he and his wife pursued professional careers.  Well...a couple years later and his disappointment in a faulty business case is leading him to look at moving back across the Ottawa River to Ontario.  $6/day daycare sounds great...but the higher taxes are even greater than the difference between QC and ON daycare...he joke that the "Releve 1" form is a euphemism for "take money directly out of my wallet" form.

Don't think that you're getting anything that you haven't already paid for.  The point that others made earlier to you and that seems unappreciated is that money in people's hands lets THEM decide how to spend it and how to avoid the overhead that naturally is associated with government programs (such as the highly-vaunted QC daycare program).

G2G


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jul 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> ...
> To be honest, this is electioneering.  The announcement and delivery of this was carefully crafted and delivered at the right time to maximize vote getting.  Let's not kid ourselves.  This happens at every election.  The party in power has goodies to deliver and they'll do it when it suits them.  Being offended by it like it's some sort of aberration is being disingenuous.
> 
> ...




The same subject, _electioneering_, but in a different portfolio ~ Veterans ~ is dealt with in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/veterans-draw-election-battle-lines-over-benefits/article25595720/


> Veterans draw election battle lines over benefits
> 
> GLORIA GALLOWAY
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




_I believe_ that there is a sound case to be made that, _traditionally_, since 1920, Canada has been very, some would argue overly generous with veterans' benefits. It's not surprising: we sent HUGE masses of (mostly) men to fight in 1914-18 and 1939-45 and, when they came home, they, and their friends and families, voted for politicians who promised generous benefits. Governments listened, as they do when a HUGE constituency comes calling.

_I remain convinced_ that the New Veterans' Charter, which this (Conservative) government inherited from the Liberals was, and remains, _immoral_ because of the way it was introduced: during a period when we had troops in combat and without "grandfathering" those already serving. _In my opinion_ the New Veterans' Charter _*must *_be amended to provide the "old" benefits to every soldier who was serving when the NVC was proclaimed (in 2006). That is the only morally sound course of action ~ expensive, but morally correct.

The key question Gloria Galloway asks is: _will these small changes work?_ _My guess_ is:

     1. Many (most?) veterans, with a direct interest, will reject them and some (many) of them will vote against the CPC; but

     2. The campaign will work on the much, _*much*_ larger group of disinterested Canadians.

In other words, _I think_ it's _bad policy_ but _good politics_. The CPC can afford to lose a few hundred, even a few thousand votes spread across 300+ ridings ... but they need the votes of many of the disinterested group with a general, but very shallow, fondness for vets.


----------



## CountDC (21 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Well the difficulty is mutual. Much of your above post is rhetoric and little more. There are numerous countries around the world that have national childcare programs, and these take many forms. We don't need to have federal employees run them, *instead we could merely subsidize Canadian families to help PAY for daycare*. Again, many options, some better for Canada than others. But ALL are better than nothing, or this tiny handout that we currently have. The economic spin off benefits are measurable and real. Not to mention the advantages that the children get in the most formative years of their lives. But you can believe what you want.



and they have if you choose to send your kids to daycare.  On the other hand my wife has chosen to stay at home and actually raise our kids so why shouldn't we share in the benefit.  The other thing is if both parents are chosing to work and send their kids to daycare then they already have additional money to help cover it.  Why should my tax dollars go to helping them both work and have someone else take care of their kids.  Give it back to me so I can spend it on my own kids.  I know - we should be happy to sacrifice the good of our kids for the good of the few that has a higher total family income than us.  How rude of us to have kids and expect to raise them ourselves.

Now the so called income splitting is a whole other thing - even with a stay at home wife we got zero benefit from it.  Must need a pretty high income to benefit from that.


----------



## Kilo_302 (21 Jul 2015)

Well I would just invite you to read the articles I posted as they address your points.


----------



## CountDC (21 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Well I would just invite you to read the articles I posted as they address your points.



Gonna have to walk me through it as I don't see the answers there.  All I see is a bunch of articles in support of daycare in various forms, none of which I have any interest in nor do I have interest in funding for others simply so they can go to work or have a day of no kids.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Jul 2015)

Folks, I think we're sliding this topic too much towards 'daycare' and not on the thread title.
I will be looking at splitting the day care discussion off later tonight when I have time.
For now lets get back onto 'Election 2015" please.
Bruce
army.ca Staff


----------



## CountDC (21 Jul 2015)

Works for me.

and on the political side - so far I have not seen anything from any of the oppostion parties that make me want to jump and vote them in.  Everything they try to slap the conservatives for I see as the same thing the Liberals would do such as buying votes by making payments shortly before an election and the NDP I do not have any faith in benefitting me.


----------



## Harrigan (21 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The same subject, _electioneering_, but in a different portfolio ~ Veterans ~ is dealt with in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/veterans-draw-election-battle-lines-over-benefits/article25595720/
> 
> ...



Mr.Campbell, I think you are right on all counts here, and have touched on a wider philosophical issue which is significant:

*



			In other words, I think it's bad policy but good politics.
		
Click to expand...

*
Is this what we want from our government, of any party?  

I personally have no problems at all with this particular govt when they put out good policy - that is why we pay them, to govern in the interests of all Canadians.  Sometimes it is possible to put out good policy AND good politics, which is the ideal situation for everyone.  But if a government puts out bad policy for political reasons, then they aren't doing their job anymore.  

Please don't take this as inherently a criticism of the CPC - they just happen to be the federal government in power at the moment.  That philosophical decision/critique applies to any government in power at any level.  

Harrigan


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jul 2015)

>You mean, other than the 'In and Out' scandal?

"In and Out" was the party's own money.  Please play again.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jul 2015)

>Personally I think that particular concern with "list candidates" is a red herring - if a Party has a list of candidates that they want as MPs, some of those that don't make the PR cut for "listed" MP seats will still be working for the Party after the election in some way or other, and having an influence on decisions.

Nothing prevents a party from either loading its candidate list with otherwise unelectable hacks, or salting the otherwise unelectable hacks into the candidacies.  MMP is basically the most open form of patronage short of Senate appointments.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jul 2015)

I've made some substitutions to illustrate a principle:

"The point of this whole exercise is buying votes, $13.18 a month is nothing. It would be interesting to see what the cost of administering this program is. Giving money to individual Canadians for [one thing] will never be as effective as an actual [one thing] program, with the economy of scale that it would provide."

Left unstated is the important fact that the program delivery scope is much more limited than the broad-based vote purchase.  Basically, the tension here is between a little bit of money for everyone to do with as they please or a lot of money for a favoured few.  Those who do not conveniently meet the criteria for being favoured pay for those who do.  The narrow benefit is, to borrow a timeworn descriptor from Team Orange, "unfair".


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Well I would just invite you to read the articles I posted as they address your points.



I did read the articles and they did not address my points. For the record (and contrary to your assertion), I don't care one way or another that it was on Rabble- I care about content.  In general, the articles gloss over the issue of parents who want to raise their own children. The royal society article isn't even about childcare per se- it is about early childhood development and well being, which leads to good outcomes later in life. Well, duh.

It is not entirely clear how a model of national daycare, enacted by the same bureaucracy that brought you the firearms registry, will not turn out to be a massively expensive crapshow, except the mistakes get played out on kids.

Did we not learn anything from the residential school fiasco? Governments do not do childcare well, at all, ever. They are good at raising armies; they are good at building roads and airports; they are good at police forces and courts of law. I suggest that they stick to what they know.


----------



## Jed (22 Jul 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I did read the articles and they did not address my points. For the record (and contrary to your assertion), I don't care one way or another that it was on Rabble- I care about content.  In general, the articles gloss over the issue of parents who want to raise their own children. The royal society article isn't even about childcare per se- it is about early childhood development and well being, which leads to good outcomes later in life. Well, duh.
> 
> It is not entirely clear how a model of national daycare, enacted by the same bureaucracy that brought you the firearms registry, will not turn out to be a massively expensive crapshow, except the mistakes get played out on kids.
> 
> Did we not learn anything from the residential school fiasco? Governments do not do childcare well, at all, ever. They are good at raising armies; they are good at building roads and airports; they are good at police forces and courts of law. I suggest that they stick to what they know.



As they should.


----------



## Harrigan (22 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >You mean, other than the 'In and Out' scandal?
> 
> "In and Out" was the party's own money.  Please play again.



LOL, the 60% refund they tried to get from Elections Canada would have been taxpayer money.

Listen, there really is no point continuing this discussion.  You are never going to waver from the "CPC excrement doesn't smell" argument, no matter how many members get charged or sent to jail.  

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (22 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Personally I think that particular concern with "list candidates" is a red herring - if a Party has a list of candidates that they want as MPs, some of those that don't make the PR cut for "listed" MP seats will still be working for the Party after the election in some way or other, and having an influence on decisions.
> 
> Nothing prevents a party from either loading its candidate list with otherwise unelectable hacks, or salting the otherwise unelectable hacks into the candidacies.  MMP is basically the most open form of patronage short of Senate appointments.



You conveniently forgot to include in your quoted piece the suggestion that actually addresses that issue:  When you set up an MMP system, fill the PR portion in order of the number of votes they received in the actual election (of the non-winners in a riding, obviously).  That way, the "unelectable hacks" are excluded, as they would not get enough votes (because they are unelectable), and every member in Parliament would therefore have campaigned, been in the public eye, had to participate in debates, etc.  No soulless backroom operatives would make the cut.

I know you don't wish to find any middle ground on this (or any) issue, but it doesn't negate that fact that solutions to those concerns do exist.

Harrigan


----------



## Remius (22 Jul 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Did we not learn anything from the residential school fiasco? Governments do not do childcare well, at all, ever. They are good at raising armies; they are good at building roads and airports; they are good at police forces and courts of law. I suggest that they stick to what they know.



I don't really think they are good at those things either but meh.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jul 2015)

There's an interesting article about negative advertising in the _Globe and Mail_. _I agree_, broadly, with Clive Veroni's main points:

     1. Negative ads are nothing new, they are as old as the business of politics, itself; and

     2. They work ~ if they didn't there wouldn't be any; but

     3. They can backfire unless they are very well crafted and 'placed.'

I like the recent NDP ad: it's true and it hits hard. _I'm a bit surprised_ it isn't getting more 'exposure' in the media. That's in contrast to the CPC's "Just Not Ready" ad which is still, weeks after it was released, being discussed in the media. "Just Not Ready," is, clearly, a very good attack ad; it doesn't matter that it's not quite as "true" as the NDP's ad, it still tells Canadians something they _suspect_ to be true and, by so doing, it "defines" M Trudeau.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> LOL, the 60% refund they tried to get from Elections Canada would have been taxpayer money.
> 
> Listen, there really is no point continuing this discussion.  You are never going to waver from the "CPC excrement doesn't smell" argument, no matter how many members get charged or sent to jail.
> 
> Harrigan



I have to LOL at your comment about CPC members getting charged.  The fact is, an equal amount of Liberals and other Party members are being charged as well.  The CPC does not hold a monopoly on this.  The interesting, perhaps more disconcerting, part of it though, is that only the CPC members make the News.


----------



## Remius (22 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There's an interesting article about negative advertising in the _Globe and Mail_. _I agree_, broadly, with Clive Veroni's main points:
> 
> 1. Negative ads are nothing new, they are as old as the business of politics, itself; and
> 
> ...



Along the same vein, (given that these attack ads are attacking the leaders) Eric Grenier in this piece on leader popularity, analyzes some of the trends accross the, specifically leader popularity vs. party popularity.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mulcair-trudeau-approval-ratings-point-to-potential-for-growth-1.3161855


----------



## Harrigan (22 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I have to LOL at your comment about CPC members getting charged.  The fact is, an equal amount of Liberals and other Party members are being charged as well.  The CPC does not hold a monopoly on this.  The interesting, perhaps more disconcerting, part of it though, is that only the CPC members make the News.



Oh come on.  It is hardly "only the CPC members" that make the news - there are always articles on any Liberals and NDP members that get in trouble, particularly in the print media.  

Do you think that the media is being too hard on the CPC when they report members that are carried off in handcuffs (like Del Mastro)?  Were the media too hard on the Liberals when they were in power?

Of course not.  Their job is to report, and government scandals are ALWAYS going to be more sexy than opposition scandals for a simple reason: they have the authority and responsibility that the opposition doesn't have.

Harrigan


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jul 2015)

So, quick, name the Liberals who are under investigation, either for election related offences or in the Senate. You can even search the CBC website if you like.

I realized the Senate affair would lose traction quickly when I listened to the news report in the 1 Div coffee room and the reporter only mentioned that Liberal senators were also under investigation by the RCMP at the _very end_ of the piece, and did not name a single one.


----------



## Remius (22 Jul 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So, quick, name the Liberals who are under investigation, either for election related offences or in the Senate. You can even search the CBC website if you like.
> 
> I realized the Senate affair would lose traction quickly when I listened to the news report in the 1 Div coffee room and the reporter only mentioned that Liberal senators were also under investigation by the RCMP at the _very end_ of the piece, and did not name a single one.



Mac Harb and Colin Kenny and Joe Fontana are the only ones I can actually name.  But they all had fairly significant coverage.  

But I've said this before.  Duffy and Wallin are former reporters and high profile ones at that.  Plus Duffy and the PMO involvement is what is driving that story.

Brazeau is in the news a lot but he's a train wreck.


----------



## Remius (22 Jul 2015)

So more stuff that might affect the election.

The CPC was touting the surplus they would achieve but now that seems to be in doubt as Canada is projected to have a deficit.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/federal-government-on-track-for-1b-deficit-pbo-1.2481594

I realise that not everything is black and white but when you are campaigning as the ones that cann steady the economy this does not bode well. 

If I were the opposition i would try and spin this as teh result of income splitting and the UCCB (not that that is the case, but it would make for good spin).


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Jul 2015)

And the counter for the UCCB spin is that a national daycare program would have caused an even larger deficit than just $1B. 

Of course there's a deficit now, the dollar is down, oil and gas are down, and the EU economy has been on the brink for months. It was a razor thin balance we had, I bet it'll bounce between surplus and deficit 15 times before Christmas.


----------



## Kilo_302 (22 Jul 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> So more stuff that might affect the election.
> 
> The CPC was touting the surplus they would achieve but now that seems to be in doubt as Canada is projected to have a deficit.
> 
> ...



Let's also remember how the budget was "balanced" in the first place, through using a contingency fund and "anticipating" a recovery of oil prices. Relying on these are not the hallmarks of an economically responsible government. At one time, Harper was taking credit for the fact that Canada's economy was "the envy of the world" and now the government is suggesting that we're merely at the whim of the international situation, with Joe Oliver predicting that US growth could help us. That's not much of a plan for a party that sells itself as being good stewards of the economy. 

Let's also not forget that this latest revelation comes from the PBO, and is largely based on information provided by the government who, in several instances, has resisted providing that office with the information necessary to fulfill its mandate. Indeed, whenever the news coming from the PBO isn't good, the government doesn't hesitate in leveling accusations of partisanship and incompetence, accusations that have been proven unfounded.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Let's also remember how the budget was "balanced" in the first place, through using a contingency fund and "anticipating" a recovery of oil prices. Relying on these are not the hallmarks of an economically responsible government. At one time, Harper was taking credit for the fact that Canada's economy was "the envy of the world" and now the government is suggesting that we're merely at the whim of the international situation, with Joe Oliver predicting that US growth could help us. That's not much of a plan for a party that sells itself as being good stewards of the economy.
> 
> Let's also not forget that this latest revelation comes from the PBO, and is largely based on information provided by the government who, in several instances, has resisted providing that office with the information necessary to fulfill its mandate. Indeed, whenever the news coming from the PBO isn't good, the government doesn't hesitate in leveling accusations of partisanship and incompetence, accusations that have been proven unfounded.




We'll _*know*_ which _guess_ (and that's all either is at this point in the process) is more correct in the fall of 2016, when the accounts are settled. Until then _both_ Finance and the PBO are just speculating.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jul 2015)

I'm glad that people quote Kilo's posts.

It save me the trouble of having to open them and being disappointed yet again.  ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> At one time, Harper was taking credit for the fact that Canada's economy was "the envy of the world" and now the government is suggesting that we're merely at the whim of the international situation, with Joe Oliver predicting that US growth could help us. That's not much of a plan for a party that sells itself as being good stewards of the economy.



At the end of the day, our economy is still largely linked to that of the US, and the rest of the world. Especially since Ontario's recent governments have destroyed the manufacturing sector, making it harder for the rest of the country to drag itself out of a recession. When your largest population province is draining from transfer payments and not contributing to the success of the country, you're going to have a real hard time to balance a budget.


----------



## Kilo_302 (22 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm glad that people quote Kilo's posts.
> 
> It save me the trouble of having to open them and being disappointed yet again.  ;D



I think you mean being confused again.


----------



## Kilo_302 (22 Jul 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> At the end of the day, our economy is still largely linked to that of the US, and the rest of the world. Especially since Ontario's recent governments have destroyed the manufacturing sector, making it harder for the rest of the country to drag itself out of a recession. When your largest population province is draining from transfer payments and not contributing to the success of the country, you're going to have a real hard time to balance a budget.



Of course this is the case, but we still can enact policies that can ameliorate the worst effects of a global recession. The destruction of the manufacturing sector in Ontario is actually largely due to NAFTA, which was a decision made at the federal level (with some input from the provinces).  NAFTA has made capital far more mobile, while labour must still observe international borders. So of course higher paid Canadian workers suffered, as did the manufacturing sector as a whole. This outcome was predicted by many, but the warnings were ignored.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Of course this is the case, but we still can enact policies that can ameliorate the worst effects of a global recession. The destruction of the manufacturing sector in Ontario is actually largely due to NAFTA, which was a decision made at the federal level (with some input from the provinces).  NAFTA has made capital far more mobile, while labour must still observe international borders. So of course higher paid Canadian workers suffered, as did the manufacturing sector as a whole. This outcome was predicted by many, but the warnings were ignored.



You are correct in one sense about NAFTA, and yet wrong at the same time.  I would not blame Ontario's current fiscal problems and the fact that industry is fleeing the province at an alarming rate on the Feds.  It is the Ontario Lieberals who have done that.  It is the Provincial Policies that are affecting us now.......as are the NDP policies in Alberta.  I would hestitate to lay the blame on the feet of the Federal Government and NAFTA, when the Provincial Governments still hold the regulatory powers over their jurisdictions.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Jul 2015)

>You conveniently forgot to include in your quoted piece the suggestion that actually addresses that issue:  When you set up an MMP system, fill the PR portion in order of the number of votes they received in the actual election (of the non-winners in a riding, obviously). 

Read more closely.  I pointed out that they can put hacks where they want - in particular, in ridings where the party is unlikely to win, but where there are a lot of the faithful who will vote for a bag of sand.

Regardless, that solution amounts to giving some ridings dual representation - yet another insult to basic representative democracy.  It's worse than a party list.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Jul 2015)

>LOL, the 60% refund they tried to get from Elections Canada would have been taxpayer money.

I know, but that was a side-effect, not the point of the financing scheme.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Jul 2015)

The Conservatives are stuck with their commitment to balance the budget - they will be shat on for whatever they do to hit the target, or shat on for letting it slide even if that is the best economic course of action.  So they might as well aim for the target.

We know that whatever the Conservatives are doing, the NDP and LPC want to tax more and spend more on social programs.

To prod the economy during a recession, the preferred tools are tax reductions and/or spending increases - preferably something useful, and generally excluding new social spending.

So if the opposition parties are crowing that we're entering a recession "because Harper" and their proposals are to raise taxes and social spending...


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Jul 2015)

It is a sure thing if national daycare comes in, the workers will, soon or later, go on strike and the country will shut down as all the parents scramble for babysitters.

SeaKingTacco: 





> Did we not learn anything from the residential school fiasco? Governments do not do childcare well, at all, ever.



I like the similarities between national daycare and the residential schools. Just think that in 2065 the government of the day will be facing endless multi billion dollar lawsuits filed by the millions of abused children (they were ALL abused in the daycare weren't they)  who would have voted for the party in the election campaign that promised the gimme.

And the CF-18 will still be flying using a green energy system, the military will be wearing one size fits all moccasins, and the Navy will be leasing gun less gunboats from Cuba and smoking weed on duty will be mandatory to keep all happy in the service.


----------



## Harrigan (22 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >LOL, the 60% refund they tried to get from Elections Canada would have been taxpayer money.
> 
> I know, but that was a side-effect, not the point of the financing scheme.



Oh, so THAT type of fraud is OK then.....


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Jul 2015)

Childcare subsidies are a major plank of the platforms of two of the parties, so maybe discussion thereof is on topic.

Here is what will happen with subsidies: providers will pay attention to how much new money is available, and increase rates to absorb the subsidies.  The number of available spaces won't change much.  People receiving subsidies will be right back where they started.  People not receiving subsidies will be paying more.  If this seems implausible to you, it is basically what happens with post-secondary education and most other situations in which more money chases the same amount of goods/services.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The Conservatives are stuck with their commitment to balance the budget - they will be shat on for whatever they do to hit the target, or shat on for letting it slide even if that is the best economic course of action.  So they might as well aim for the target.
> 
> We know that whatever the Conservatives are doing, the NDP and LPC want to tax more and spend more on social programs.
> 
> ...




One nit to pick: Not _generally_, Brad, anyone who has read Keynes with any amount of care will know that stimulus spending _must never_ be for social programmes. The point of going into debt during a recession/depression is to spend money that can be turned off when the economy turns around ~ no one with the brains the gods gave to green peppers believes that social programmes can be switched off when it's convenient for the government. They (social programmes) are _entitlements_ and "sacred trusts," _dontcha know_ ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Jul 2015)

More (too early) poll results in this article in the _Globe and Mail_. Essentially: the CPC and NDP are tied for the lead and the Liberals remain mired in third. The analyst suggests that the NDP have a _potential_ to capture as much as 50%+ of the popular vote ~ something that hasn't happened in Canada since 1984 (31 years ago). The same data suggests that the CPC's _peak potential_ is about 40%, but 40 is better than 39.6 which was sufficient to win a comfortable majority in 2011.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Jul 2015)

This, from the Canadian Press ~ "The New Democrats will look to form a coalition government with the federal Liberals if it means ousting Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives from power, says a prominent NDP MP ... Skeena-Bulkley Valley MP Nathan Cullen said that while winning a majority in this fall's federal election is still his party's goal, ultimately the number-one priority is toppling the Tories." ~ is a trap for the Liberals: it doesn't matter what they say, even if they say nothing at all, it is designed to make them look timid and indecisive.

If M Trudeau repeats his assertion that he will not join a coalition led by M Mulcair it makes him look _afraid_ of the NDP leader.

If he jumps and changes his mind it will make him look _weak_ and indecisive, but willing to do anything to get some power.

Ditto if he says nothing at all: _weak_ and indecisive.


----------



## Infanteer (23 Jul 2015)

Admiral Ackbar would have saw this one coming...Trudeau needs to focus all firepower on the super star destroyer NDP.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Jul 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ... Admiral Ackbar would have saw this one coming..._Trudeau needs to focus all firepower on the super star destroyer NDP._




But that's a trap, too  :nod:  if M Trudeau focuses too much attention/firepower on the _Dippers_ then: a) he tells Canadians, explicitly, that he's the _weak_ third choice and he's fighting for his life; and _b)_ he gives the Conservatives more room to spend their (more) money attacking him and the LPC while he does their work (attacking the NDP) for them.  8)

That being said, it's the dilemma of all third parties: how to avoid losing your supporters to the fellow (or gal), Thomas Mulcair in this case, who is most likely to defeat the Great Satan sitting prime minister ~ _strategic_ voting. For decades the Liberals encouraged _progressive_ voters to abandon the NDP and vote Liberal to prevent a Conservative government, and it worked, too ... now the shoe is on the other foot and the NDP is telling Liberals to vote _strategically_, for the NDP, to defeat Prime Minister Harper.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Jul 2015)

This is a pretty damning indictment of Prime Minister Harper's management of one of this (any) country's key responsibilities:



			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Conservatives lose conservative paper:
> http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-are-the-tories-sound-managers-not-of-the-navy
> Ottawa


----------



## Remius (23 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This is a pretty damning indictment of Prime Minister Harper's management of one of this (any) country's key responsibilities:



Sadly those were some of the very reasons I voted FOR the CPC.  That and the whole arctic sovereignty bit.  None of it seems to be coming to fruition any time soon.  More and more I will have to find something else to vote FOR and so far the CPC isn't providing it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Jul 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Sadly those were some of the very reasons I voted FOR the CPC.  That and the whole arctic sovereignty bit.  None of it seems to be coming to fruition any time soon.  More and more I will have to find something else to vote FOR and so far the CPC isn't providing it.




I understand your dilemma, Crantor, and, despite being a CPC member, I share it. But, for now, at least, _I remain convinced_ that the CPC is, at least, _the least bad choice_ and, in my opinion, _a not bad choice_ for this part of the 21st century. There are several things about which the CPC and I disagree on fundamental levels: defence and the whole "law and order" thing are just two of them. But there are other, important, policy issues where _I think_ the CPC is, still, the best choice for Canadians.

I really want the Liberal Party of Canada to shake itself up and sort itself out ~ starting with getting a real, grownup leader ~ and then make itself ready, in 2019, to govern this country from the _responsible, moderate, middle_.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This, from the Canadian Press ~ "The New Democrats will look to form a coalition government with the federal Liberals if it means ousting Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives from power, says a prominent NDP MP ... Skeena-Bulkley Valley MP Nathan Cullen said that while winning a majority in this fall's federal election is still his party's goal, ultimately the number-one priority is toppling the Tories." ~ is a trap for the Liberals: it doesn't matter what they say, even if they say nothing at all, it is designed to make them look timid and indecisive.
> 
> If M Trudeau repeats his assertion that he will not join a coalition led by M Mulcair it makes him look _afraid_ of the NDP leader.
> 
> ...



edited to correct quote gaffee
You notice it was a statement not by the leader of the NDP, so if fortune find for the NDP not to join up, they can say "it was just a opinion" It's also a trial balloon to gauge public reaction .


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Jul 2015)

Trudeau doesn't have to respond to Cullen's coalition goad with a purely "will/won't" answer.  All Trudeau has to do is stick to his "no coalition" answer and qualify it by noting that the LPC may support a minority government of any other party on a vote-by-vote basis without being in a coalition, and will wait a year or two to see whether a coalition would add value.

After election day 2015, the CPC will still be the governing party.  If the NDP have a majority of seats, Game Over.  If the CPC and NDP each hold a minority, the NDP can manoeuvre to raise a confidence vote.  The LPC will probably have enough seats to decide the matter, then and on all future confidence votes irrespective of whether the CPC or NDP is the gover[n]ing party.

If Trudeau commits to a coalition with either the NDP or CPC, he kills the LPC.  He has to take up position as the kingmaker, hold it, and use it to extract concessions to show Canadians how useful Liberals are.

[Note that the LPC could freeze out the NDP for a very long time if Harper is satisfied working with a weak (rather than non-existent) LPC, and provided the LPC feels its prospects of long-term survival are greater working with the CPC and being seen to be centrist rather than working with the NDP - even if the NDP has a minority of seats greater than the CPC.  Wait 18-24 months, rebuild the LPC, pull the trigger on the CPC, and as soon as possible thereafter pull the trigger on the NDP and we go into another election.]


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Jul 2015)

The question now isn't whether the CPC has done a poor job with defence capital acquisition.  The question is whether the LPC or NDP would move to do more of it or leave it where it is and pursue other aims.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Jul 2015)

It is still too early to believe polls, and this may be an _outlier_, but, the _Ottawa Citizen_ reports that "Conservatives open up lead heading into election period: poll."

The article reports on a "Mainstreet Research poll for Postmedia [which] suggests Harper and the Tories received a sharp boost in popularity as a result of the enhanced Universal Child Care Benefit ... Among decided voters, the Conservatives lead with 38 per cent support, followed by the NDP at 27 per cent and the Liberals at 25 per cent. The Green party is at six per cent (the Bloc Québécois is at four per cent). One in five voters (20 per cent) remains undecided."

Note two things, please: it's only one poll, and it was commissioned for a media organization that is, generally, pro-Conservative.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Jul 2015)

There is one fascinating _infographic_ in the _Mainstreet Research_ poll, just above:

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Assume, juts for a moment, that it's correct (it _might_ be good, being based on a 5,000+ person survey), then two things favour the Tories:

     1. Almost half of Canadians think a balanced budget is "Very Important" ~ but that measn the CPC must damp down any and all speculation, like that from the PBO, suggesting that the budget will be in deficit, again; and

     2. Prime Minister Harper is, still, Canadians' first choice to be our "economic manager."


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Trudeau doesn't have to respond to Cullen's coalition goad with a purely "will/won't" answer.  All Trudeau has to do is stick to his "no coalition" answer and qualify it by noting that the LPC may support a minority government of any other party on a vote-by-vote basis without being in a coalition, and will wait a year or two to see whether a coalition would add value.
> 
> After election day 2015, the CPC will still be the governing party.  If the NDP have a majority of seats, Game Over.  If the CPC and NDP each hold a minority, the NDP can manoeuvre to raise a confidence vote.  The LPC will probably have enough seats to decide the matter, then and on all future confidence votes irrespective of whether the CPC or NDP is the gover[n]ing party.
> 
> ...



Ah, but that's what _YOU_ would do if you were leader of the LPC, Brad.

I have the feeling that both the NDP and CPC are expecting the Young Dauphin to simply open his mouth and finish the job for them....


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Trudeau doesn't have to respond to Cullen's coalition goad with a purely "will/won't" answer.  All Trudeau has to do is stick to his "no coalition" answer and qualify it by noting that the LPC may support a minority government of any other party on a vote-by-vote basis without being in a coalition, and will wait a year or two to see whether a coalition would add value.
> 
> After election day 2015, the CPC will still be the governing party.  If the NDP have a majority of seats, Game Over.  If the CPC and NDP each hold a minority, the NDP can manoeuvre to raise a confidence vote.  The LPC will probably have enough seats to decide the matter, then and on all future confidence votes irrespective of whether the CPC or NDP is the gover[n]ing party.
> 
> ...



But Brad, that is what _you_ would do as leader of the LPC.

I'm 99% certain the NDP and CPC are simply waiting for the Young Dauphin to open his mouth and finishe the job for them....


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Jul 2015)

Does anyone seriously believe that the "Natural Governing Party" would be willing to be the junior member of a coalition?


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Jul 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Does anyone seriously believe that the "Natural Governing Party" would be willing to be the junior member of a coalition?



Their party ego won't let them...where as the NDP (provincial, in Ontario, pre-1990) did so, but were quite smart about it, and didn't call it a coalition, per se, but rather an 'agreement' with the LPO, and decided to not press for any cabinet positions, but rather remain the Opposition.  I'm not sure the LPC braintrust would ever think such a thing to be entertained.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (24 Jul 2015)

The Liberal Party has absolutely nothing to gain in a coalition with the NDP.  Being a junior partner to the NDP might signal their irrelevance to voters.  The next leader of the Liberals might actually be electable and it will be business as usual.

I see the Media Party is whining about Harper's possible $1 billion deficit.  I wonder how they like the looks of Alberta's NDP and their $8? billion deficit.  Alberta's NDP aren't even going to present a budget until after the federal election so as not to spook Angry Tom's supporters.  What is that 9 months late?  The economy is dying out here.  Oil prices are one thing but the uncertainty is brutal.


----------



## CountDC (24 Jul 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> smoking weed on duty will be mandatory to keep all happy in the service.



everyone else will finally catch up to the navy.... 
 >


----------



## CountDC (24 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Childcare subsidies are a major plank of the platforms of two of the parties, so maybe discussion thereof is on topic.
> 
> Here is what will happen with subsidies: providers will pay attention to how much new money is available, and increase rates to absorb the subsidies.  The number of available spaces won't change much.  People receiving subsidies will be right back where they started.  People not receiving subsidies will be paying more.  If this seems implausible to you, it is basically what happens with post-secondary education and most other situations in which more money chases the same amount of goods/services.



you are right - happened in BC when the government gave everyone money for the period the teachers were on strike.  Daycares were telling people that it was for the daycare and they had to give it to them on top of the amounts they were already paying.  People did too because they were afraid if they refused they would lose their spots.


----------



## CountDC (24 Jul 2015)

saw an interview this morning and he did state not interested in forming the coalition as the two parties are too far apart on their plans.

He also mentioned how Mulcair said one thing to the french when in Quebec and his party members were saying different a thing in the rest of Canada in english.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jul 2015)

_The politics of cynicism or cynical politics ..._

... in this article, by Liberal insider Scott Reid, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/reid-all-good-liberals-should-hold-their-nose-and-vote-for-eve-adams


> All good Liberals should hold their nose and vote for Eve Adams
> 
> Scott Reid
> 
> ...




Of course, there is no _principled_ reason for any thinking person to vote for Ms Adams: she's ... well, she's pretty much a disgraced has been. BUT: the party leader (Justin Trudeau) and his "brain trust" (Gerald Butts) think that _maybe_, _*just maybe*_, Ms Adams can knock off Finance Minister Joe Oliver and so they are asking Liberals to pick a disgraceful bit of used goods to try to unseat a pretty good MP and minister.  :facepalm:


----------



## Rocky Mountains (25 Jul 2015)

A question out of the blue.  The Conservative attack ads on Trudeau appear to be working.  What do they have in store for Mulcair once the writ has been dropped?  It must be something good to account for the Conservative patience.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _The politics of cynicism or cynical politics ..._
> 
> ... in this article, by Liberal insider Scott Reid, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:
> 
> ...




More on this ... Bob Rae endorses a "good Liberal," Marco Mendicino, who is running against Eve Adams for the Liberal nomination in Eglinton-Lawrence.


----------



## Remius (25 Jul 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> A question out of the blue.  The Conservative attack ads on Trudeau appear to be working.  What do they have in store for Mulcair once the writ has been dropped?  It must be something good to account for the Conservative patience.



They are working because they are almost always on and have been for a while.  But...I think it has worked too well, driving some voters to Mr. mulcair.  I'm not sure there will be enough time to have the same impact on him.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Jul 2015)

_I think_ (_hope_) that the "Just Not Ready" ads have _defined_ M Trudeau, and that his Liberals will be a dismal third in the upcoming elections. Then I hope the Liberals will take some time to reflect on their core values (and on who they need to be their next leader) so that they can renew themselves and, once again, be a good, centrist _government in waiting_ when either the CPC or the NDP need replacing.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jul 2015)

The attack ads work because like all good propaganda and PSYOPS, it is built around a kernel of truth. All you need to do is review the words that have come out of the Young Dauphin's mouth during his tenure as leader and the ads just write themselves.

Dealing with Tom Mulcair is much trickier. The CPC _need_ the NDP to move more to the right and eliminate any space for the Liberals, so attacking Mr Mulcair would be counterproductive from the strategic point of view. As well, Mr Mulcair has been an effective and hard working parliamentarian and a capable leader of his party, and has no obvious baggage (remember "_Just Visiting_?"), so creating a personalized attack campaign is much more difficult.

I suspect the _strategic_ vision of the CPC is to let the Young Dauphin expend LPC time, energy and resources agains the NDP, and that the CPC "trusts" there are enough die hard Liberal supporters who would vote for a potted plant if it was the LPC candidate (see the bit about Eve Adams upthread) to split the Progressive/Left vote and come up the middle. The Prime Minister will let the others duke it out in "debates" and then move in for the kill once some vital issue or event provides the opening.

Now we all should know that no plan survives contact with the enemy, and Edward always reminds us that a week is "a long time" in politics, but the Prime Minister's team has been pretty effective in building a party and moving from opposition to minority to majority government, so I would not be betting against them quite yet.....


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Jul 2015)

There are those who like to point out Mr. Mulcair's French citizenship as a concern...


----------



## Harrigan (26 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _The politics of cynicism or cynical politics ..._
> 
> ... in this article, by Liberal insider Scott Reid, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:
> 
> ...



Personally I don't think this has anything to do with Adams and everything to do with Soudas.  Not to say that the following has actually happened, but I can certainly picture a scenario when he has said to the Liberal Party "I have the goods you want - but the price for access is that Eve gets the Liberal nomination in Eglinton-Lawrence"  

Kind of reminds me of the old "Let's Make a Deal" gameshow.  He represents "Door Number Three", behind which could be the golden key to sinking Harper should there be some real nasty skeletons that Soudas will reveal once Adams is confirmed as a candidate.  Or, there is a donkey.  

I suspect Soudas knows the Liberals really want to see what is behind Door Number Three, and he is parlaying that desire into a candidacy for his fiancée.  Whether there really is any insider knowledge that is worth the angst is probably doubtful, but if the Liberals are going to take the risk, they'll have to take the consequences too.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jul 2015)

Agreed, Harrigan, but, as you can see from this, not all Liberals are convinced.

I wonder if (_hope_ that) we are seeing the first sings of another Liberal split. Might it be, this time, maybe, between the _principled_ Liberals and the _power at any price_ Liberals?



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> More on this ... Bob Rae endorses a "good Liberal," Marco Mendicino, who is running against Eve Adams for the Liberal nomination in Eglinton-Lawrence.




_Edited to add_: and see this, also. It appears that both sides have strong support. Oh, my goodness, I _love_ political civil wars, especially Liberal ones.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Personally I don't think this has anything to do with Adams and everything to do with Soudas.  Not to say that the following has actually happened, but I can certainly picture a scenario when he has said to the Liberal Party "I have the goods you want - but the price for access is that Eve gets the Liberal nomination in Eglinton-Lawrence"
> 
> Kind of reminds me of the old "Let's Make a Deal" gameshow.  He represents "Door Number Three", behind which could be the golden key to sinking Harper should there be some real nasty skeletons that Soudas will reveal once Adams is confirmed as a candidate.  Or, there is a donkey.
> 
> I suspect Soudas knows the Liberals really want to see what is behind Door Number Three, and he is parlaying that desire into a candidacy for his fiancée.  Whether there really is any insider knowledge that is worth the angst is probably doubtful, but if the Liberals are going to take the risk, they'll have to take the consequences too.




I wonder if the CPC administrative hierarchy was smart enough to apply the sort of confidentiality agreement that was imposed on MP's political staffs to Mr Soudas ...


----------



## Harrigan (26 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I wonder if the CPC administrative hierarchy was smart enough to apply the sort of confidentiality agreement that was imposed on MP's political staffs to Mr Soudas ...



I guess it depends on what the information is.  The consequences of breaching that "agreement", which seems designed specifically to cover up stuff, isn't all that dire (termination of employment, pay back termination pay, etc).  I don't imagine Soudas is too worried about that.  If the "goods" he has is a legal issue, he is covered there too.  I think what the Liberals need to be concerned about is that this guy is a mercenary.  He is willing to backstab the CPC, so they are forewarned about what he would be willing to do to them should he feel wronged.  

The flipside to the "Let's Make a Deal" argument, though, is that unless he has given them a taste of what he knows, they wouldn't even be considering it.  

However, my money is on donkey!   ;D

Harrigan

P.S. I think the big winner in all this (again) is the NDP, who have absolutely nothing to lose no matter what way the vote goes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> I guess it depends on what the information is.  The consequences of breaching that "agreement", which seems designed specifically to cover up stuff, isn't all that dire (termination of employment, pay back termination pay, etc).  I don't imagine Soudas is too worried about that.  If the "goods" he has is a legal issue, he is covered there too.  _I think what the Liberals need to be concerned about is that this guy is a mercenary.  He is willing to backstab the CPC, so they are forewarned about what he would be willing to do to them should he feel wronged._
> 
> The flipside to the "Let's Make a Deal" argument, though, is that unless he has given them a taste of what he knows, they wouldn't even be considering it.
> 
> ...




I agree; _I think_ Mr Soudas is playing a very, very risky game. In fact, _I suspect_ all the blood left his brains for a while. Ms Adams is, quite simply, a really second rate politician and he, who _had_ a much higher value, has thrown it all away for a bit of well used political trash. _My guess _is that no one will trust him with anything of import and even the Liberals will be deeply suspicious of anything he gives them. He has, as we used to say, blotted his copybook and there is no way, ever, to correct that.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jul 2015)

The _Globe and Mail_'s Jeffrey Simpson gives a good overview of the NDP's _relationship_ with supply management in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-eternal-ndp-struggle-with-free-trade/article25663593/


> The eternal NDP struggle with free trade
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> BRUNNER, ONT. — The Globe and Mail
> ...




If M Mulcair becomes prime minister and if he (as opposed to his party) continues on a pro-supply management course then it will be very bad news for Canada.

My _guess_ ~ based on nothing more that "gut feel" ~ is that he will abandon the dairy farmers, as he should, and join the TPP.

Supply management is a monumentally stupid policy on every possible level.


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My _guess_ ~ based on nothing more that "gut feel" ~ is that he will abandon the dairy farmers, as he should, and join the TPP.



Given that a large portion of those same dairy farmers are in Quebec, will that have any bearing on the decision?


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And here is a new _Predictinator_ from David Akin:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




David Akin has posted a new Predictinator:






The NDP have been leading for some time, now, at just the right moment for the CPC, _momentum_ might be shifting.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jul 2015)

I looked back at David Akin's "Predictinators" since Feb. I'm assuming his methodology is fairly consistent. Here's what I found: 

There's only one constant: a continuous Liberal decline.

(I'm sorry I cannot get !@#$%^& Excel to do the X axis correctly: the dates are 13 Feb, 8 Mar, 21 Mar, 14 May, 16 May, 3 Jul and 26 Jul ~ not monthly as shown)


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jul 2015)

The _divide_ between M Trudeau's team and the Liberal grassroots just got a little bit deeper. Eve Adams lost the LPC nomination (Eglinton-Lawrence) to Toronto lawyer Marco Mendicino. Mr Mendicino will be a tougher opponent for Joe Oliver than Ms Adams would have been, so it's a mixed blessing for the CPC.


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _divide_ between M Trudeau's team and the Liberal grassroots just got a little bit deeper. Eve Adams lost the LPC nomination (Eglinton-Lawrence) to Toronto lawyer Marco Mendicino. Mr Mendicino will be a tougher opponent for Joe Oliver than Ms Adams would have been, so it's a mixed blessing for the CPC.



What does it say for Mr Trudeau that his hand (cherry) picked candidate lost?


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jul 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> What does it say for Mr Trudeau that his hand (cherry) picked candidate lost?




See my_ civil war_ comments earlier. Liberals have been in such a state since about 1967 when Pierre Trudeau "dissed" Lester B Pearson when the latter resigned, and M Trudeau was elected party leader and, therefore, prime minister. The divisions were, however, deeper and were related to policy. Relations between Prime Minister Trudeau and his Finance Minister, John Turner were as frosty as those between Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. There were (_I suspect_ still are) divisions between the Liberal _left_ ~ Messers Dion and Trudeau, and the Liberal _right_, still led by John Manley, I think.


----------



## GAP (26 Jul 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> What does it say for Mr Trudeau that his hand (cherry) picked candidate lost?



The fact that he tried to force her on Eglinton-Lawrence riding after saying how he wouldn't parachute candidates in is going to haunt him....another example of "open mouth, insert foot"


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> David Akin has posted a new Predictinator:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It is going to be an interesting horse race down the back stretch when it comes to that part of the circus act to come.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jul 2015)

I wonder if in desperation the Blue Liberals make a break for it and either implicit or explicitly move in support of the CPC? That would seem to be the best COA to satisfy the power lust of the Liberals ("we support the sitting government so we can extract some payment from them") as well as to ensure the Liberal brand does not become irrelevant since _they_ are in the catbird seat and capable of bringing the government down at the time and place of their choosing.

Of course it would mean essentially ditching the Young Dauphin and the "Orange" Liberals and rebuilding a new liberal party virtually from scratch, and probably abandoning the field for at least two more election cycles while they build the machinery, find the volunteers and workers and develop and communicate a real version of "Liberalism" to attract the voting public.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _divide_ between M Trudeau's team and the Liberal grassroots just got a little bit deeper. Eve Adams lost the LPC nomination (Eglinton-Lawrence) to Toronto lawyer Marco Mendicino. Mr Mendicino will be a tougher opponent for Joe Oliver than Ms Adams would have been, so it's a mixed blessing for the CPC.



Sic Semper Ignoramus....


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Jul 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I wonder if _in desperation the Blue Liberals make a break for it_ and either implicit or explicitly move in support of the CPC? That would seem to be the best COA to satisfy the power lust of the Liberals ("we support the sitting government so we can extract some payment from them") as well as to ensure the Liberal brand does not become irrelevant since _they_ are in the catbird seat and capable of bringing the government down at the time and place of their choosing.
> 
> Of course it would mean essentially ditching the Young Dauphin and the "Orange" Liberals and rebuilding a new liberal party virtually from scratch, and probably abandoning the field for at least two more election cycles while they build the machinery, find the volunteers and workers and develop and communicate a real version of "Liberalism" to attract the voting public.




The only situation in which I can _imagine_ that happening is if there is a large Conservative majority, say 160+ of the 170 seats needed, but M Mulcair, with, say, 125 seats, supported by M Duceppe (8 seats) and Ms May (2), decides to make a grab for power and asks M Trudeau (40 seats) to join . M Trudeau then _fails_ to consult his caucus widely enough or deeply enough, and when he decides, "Yes, I'll join" and then announces his decision to the LPC caucus five to even ten of his members cannot stomach the decision and jump ship and promise to vote with the CPC on the confidence motion. A few of that small number _might_, indeed, move to the CPC but I think it is more likely that the rebel leaders would select one of their own to make a bid for the leadership of the LPC.

(Clear as mud but covers the ground?)


----------



## Harrigan (27 Jul 2015)

The smartest thing for Mr.Trudeau to do now is to graciously accept the results in Eglinton-Lawrence and move on (probably the best result for them anyway).  A Liberal optimist will no doubt point out (probably on Power & Politics or some such..) that the charges of Liberals leadership overrunning local riding associations wouldn't seem to be accurate, though that won't stop CPC supporters from continuing to claim otherwise.

Personally, I think the Liberals dodged a bullet there.  

As much as many of us would like to see it, I don't think there is a "Civil War" inside the Liberals any more than there was when Rob Anders was defeated in his nomination.  

Harrigan


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> The smartest thing for Mr.Trudeau to do now is to graciously accept the results in Eglinton-Lawrence and move on (probably the best result for them anyway).  A Liberal optimist will no doubt point out (probably on Power & Politics or some such..) that the charges of Liberals leadership overrunning local riding associations wouldn't seem to be accurate, though that won't stop CPC supporters from continuing to claim otherwise.
> 
> Personally, I think the Liberals dodged a bullet there.
> 
> ...




Then I think your dreaming in technicolour (or smoking something suspicious). There have, for the past 50 years, been only two _constants_ in the Liberal Party of Canada:

     1. An absolute focus on gaining and holding power; and

     2. A series of brutal, sometimes fatal (as in 1958, 1979, 1984, 2006, 2008 and 2011) civil wars.

The problem arose in 1960, at the Kingston Conference which, for the very first time, pushed the party off dead _centre_ and towards the ideological _territory_ occupied by the CCF (as the NDP still was, way back then). Prime Minister Pearson also made bold (although, _in my view_, mistaken) steps towards solving the ever present national unity problem, first by recruiting the "three wise men" (Marchand, Pelletier and Trudeau) from Quebec's labour-left-intellectual elites, and second by establishing (and, much worse, following through on) the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission (the The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism). (Overall, _I think_ Pearson made things markedly worse.) Mike Pearson empowered the Liberal Party's previously small and weak left wing ... Pierre Trudeau, a CCF member throughout the 1950s, moved the party out of the real _centre_ and firmly into the _centre-left_ (the NDP still, then (1960s, '70s and '80s) 'owned' the left of centre and left in Canadian politics. Pearson and Trudeau did two things: they gave the PC party some 'room' on the political _centre_ and they opened a two front war which the LPC didn't need. (Previously the NDP (like Social Credit) had been, largely, irrelevant; Prime Minister Mackenzie-King described them, largely correctly in 1944, as "Liberals in a hurry;" but, by moving into their _territory_ Pearson's and Trudeau's Liberals turned them from a harmless opponent and, even, occasional supporter, into a real political enemy.

The Liberals were, traditionally, the party of Big Business, the Big Banks and, although unstated until Buzz Hargrove's time, in the 1990s, Big Labour; the Progressive Conservatives had been, by and large, the party of small town Canada, of "Main Street," not Bay Street or St. James Street. The Liberals' _lurch left_ in the 1960s gave the Tories some additional 'room' in and support from Canada's corporate board rooms.

The first battles were between Mike Pearson and his new 'apprentice' Pierre Trudeau ~ over issues like nuclear weapons. (Pearson wanted to exploit Diefenbaker's dithering and pull the American Democrats on to the Liberals' side; Trudeau was a bit of a pacifist, anti-nuclear weapons and a very strong anti-nationalist and he saw the US military as the most powerful of all _nationalist_ forces.) The battle was rejoined between Pierre Trudeau and his finance minister John Turner, largely over the fiscal sustainability of Trudeau's _entitlement_ programmes. John Turner and Trudeau's chosen successor, Jean Chrétien, continued the battle in the 1980s. Prime Minister Chrétien and Paul Martin waged their own, less ideological, civil war in the 1990s and 2000s. Now is is the "Manley Liberals" vs. the Liberal Left.

It has been a non-stop civil war and it shows no signs of cooling off.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _divide_ between M Trudeau's team and the Liberal grassroots just got a little bit deeper. Eve Adams lost the LPC nomination (Eglinton-Lawrence) to Toronto lawyer Marco Mendicino. Mr Mendicino will be a tougher opponent for Joe Oliver than Ms Adams would have been, so it's a mixed blessing for the CPC.



There's a long_ish_, somewhat nasty column by Tim Harper in the _Toronto Star_ that dissects the Eve Adams loss and casts further (Liberal insider) doubt on M Trudeau's judgment and leadership.


----------



## Harrigan (27 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Then I think your dreaming in technicolour (or smoking something suspicious). There have, for the past 50 years, been only two _constants_ in the Liberal Party of Canada:
> 
> 1. An absolute focus on gaining and holding power; and
> 
> ...



I agree with all that you have wrote, except for your conclusions.  

If that is your definition of "civil war", then sure, the Liberals have been at it since 1960.  However, they have also been in power for 34 of those 55 years (and 22 of the 25 years before that), so the "civil war" has not been damaging in the long run.  What you have described is the normal deliberations between the right and left sides of a centrist party, not a crushing internal self-destruction (as much as most on this board would like that).  In fact, it is not unlike the normal deliberations between the ex-Reform and ex-PC sides of the current CPC.  It is true that Harper has managed to crush most public internal party opposition, but it would be false to suggest that all within the CPC is of one mind and agrees 100% with all policies, all the time.  There are different shades of blue, as there always have been.

That is simply a normal process that occurs within all parties (NDP as well).

I see this as a minor skirmish within the Liberal Party that is much less than the "harbinger of death" that you ascribe to it, particularly as the ultimate decision that they made was the correct one.  It looks very similar to the Anders vs Liepert nomination in Calgary, where the Kenney-supported candidate (Anders), was beaten by the challenger candidate (Liepert), also a correct decision.  Different parts of the CPC supported different candidates, but it was certainly no "civil war" within the CPC.

Liberals and Conservatives have had internal dissention in their ranks for decades (remember Dalton Camp?), and none of them have been fatal for the party (other than perhaps the early 90's PC's).  

As for your first point:  



> 1. An absolute focus on gaining and holding power



Yes, this is absolutely true of the Liberals, and it is absolutely true of the CPC as well.  Ever was it thus.  

Harrigan


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> As for your first point:
> 
> Yes, this is absolutely true of the Liberals, and it is absolutely true of the CPC as well.  Ever was it thus.
> 
> Harrigan



But only one of those has the hubris to call themselves the "Natural Governing Party". I think this conceit is also a factor in their civil war. There's a faction that can't accept that there will be periods when they're out of power, and that time should be spend on rejuvenation and rebuilding.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jul 2015)

The term "Natural Governing Party" was not self-generated; I believe it was Alan Fotheringham who coined the phrase.


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Jul 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The term "Natural Governing Party" was not self-generated; I believe it was Alan Fotheringham who coined the phrase.



Could be, but they and the chattering classes came to believe it. Years and years ago I heard a political science professor from Queens (I think) expound at length on why the PCs could never win an election. His reason was something like that there were too many different factions in the PC party to ever be able to cooperate and form a united front.

The Liberals really had no compelling philosophy except to retain power at all costs.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jul 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Could be, but they and the chattering classes came to believe it. Years and years ago I heard a political science professor from Queens (I think) expound at length on why the PCs could never win an election. His reason was something like that there were too many different factions in the PC party to ever be able to cooperate and form a united front.
> 
> The Liberals really had no compelling philosophy except to retain power at all costs.



So, you're saying that the two parties have switched, then...


----------



## Harrigan (27 Jul 2015)

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/the-conservative-plan-to-become-canadas-natural-governing-party

Both the Liberals and CPC aspire to be the 'natural governing party'.....



> The Liberals really had no compelling philosophy except to retain power at all costs.



And yet the electorate has been electing Liberals more often than not for a hundred years.....  clearly there must be something about their policies that people have agreed with.  I suspect it is the 'balance' that they have traditionally held between conservatism and progressivism.  Most people are not complete devotees of either side, but reside in the "mushy middle", as Mr.Campbell has correctly described it.  

....and the Liberals are certainly waist-deep in the "mush", don't you think?   ;D

Harrigan


----------



## Kilo_302 (27 Jul 2015)

More on the Eve Adams debacle. I cannot for the life of me understand the appeal of Trudeau:

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2015/07/eve-adams-shows-trudeau-jig



> The calculation was obvious. The NDP was supposedly "finished" and the Liberals simply had to show that they were ready to govern and to appeal to soft Conservative voters who felt that Harper had gone too far.
> 
> Trudeau thought he could take "progressive" voters for granted.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jul 2015)

The Liberals have been successful despite their lack of principle (or principles) precisely because they were much more skilled as a "Transactive" party, able to use a growing economy to pay off various factions and supporters for votes.

This works when there are few eggs to juggle (Big Banks, Big Business, Big Labour), but eventually conditions change and deal making becomes more difficult or counterproductive. The LPC was able to squeeze out a few more years in the 1990's since the political "right" was divided, but it was clear by the mid 90's, when they were using the same "Red Book" platform as they did in 1993 that they were running out of steam, and by 2006, the bottle was empty (how many election cycles in a row can you promise "National Day Care" as the ruling party?).

They failed to renew themselves multiple times, Mr Dithers could never explain why he wanted to be Prime Minister, Mr Dion and Mr Ignatieff also failed to explain in any coherent way just what they were planning for Canada (the Dion plan was incoherent, and Ignatieff's "Big Thinker" conference simply ended up with "more of the same"). The LPC attempt to replace ideas with celebrity is also not working very well for them either. In the mean time, demographics, economic power, technology and society was evolving to the point that many of the Liberals ideas and institutions were largely irrelevant or even counterproductive as far as Canadians are concerned, which is why the two "Transformative" parties are now running neck and neck, and the Liberals behind in third place. 

Appealing to past history is instructive in understanding how *we* got here, but like a mutual fund disclaimer suggests: "Past performance is no grantee of future results".


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> More on the Eve Adams debacle. I cannot for the life of me understand the appeal of Trudeau:
> 
> http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2015/07/eve-adams-shows-trudeau-jig



Just another case of the hypocrisy to be found in his leadership.  Don't forget his hypocritical action in parachuting Andrew Leslie into the Orleans constituency, as 'his' candidate for that seat in the coming election.  He says one thing, and then contradicts it with these two cases.  Definitely was not a point to swing me to vote for him or any of his candidates.  He hasn't even been elected and has broken his word.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2015)

It's rare that I would agree on anything with Michael Laxer (I would agree on nothing with his father, ever) but he's right: the Liberals, _Team Trudeau_ anyway, were complacent and cynical and they for burned for being both.

I reiterate: I wish the Liberal Party well: I would rather see a Conservative (centre-right & centre) vs Liberal (centre & centre left) axis around which government would rotate than a Conservative (which would become right of centre & centre right & (less and less)centre) vs NDP ((a little bit) centre & centre left & left of centre) axis. 

I would, in my perfect world, like to see a four party system:

                                                                        A right and right of centre party, let's call it _Reform_;

                                          A centre right and centre party, let's call them the _Conservatives_;

                           A centre & centre left party, lets call them the _Liberals_; and

     A left of centre and left wing party which we can call the _NDP_.

Of course there are is always room on fringes for regional protest groups, like the BQ, and fruitcakes like the Greens and the Christian Heritage Party.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (27 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The only situation in which I can _imagine_ that happening is if there is a large Conservative majority, say 160+ of the 170 seats needed, but M Mulcair, with, say, 125 seats, supported by M Duceppe (8 seats) and Ms May (2), decides to make a grab for power and asks M Trudeau (40 seats) to join . M Trudeau then _fails_ to consult his caucus widely enough or deeply enough, and when he decides, "Yes, I'll join" and then announces his decision to the LPC caucus five to even ten of his members cannot stomach the decision and jump ship and promise to vote with the CPC on the confidence motion. A few of that small number _might_, indeed, move to the CPC but I think it is more likely that the rebel leaders would select one of their own to make a bid for the leadership of the LPC.
> 
> (Clear as mud but covers the ground?)



The scenario of who takes power if a Conservative minority is defeated in Parliament is irrelevant.  A new election is the only possibility.  I am confident Harper asked the Governor General before appointing him what he would do in such a situation and Harper recently re-appointed him to a 2 year term.  The interesting thing in a new election is the opposition would be broke and likely deep in debt.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> _The scenario of who takes power if a Conservative minority is defeated in Parliament is irrelevant.  A new election is the only possibility._  I am confident Harper asked the Governor General before appointing him what he would do in such a situation and Harper recently re-appointed him to a 2 year term.  The interesting thing in a new election is the opposition would be broke and likely deep in debt.




It depends, _I think_, on when the defeat happens.

If the government falls very, very early in the life of a new parliament (i.e. only a few months or even weeks after an election) the GG might, arguably should decide to ask the opposition leader to try to gain the confidence of parliament and pass an interim supply motion, at least.

The GG is bound, by the (unwritten) _Constitution_ to _*listen to*_ the PM; the GG is _*not obliged to obey*_ the PM. The GG has powers of his/her own and (s)he has skilled constitutional law advisers to help in the exercise of those powers. The GG's duty is to have a functioning government, (s)he calls elections when, either, required by law or when a PM asks for one because, for example, the legislative mandate is done, or when the PM can no longer secure the confidence of the house and it seems unlikely that any other leader can, either. When there is a good possibility that another leader can secure confidence the GG should give him/her a chance to try ... it's the _King-Byng Thing_.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (27 Jul 2015)

The King-Byng Thing did not change any ultimate outcome, other than delaying the election some and resulting in the Balfour Declaration of 1926, leading to the Statute of Westminster and independent governor-generals not answering to the colonial office any more.

In Australia, you have had the constitutional crisis of 1975, where a GG used his reserve powers to dismiss a prime minister and appoint the opposition leader. Again, it changed nothing other than delaying the election some while ruffling feathers of the elected politicians and electorate to no extent. That GG is reviled in Australia.

Since then, and quite correctly in my estimation, no GG has dared to refuse to follow the advice of a PM in a British Parliamentary system. And I firmly believe that it would lead to an even greater constitutional crisis if they ever did as our democracy has evolved to the point where Canadians do not see the GG as anything else than a figure head, who must follow the advice of the duly elected politician, who are the ones we chose.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jul 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The King-Byng Thing did not change any ultimate outcome, other than delaying the election some and resulting in the Balfour Declaration of 1926, leading to the Statute of Westminster and independent governor-generals not answering to the colonial office any more.
> 
> In Australia, you have had the constitutional crisis of 1975, where a GG used his reserve powers to dismiss a prime minister and appoint the opposition leader. Again, it changed nothing other than delaying the election some while ruffling feathers of the elected politicians and electorate to no extent. That GG is reviled in Australia.
> 
> Since then, and quite correctly in my estimation, no GG has dared to refuse to follow the advice of a PM in a British Parliamentary system. And I firmly believe that it would lead to an even greater constitutional crisis if they ever did as our democracy has evolved to the point where Canadians do not see the GG as anything else than a figure head, who must follow the advice of the duly elected politician, who are the ones we chose.



Except a Prime Minister is not duly elected.  The PM commands a majority in the House of Commons; they are not elected by the population by popular suffrage.  Thus, their legitimacy rests on their ability to control the Commons.


----------



## McG (27 Jul 2015)

But we, the voters, do not chose a Prime Minister.  Parliament chooses (and for all practical purposes, the lead party chooses who gets fist shot at that).

So, if more parliamentarians can work with the guy from second place party, then that does see Canadians getting what they voted for.

The only way parliamentarians get to choose if they will support the second guy is if the GG extends the opportunity.

Simply following the direction of the leader of the first place party when he looses confidence in the first weeks ... that is not following the advice of the duly elected representatives (all Parlaiment); it is catering to the wants of a political party.


----------



## Jed (27 Jul 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> But we, the voters, do not chose a Prime Minister.  Parliament chooses (and for all practical purposes, the lead party chooses who gets fist shot at that).
> 
> So, if more parliamentarians can work with the guy from second place party, then that does see Canadians getting what they voted for.
> 
> ...



Probably technically correct. I believe OGBD has the right take on what the average Canadian voter will adhere to.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2015)

_I believe_ that our, Westminster, _system_ of responsible, parliamentary government is superior to e.g. the US model of representative government, but our, Canadian, implementation needs some work.

     First: we need to _reform_ our legislative structure so that the House of Commons is much, much more _equitable_ in its levels of representation and so that our Senate (which _I believe_ is necessary) more adequately
     reflects a 21st century liberal-democratic country.

     Second: the sovereign's residual powers are important and we should not be afraid to allow her/him to use them when the time is right. Because of the nature of _power_ on our parliamentary system, the sovereign's powers act as a needed check on the elected executive.

     Third: the sovereign needs to be be _patriated_.

     Fourth: party leaders must be accountable to and selected by their parliamentary caucuses. Allowing parties to select leaders, in the name of "grassroots democracy" simply hands political office over to special interests and partisans.

     Fifth our constitution needs to be abolished ... repealed, cancelled, annulled, whatever. Written constitutions, even the best (and ours is not the best by any stench of the imagination) are always problematical because they cannot help but reflect the issues and attitudes of
     their time. An unwritten constitution "lives" and "grows" in step with the society it serves. (Israel, New Zealand and the United Kingdom are examples of successful, sophisticated, modern, liberal democracies that do not have written constitutions.) Admittedly Canada, being
     a federal state (and likely, being "two nations" within a state, needing to remain a federation) needs a "Basic Law" to define the division of powers, at least, but such a basic law can be thorough and clear and very limited in its scope. _Rights_ (and duties) and even principles
     need not be written down.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jul 2015)

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, NDP insider Gerald Caplan launches a blistering, but cogent attack on Prime Minister Stephen Harper and explains why he, Caplan, believes that he, Harper, is undeserving of re-election:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/this-election-the-question-is-does-harper-deserve-another-term/article25719375/


> This election, the question is: Does Harper deserve another term?
> 
> GERALD CAPLAN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




Now, with the exception of one point, _I disagree_, quite vehemently, with Mr Caplan. The point on which we do agree is that the question of Prime Minister Harper's fitness for another term _IS_ a valid "ballot question."

I know that at least some of you will agree with Gerald Caplan and I commend his article to you. Those who are likely to disagree, however, should also read it with care because this will be a large part of the NDP's argument for themselves.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jul 2015)

> "_Gerald Caplan is an Africa scholar, former NDP national director and regular panelist on CBC’s Power and Politics."_



Of course he is. His partisanship shines as an aura around him and his prose.

"This past week has offered yet another example of this curious ritual. The Parliamentary Budget Officer Jean-Denis Frechette reported that the government will run a billion-dollar budget deficit this year, despite explicit assurances from the Prime Minister and Finance Minister Joe Oliver that the budget will be balanced."

Nobody serious about the election or goings on in Parliament can take this serious. The MSM is trying to make this a horrible story.

In reality, it's like me being $10.00 short on my weekly budget of $1000.00. Nothing to see here.

"When the overwhelming number of scientists believe climate change is a clear and present danger but our government refuses to take the issue seriously, implicitly denying the scientific findings, whom do we believe? Another no-brainer, I’d say."

Except that GW has been debunked by more specialised and highly respected scientists. The MSM cannot publish or listen to them because if global warming became a non starter, their partisan readership would shrivel. Really, the leading spokesman for GW is Al Gore. C'mon.

"When the government actively pursues its law ‘n’ order agenda while Statistics Canada reports that violent crimes in Canada have generally fallen for the eighth straight year, what should we believe about how dangerous our streets are? And why does this issue remain a Harper government priority when the facts tell a different story? Are we talking about ideology and political opportunism, or evidence-based public policy?"

Of course that 'law and order agenda' has absolutely nothing with the dropping crime rates :

"When the Prime Minister insists he had nothing to do with Mike Duffy being paid $90,000 by the PM’s own chief of staff, can we believe Mr. Harper? Wouldn’t that depend on how credible he’s been on other matters?"

No, it will depend on the outcome of the court case. More NDP 'guilty until found innocent' claptrap.

"What were we to think last year when literally hundreds of political scientists and constitutional experts told us the Fair Voting Act was deeply flawed, even antidemocratic, while day after day Pierre Poilievre for the government summarily dismissed every one of their concerns? Who was more credible?"

Political scientist, by and large, have their own agenda. As do the constitutional experts (these are like military experts, basically, anyone the press can get a quote on for a story). Again, let's wait until it goes before the Supremes. Otherwise, it's bad press and rumour mongering.

"Or when a large variety of experts warned against the excesses and dangers of the anti-terrorist bill C-51, while the government turned a completely deaf ear? There was no middle ground: You had to trust either the government or its authoritative critics."

More bullshit. This is another one for the SC. Anyone nowadays can be an 'expert'. There is nothing magical or profound coming from the chattering classes.

"Mr. Harper has dropped eight such traps on the House of Commons, some with over 400 pages covering issues that are wholly unrelated to each other. *How could MPs even know all they contained?* This newspaper editorialized that such bills reflect the Harper government’s “contempt for parliament.” Pretty straightforward on this one, then."

How about they do what they're paid for and read the fucking thing. Bunch of trained seals bellyaching and barking because the whip said so. Not because they know why.

"This newspaper editorialized that such bills reflect the Harper government’s “contempt for parliament.”

The MSM are the last ones that anyone, with any sort of brain, should be looking to for 'expert' analysis.

As is Mr Caplan.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Jul 2015)

Law and propriety are both relevant - Two Concepts of Legitimacy (Andrew Potter, in Macleans, 2008).


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Jul 2015)

The weakness of citing "experts" is that on matters with political impact, "experts" keep getting caught with their thumbs on the scales.  If everything were black or white, lawyers would mostly be unemployed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _I believe_ that our, Westminster, _system_ of responsible, parliamentary government is superior to e.g. the US model of representative government, but our, Canadian, implementation needs some work.
> 
> First: we need to _reform_ our legislative structure so that the House of Commons is much, much more _equitable_ in its levels of representation and so that our Senate (which _I believe_ is necessary) more adequately
> reflects a 21st century liberal-democratic country.
> ...




One aspect of our liberal, democratic political _system_, of whatever model, is that it is, generally, "party" structured: people of similar (or, at least not too dissimilar) views band together to push their legislative agenda. (You can blame Robert Walpole, the "Great Man" of British politics for that, too, if you like).

Parties are, broadly and generally, "good things," they bring some order to the process. But, perhaps, we put too much faith in parties and leaders. The _Globe and Mail_, in an editorial says, sadly but correctly, _"But Canadians usually vote far more on the basis of parties and leaders than local candidates. And they don’t like politicians who brazenly switch sides. Floor-crossers tend to be seen as opportunistic and unreliable; they usually don’t get re-elected ..."_ I say "sasdly" because too much slavish party loyalty risks losing sight of the fact that one of the great strengths of _our_ system is that Members of parliament represent communities; they were elected, one hopes, because they, themselves, are "good people," not just because they are loyal party hacks. It is also a bit sad that floor crossers are, almost always, punished ... remember that Winston Churchill was a floor crosser: _twice!_ In fact he quipped, after crossing back, in the 1920s, to the Conservatives ( from the Liberals) that _"anyone can rat, but it takes a certain ingenuity to re-rat."_ ("Rat" was the old term for a floor crosser or, more generally, for anyone who turned on his friends.)

Sometimes some people (Ms Adams was, quite clearly, not one of them) "rat" on matters of principle ... they should not be punished for having principles.


----------



## Kilo_302 (28 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Of course he is. His partisanship shines as an aura around him and his prose.
> 
> "This past week has offered yet another example of this curious ritual. The Parliamentary Budget Officer Jean-Denis Frechette reported that the government will run a billion-dollar budget deficit this year, despite explicit assurances from the Prime Minister and Finance Minister Joe Oliver that the budget will be balanced."
> 
> ...




We should all give thanks to recceguy for providing his informed opinion and saving us from the "chattering classes." 

Your zealous faith in our government is strong, and I look forward to the day when people like you rescue us from democracy, lead us in the escape from freedom and show us how to reject any rational fact-based opinions as "bullshit" and "claptrap."

OR, you could go do some "recce" in a library, or perhaps speak to one of these people with those pesky opinions.  :facepalm:


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jul 2015)

Since Recce is:

1: expressing an opinion, and

2: expressing an opinion based on research and facts,

he is acting as an exemplary model of a citizen, and not just blindly expousing and following a "narrative". Just because people like he and I are not following _your_ narrative does not mean we are necessarily following your opponent's narrative; as a small "L" libertarian I only find part of the CPC agenda convincing, but (sadly for the two brave and also exemplary Army.ca members who are actually running for the Libertarian Party), find the CPC is the best vehicle to get "half a loaf" of somewhat smaller government and lower taxes, since the Libertarian party in its current state is still akin to people herding cats. 

I say this with a great deal of love too. I attended a Libertarian Party "Meet and Greet" for two London candidates where there were a total of 6 people in attendance besides me (including the candidates) and there was virtually no points of agreement between anyone there, hardly a winning formula for gaining and exercising political power.

So, like a lot of people (outside of thiose who would vote for a potted plant if it was branded with their party logo), I have to consider all the arguments against the evidence of the outside world and make the "least worst" choice.


----------



## Kilo_302 (28 Jul 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Since Recce is:
> 
> 1: expressing an opinion, and
> 
> ...



No, it's the people who have spent their lives studying climate change, the nature of democracy and law in Canada, political science etc that are expressing opinions based on facts. You can disagree with some, or all of what Caplan is citing, but you can't do it with dismissive labels like "bullshit" and expect people to swallow that as truth. The fact is, our current government has made a point of rejecting all sorts of evidence and information and instead pursuing policies based on ideology. This is undeniable. 

How else do you explain the end of the long form census? 

Mandatory minimum sentences (which by the way, are NOT the reason for lower crime rates as that trend has been constant for decades and the Conservatives have only been in power since 2006, painfully simple stuff here) have been proven to be ineffective as a deterrent by several studies in several countries, and yet our backward government is touting them in the name of "victim's rights." The policies of this government might FEEL good, but they are not based in reality or verifiable facts. Just like recceguy's post. Nothing was actually addressed, instead the points were dismissed with meaningless rhetoric. This government has alienated even the talking heads who traditionally identify as Conservative, they're _that bad._


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> We should all give thanks to recceguy for providing his informed opinion and saving us from the "chattering classes."
> 
> Your zealous faith in our government is strong, and I look forward to the day when people like you rescue us from democracy, lead us in the escape from freedom and show us how to reject any rational fact-based opinions as "bullshit" and "claptrap."
> 
> OR, you could go do some "recce" in a library, or perhaps speak to one of these people with those pesky opinions.  :facepalm:





			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> No, it's the people who have spent their lives studying climate change, the nature of democracy and law in Canada, political science etc that are expressing opinions based on facts. You can disagree with some, or all of what Caplan is citing, but you can't do it with dismissive labels like "bullshit" and expect people to swallow that as truth. The fact is, our current government has made a point of rejecting all sorts of evidence and information and instead pursuing policies based on ideology. This is undeniable.
> 
> How else do you explain the end of the long form census?
> 
> Mandatory minimum sentences (which by the way, are NOT the reason for lower crime rates as that trend has been constant for decades and the Conservatives have only been in power since 2006, painfully simple stuff here) have been proven to be ineffective as a deterrent by several studies in several countries, and yet our backward government is touting them in the name of "victim's rights." The policies of this government might FEEL good, but they are not based in reality or verifiable facts. Just like recceguy's post. Nothing was actually addressed, instead the points were dismissed with meaningless rhetoric. This government has alienated even the talking heads who traditionally identify as Conservative, they're _that bad._



Your vehement attack is indication that no matter, if it doesn't fit your narrative, everyone else is wrong.

Nice personal attacks BTW.

If you can't attack the argument, attack the person. 

Typical. Which is why I have you on 'Ignore' and won't be responding to anymore of your 'claptrap'.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If you can't attack the argument, attack the person.



Such a common tactic used by a certain segment of our society.  Sadly, they have such fanatical and poorly researched causes that they  are 'fighting' for, often hypocritical in their own practices, that the majority of our society have put them on IGNORE.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jul 2015)

According to a report in the _Globe and Mail_, Olivia Chow will contest the Toronto riding of Spadina-Fort York for the NDP. According to the article, "she faces a tough competitor in Adam Vaughan, the former Toronto city councillor who won her old seat for the Liberals in a by-election." 

Edited to add: it appears that Sabrina Zuniga. a former high school science teacher and now an independent businesswoman (does that mean unemployed?) is running for the CPC.







  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




        
        Olivia Chow                 Adam Vaughan                     Sabrina Zuniga


----------



## Kilo_302 (28 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Your vehement attack is indication that no matter, if it doesn't fit your narrative, everyone else is wrong.
> 
> Nice personal attacks BTW.
> 
> ...



A bit of the pot calling the kettle black hmmm? I didn't know you were so sensitive. I DID attack your arguments (if they can be called that).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (28 Jul 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Since Recce is:
> 
> 1: expressing an opinion, and
> 
> 2: expressing an opinion based on research and facts,



Thuc, you are as bad as Recceguy is if you even think for one second that it is a fact that, as he states:

"_Except that GW has been debunked by more specialised and highly respected scientists. The MSM cannot publish or listen to them because if global warming became a non starter, their partisan readership would shrivel. Really, the leading spokesman for GW is Al Gore. C'mon._"

Other than in conspiracy theorist circles and a very limited scientific circle bought out by the oil and gas industry (a proven fact, this), there is absolutely no debate in scientific circles that  global warming exists, is an established scientific fact and there is the greatest scientific agreement EVER that it's most probable cause is human activity. [And BTW, the leading spokesperson for GW is the IPCC: The largest ever scientific consensus report on any scientific subject, not Al Gore].

There isn't a single peer reviewed scientific magazine out there to the contrary, and the reason the MSM have stopped giving any time or place to contrary view is because there are no proper opposing scientific views out there. Every one of the so called GW deniers that have claimed to be scientists have been exposed as frauds or as bought out by big oil and/or using partial or improper data or improper scientific method, or not even being scientists in a relevant field for their "research".

Period. End of Statement, and absolutely accepted fact everywhere in the world except in fundamentalist religious circles, mostly in the US.

If those are the type of alleged facts you put in your opinions Recceguy, then you should expect to be called out on them as "bull". That is not a personal attack, as YOU are free to believe that GW doesn't exist, but you cannot invent a non existent alleged scientificc proof to the contrary, which is not a fact, in support of your opinion.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _divide_ between M Trudeau's team and the Liberal grassroots just got a little bit deeper. Eve Adams lost the LPC nomination (Eglinton-Lawrence) to Toronto lawyer Marco Mendicino. Mr Mendicino will be a tougher opponent for Joe Oliver than Ms Adams would have been, so it's a mixed blessing for the CPC.




And now, according to a report in the _Ottawa Citizen_, M Trudeau may be embroiled in another nomination problem, this time involving Montreal lawyer and Trudeau leadership campaign team member Mélanie Joly. It really doesn't matter if Justin Trudeau is pure as the driven snow in all this, the media smells blood and, like vultures, they are circling. It's just what he doesn't need.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (28 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> it's the _King-Byng Thing_.



But the Liberal, Mackenzie-King, LOST the election but wouldn't resign.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (28 Jul 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Period. End of Statement, and absolutely accepted fact everywhere in the world except in fundamentalist religious circles, mostly in the US.



Bullshit!


----------



## dimsum (28 Jul 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Bullshit!



I'm keeping my opinions to myself on this, but if you're going to call someone out, at least give evidence why they're full of BS.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Jul 2015)

All,

Take the global warming stuff to the global warming thread and keep this one focused on the Election.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jul 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, is one further ~ _and the last from me, I promise_ ~ commentary on the Eve Adams fiasco:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Stephen+Maher+Adams+nomination+loss+puts+harmful+blunder+Justin/11246803/story.html


> Eve Adams’ nomination loss puts end to harmful blunder by Justin Trudeau
> 
> STEPHEN MAHER
> 
> ...




The reason I'm posting this at all is this bit:

     Back in February, when the Liberals were a dozen points ahead of the NDP in the polls, Justin Trudeau held a news conference in Ottawa to announce a surprise star candidate: Conservative MP Eve Adams!

     Adams said she could no longer put up with the mean-spirited, divisive leadership of Stephen Harper, and praised Trudeau and his “kind, generous and strong leadership.”

     Trudeau returned the favour, in what Andrew Coyne accurately described as a “crawlingly demeaning performance,” praising Adams’ “passion and commitment to her constituents,” behaving as if he had outfoxed his opponents.

     But he had actually taken a huge problem off the hands of the Conservatives. Conservative campaign manager Jenni Byrne even sent a bouquet of flowers to Trudeau advisor Gerry Butts.

     ...

     Even if this is the whole story, it’s not impressive that Trudeau would be prepared to take someone who cheated too much for the party that had Dean Del Mastro’s back right up until the bailiffs put him in chains.

     And was Trudeau too full of himself to see that nobody would be convinced by her words of praise?

     He is now trailing in the polls, and his party is sharpening knives and complaining about him and his team, while the other parties are out looking for votes.


M Trudeau has some good, even very good people in his caucus and he has some real, authentic "star" candidates ... but, until now, anyway, the entire Liberal campaign has been : JUSTIN!

It is not too late to turn things around but, _in my opinion_, doing that requires surrounding M Trudeau with some "grownups," and the media will notice and flay him for that, too.


----------



## Remius (28 Jul 2015)

My guess is despite JT taking a bit of a hit on this this week, is that it is a blessing in disguise for him and the LPC.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jul 2015)

Say, Edward, aren't you free these days.....


----------



## Kilo_302 (28 Jul 2015)

Here's a 2013 article detailing the many ways in which our current government is trying to prevent scientific realities from influencing the way Canadians vote. Make no mistake, this is NOT business as usual. Canada's scientists and academics have noticed a significant shift since the Conservatives took power. No matter where you sit on the political spectrum, it's undeniable that a well informed public will make better decisions come election time, and that this is crucial to a healthy democracy.

http://www.academicmatters.ca/2013/05/harpers-attack-on-science-no-science-no-evidence-no-truth-no-democracy/



> Science—and the culture of evidence and inquiry it supports—has a long relationship with democracy. Widely available facts have long served as a check on political power. Attacks on science, and on the ability of scientists to communicate freely, are ultimately attacks on democratic governance.
> 
> It’s no secret the Harper government has a problem with science. In fact, Canada’s scientists are so frustrated with this government’s recent overhaul of scientific communications policies and cuts to research programs they took to the streets, marching on Parliament Hill last summer to decry the “Death of Evidence.” Their concerns— expressed on their protest banners—followed a precise logic: “no science, no evidence, no truth, no democracy.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Jul 2015)

My choice, from amongst sitting MPs, for leader of the LPC would be:















        Scott Brison                  Kirsty Duncan                 Marc Garneau               Dominic LeBlanc
         1st Choice                      4th Choice                      3rd Choice                     2nd Choice

I could imagine any of those four leading the LPC to a very good second place finish, even back into government ... Justin? Not so much. He's led the party back into third place and that's where it belongs so long as he leads it. He's a nice, personable young man, but he's not fit to be prime minister of Canada.


----------



## Remius (28 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My choice, from amongst sitting MPs, for leader of the LPC would be:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Solid choices.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jul 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Solid choices.



Too bad John Manley wasn't in play.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (28 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Here's a 2013 article detailing the many ways in which our current government is trying to prevent scientific realities from influencing the way Canadians vote. Make no mistake, this is NOT business as usual. Canada's scientists and academics have noticed a significant shift since the Conservatives took power. No matter where you sit on the political spectrum, it's undeniable that a well informed public will make better decisions come election time, and that this is crucial to a healthy democracy.
> 
> http://www.academicmatters.ca/2013/05/harpers-attack-on-science-no-science-no-evidence-no-truth-no-democracy/



Brought to you by the people who make their living on the public teat.  They think they should both take the money and control the agenda?  I don't think so.  I have trouble understanding how scientific evidence could encourage someone to vote one way or another.  The logic does not follow.  Why wouldn't Conservatives want good information?  I do and I'm Conservative.


----------



## Acorn (28 Jul 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Brought to you by the people who make their living on the public teat.  They think they should both take the money and control the agenda?  I don't think so.  I have trouble understanding how scientific evidence could encourage someone to vote one way or another.  The logic does not follow.  Why wouldn't Conservatives want good information?  I do and I'm Conservative.



Are you sure you aren't conservative? I am, and the party that uses the upper case for the first letter of the name is one that I have a great deal of difficulty supporting this time around (congratulations to them - I'm having trouble deciding for the first time since Trudeal Sr was in the Big Chair).

The issue is the nature of science, and the fact that there are scientists who work for Canada  doesn't change that. They aren't seeking to control the agenda, the current Government is, and that's why they are speaking up. 

If you're in uniform you are also "living on the public teat" so it may be worth taking a bit of care how you think of others in a similar position.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (28 Jul 2015)

I am conservative and coincidentally Conservative.  Far from taking away anyone's freedom, the government employed scientists can do research for anyone else in the world.  I guess they have to work for private industry to find out how much freedom they really have.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jul 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Thuc, you are as bad as Recceguy is if you even think for one second that it is a fact that, as he states:
> 
> "_Except that GW has been debunked by more specialised and highly respected scientists. The MSM cannot publish or listen to them because if global warming became a non starter, their partisan readership would shrivel. Really, the leading spokesman for GW is Al Gore. C'mon._"
> 
> ...



FWIW - I believe in Climate Change.  I don't think there is a dam thing we can do to enhance, change, minimize or stop it.  I do believe that we can do what we have always done: Improvise-Adapt-Overcome.

Planning is over-rated.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Jul 2015)

Tight message control on employees of the federal government is an over-reaction; it's an over-reaction not just to the presence of inconvenient facts, but also to the problem of people not staying in their lanes.

I, too, believe in climate change - I even believe in climate warming.  I don't attach any credibility to hypotheses of imminent climate doom, which are essentially predictions of some very crude and incomplete computer models and some occasionally incompetent statistical analyses - those, too, are facts.  The pressure to prove imminent man-made doom is taking money and manpower away from the study of other climate change drivers.  A greater concern is the opportunity cost of fixing major public policies around wild guesses.  Candidates who are on board with spending vast sums on climate change abatement policies are inhumane and rarely demonstrate a quantitative grasp of what is implied by their qualitative assertions.

We don't have enough money to fix every policy problem, and we don't need to fix every problem shown to exist.

"Expert" is a relative claim.  It means a person knows much of what is known about a topic, not that a person knows much of what there is to know.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "Expert" is a relative claim.  It means a person knows much of what is known about a topic, not that a person knows much of what there is to know.



:nod:  

Up until the 15th Century, those in the know, knew that you'd fall off the edge of the Earth into space when you got to the edge of the oceans...

As a branch plan, we can apparently all relocate to the ever growing Antarctic ice plate when things get to warm in the Northern hemisphere.


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Jul 2015)

Required reading for anyone who wants to understand what this government has done and is trying to do to democracy in Canada, no matter what party you support. 


http://canadians.org/sites/default/files/publications/report-broken-covenant.pdf


----------



## George Wallace (29 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Required reading for anyone who wants to understand what this government has done and is trying to do to democracy in Canada, no matter what party you support.
> 
> 
> http://canadians.org/sites/default/files/publications/report-broken-covenant.pdf



Sorry.  Once I saw "Maude Barlow" and "The Council of Canadians", I was immediately turned off.  They have a 'socialist agenda' that I do not agree with, nor find practical, economical, and socially sustainable.  I would prefer we strive to do away with our 'Welfare State'.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (29 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry.  Once I saw "Maude Barlow" and "The Council of Canadians", I was immediately turned off.  They have a 'socialist agenda' that I do not agree with, nor find practical, economical, and socially sustainable.  I would prefer we strive to do away with our 'Welfare State'.



Some people have to use  whatever ammunition they have when they lose three very democratic elections in a row.  So who is supposed to believe that Harper is undemocratic?  The 39 % of the people who democratically elected him?  Barlow is preaching to the choir.  

It's just like Craig Oliver and Barney Fife going into their 10th year of Harper scandal of the week.  Everyone who would ever vote Conservative wrote them off a whiny little schoolgirls 10 years ago.  10 years of supposed scandals and the Conservatives are as well off as when they started.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My choice, from amongst sitting MPs, for leader of the LPC would be:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think that Justin Trudeau is, right this minute, facing a HUGE problem: the "bloom is off the rose," the "new car smell" has faded, and so on. The media has stopped fawning and is asking some hard questions; the Conservatives may have successfully _defined_ M Trudeau as _"Just Not Ready."_

This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is, generally, favourable and quotes M Trudeau's team and followers at some length, but the problem is that the article exists at all, the fact that it was written and published indicated that there is cause for real worry in Liberal ranks:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/backers-fear-that-missing-in-action-trudeau-losing-bid-to-lead-canada/article25748545/


> Backers fear that missing in action, Trudeau losing bid to lead Canada
> 
> DAVID LJUNGGREN AND ALLISON LAMPERT
> OTTAWA/MONTREAL — Reuters (Includes Correction)
> ...




There are a lot of people, really a lot, including Maude Barlow (see above, on this page) who yearn for the days of Pierre Elliot Trudeau ~ those people ALL failed Economics 101, but they loved the _statist_, _silk stocking semi-socialist_, il considered left wing policies that Prime Minister Trudeau loaded upon the backs of the Canadian middle class. It was the _"just society"_ about which they all dreamed (but never "costed" on a balance sheet). Most people, including many Liberals, know that those policies failed. Michael Ignatieff proved it when he suggested that the LPC should campaign on the left ... he never intended to govern from the left, but he believed, incorrectly, that Canadians, broadly, still shared Pierre Trudeau's _vision_ ~ they don't! Canada has changed. The LPC needs to change with it.

M Trudeau is a nice young man; I think I would like to have them as neighbours and friends; I wish him well ... I also wish for a new Liberal leader: a grownup.


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Sorry.  Once I saw "Maude Barlow" and "The Council of Canadians", I was immediately turned off.  They have a 'socialist agenda' that I do not agree with, nor find practical, economical, and socially sustainable.  I would prefer we strive to do away with our 'Welfare State'.





			
				Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Some people have to use  whatever ammunition they have when they lose three very democratic elections in a row.  So who is supposed to believe that Harper is undemocratic?  The 39 % of the people who democratically elected him?  Barlow is preaching to the choir.
> 
> It's just like Craig Oliver and Barney Fife going into their 10th tear of Harper scandal of the week.  Everyone who would ever vote Conservative wrote them off a whiny little schoolgirls 10 years ago.  10 years of supposed scandals and the Conservatives are as well off as when they started.




I would encourage both of you to read the report and decide before you judge it based on the source. Everything in it is verifiable and fact based. The author describes past Conservative and Liberal government policies in a favourable light. The point is, this government IS different. Canada has not seen anything like this before, and we are now less democratic.

Also, "three very democratic elections"? The last one saw a 20 something staffer being tossed in jail for misleading voters. The Conservatives are actively practicing voter suppression.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (29 Jul 2015)

Yeh Yeh!  They prorogued Parliament and eliminated the long-form census, thus ending civilization.  You've bought.  I suspect a critical 39 % hasn't.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I would encourage both of you to read the report and decide before you judge it based on the source. Everything in it is verifiable and fact based. The author describes past Conservative and Liberal government policies in a favourable light. The point is, this government IS different. Canada has not seen anything like this before, and we are now less democratic.
> 
> Also, "three very democratic elections"? The last one saw a 20 something staffer being tossed in jail for misleading voters. The Conservatives are actively practicing voter suppression.





> From the report:
> This is a Prime Minister that prorogued Parliament not once, but twice, when it suited his political agenda.



Okay, so technically, even though it is the Sovereign's representative who prorogues government (GG for Federal, LGs for Provinces) to end the parliamentary session, let's give the author the benefit of the doubt...the Right Honourable Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament twice.

"So what," you ask?

Well, that means that Mr. Harper has to prorgue Government yet again for a third time to even try to match the record of Bob Rae, as NDP Premier of Ontario from 1990 to 1995.  Rae's accumulated prorogation totalled a whopping 373 days, more than a year in total  and the last time in 1995, they didn't even return to sit before dissolution...AND the NDP didn't even table a '95 budget.  So Harper is worse than (now) Liberal Bob Rae?  

*scratches head wondering what Kilo's point was again?*


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I would encourage both of you to read the report and decide before you judge it based on the source. Everything in it is verifiable and fact based. The author describes past Conservative and Liberal government policies in a favourable light. _The point is, this government IS different._ _✔ I agree. And the leader of this "different" government has faced new and different challenges and he has responded in ways that bother some Canadians but most seem OK with his broad policy direction. Maybe because the country is "different" than it was in the 1970s._ Canada has not seen anything like this before, and _we are now less democratic_. _✘ I disagree. Maude Barlow may think we are less democratic but she has a list of worries, not facts. There are different sizes and shapes of democracy: ours is neither the best (we have an appointed legislature for heaven's sake) nor the most sophisticated. But it suits us well enough._
> 
> Also, "three very democratic elections"? The last one saw a 20 something staffer being tossed in jail for misleading voters. _The Conservatives are actively practicing voter suppression_.
> :bullshit:
> _This is too tendentious to even merit a comment_


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jul 2015)

Aside from trivia like the long form census (a marketing survey done at taxpayer expense), I think Edward has brought the issues into sharp relief. Canada and Candians have changed, so Mr Ignatieff's "Campaign from the Left", while it might have been appropriate 30 years ago, simply did not fit into the modern Canadian landscape. Jack Layton was far better and more authentic at "campaigning from the Left", and no one doubted for a second that he really meant it as well.

The realities are that the political, social, economic and demographic foundations have shifted since the 1980's (bracketed neatly by Preston Manning's book "The New Canada" and Bricker and Ibbitson's book "The Big Shift"). The Conservatives and the NDP have evolved with the times; the LPC has not. The question facing the electorate in the fall is basically "What party offers answers to the pressing issues of the day?" Parties which had no answers (Candian Social Credit, British Liberals American Whigs) were all rapidly eclipsed and vanished from the poloitical landscape, either as actual parties or as relevant political instruments.

The Liberals have a very strong "brand" which may survive being frittered away over multiple electoral cycles (Mr Dithers, Mr Dion, Mr Ignatieff and the Young Dauphin), but each time they spend their political capital that way, it becomes harder to recover, and there is more detritus to clear away. I suspect that the "next" Libreal leader will only become successful if they spend the period from 2015 to 2019 clearly outlining what Liberalism actually stands for (i.e. become a Transformative party) and outline what steps need to be taken to impliment the new Liberal vision (i.e. the transactive steps or "Art of Governance" needed).

This is also a very delicate balance; I could outline a theoretical program which will focus Federal Government activities very sharply curtail spending, lower taxes and make a dent in the national debt and unfunded liabilities. If I were the replacement of the Young Dauphin and was elected due to voter fatigue with the CPC while outlining that plan, I could also realistically expect to serve just one term before everyone whose ricebowls were broken massed to elect one of the other parties (regardless of how well the economy was doing or other factors). No matter how radical a plan or vision the new leader had, and no matter how skillfully communicated, unless there was some sort of crisis, small and incrimental steps would need to be taken.


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Jul 2015)

Sorry, what else would you call robocalls that steer voters to non-existent polling stations?


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Sorry, what else would you call robocalls that steer voters to non-existent polling stations?




How does a stupid, juvenile prank sound?

Of course I don't approve ... but he was a twenty-something kid; twenty-something's don't even have fully developed brains ~ that's why so many are _lefties_, they're stupid.

He was a stupid kid who did a dumb thing. Wrong thing? Yes, of course. Bad thing? Yes, that too. But "voter suppression?" Like I said: tendentious.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Jul 2015)

The history of dirty tricks in politics is largely unwritten, but one would be hard-pressed to find virtue in that area in any political party.  Robert Anson Heinlein wrote a fictional account of an election in "A Bathroom of Her Own", which includes numerous examples.  In a foreward to the story, he once wrote "Any old pol will recognize the politics in this story as the Real McCoy. Should be. Autobiographical in many details. Which details? Show me a warrant and I'll take the Fifth".


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> How does a stupid, juvenile prank sound?
> 
> Of course I don't approve ... but he was a twenty-something kid; twenty-something's don't even have fully developed brains ~ that's why so many are _lefties_, they're stupid.
> 
> He was a stupid kid who did a dumb thing. Wrong thing? Yes, of course. Bad thing? Yes, that too. But "voter suppression?" Like I said: tendentious.



Well, my turn to call "BULLSHIT!". It's a bit of a stretch to believe that a kid working for a political party did something as specific and targeted as misdirecting voters (to his party's advantage) and it was nothing more than a prank. There were 800 calls, and they were made using data from the party's Constituency Information Management System. The fact that only this kid was caught suggests to me he's taking the hit for whoever was directing him. It's far more likely that this goes up the ladder than it was a one-off prank by a junior staffer. You really are in denial.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Well, my turn to call "BULLSHIT!". It's a bit of a stretch to believe that a kid working for a political party did something as specific and targeted as misdirecting voters (to his party's advantage) and it was nothing more than a prank. There were 800 calls, and they were made using data from the party's Constituency Information Management System. The fact that only this kid was caught suggests to me he's taking the hit for whoever was directing him. It's far more likely that this goes up the ladder than it was a one-off prank by a junior staffer. You really are in denial.



Prove it.


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Prove it.



??? 

I did say it's "far more likely"  it is than he was just acting alone of his own volition. Again, 800 calls, using data from the CIMS, the effect of which was to make it harder to vote for parties OTHER than the Conservatives. I fail to see how this is a farfetched scenario. Do you really think this kid just woke up one day and decided to commit election fraud on a relatively large scale_ in a riding where it would make difference _ because it would be funny?


----------



## MARS (29 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Sorry, what else would you call robocalls that steer voters to non-existent polling stations?



I would call it Shenanigans.

I put it on the same level as candidates who engage in other unfortunate practises like overspending on their campaigns; signing up party members - the elderly or recent immigrants for example - who may or may not know what they are signing up for; using public funds for partisan purposes such as satellite offices; lying to voters during election campaigns about the things they will do if elected (although we actually call this last bit "campaign promises"); etc, etc.

They are all unfortunate and distasteful but I don't personally consider any of them to be outrageous in any sense.

My 2 cents


----------



## MARS (29 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The fact that only this kid was caught suggests to me he's taking the hit for whoever was directing him. It's far more likely that this goes up the ladder than it was a one-off prank by a junior staffer.


I agree with you, 100% actually.  I would hope that EVERY party has some sort of cell working away in a back room, generating a "dirty tricks" campaign.  This cell should be removed enough to provide deniability for the party if they were ever caught out.  And yeah, someone is going to take the fall if things go south.  I would expect that person to be well compensated for being the fall guy/gal though.  I would consider any party that didn't at least entertain this notion in some form to be rather unsophisticated and naive.  I would suggest someone like a Chief of Staff would be well placed to oversee this - again, in a fashion that provides complete deniability for the candidate or party in question.

I just don't think that this kind of thing is limited to the CPC, is all.


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Jul 2015)

We all have low expectations of politicians at this point, but I do think public service is a noble endeavor (even if the majority of those who pursue it tend to be on the megalomaniacal side). Anyone who actively tampers with the election process, whether it's Dean Del Mastro or this staffer should be punished to the full extent of the law (no matter the party affiliation, lest anyone think I'm a Liberal or NDP supporter). Viewing crimes like this as "shenanigans" or a "prank" is a disservice to anyone who has fought for democracy in Canada. We tend to forget that liberal democracies are a very new (and probably temporary) way of organizing things. If this is the best we've done, we need to protect that.




			
				MARS said:
			
		

> I just don't think that this kind of thing is limited to the CPC, is all.



Agreed. Although I do believe that under Harper, the Conservatives have taken things further than the Liberals have, no matter how despicable they've been at times.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I would encourage both of you to read the report and decide before you judge it based on the source. Everything in it is verifiable and fact based. The author describes past Conservative and Liberal government policies in a favourable light. The point is, this government IS different. Canada has not seen anything like this before, and we are now less democratic.
> 
> Also, "three very democratic elections"? The last one saw a 20 something staffer being tossed in jail for misleading voters. The Conservatives are actively practicing voter suppression.





> From the report:
> This is a Prime Minister that prorogued Parliament not once, but twice, when it suited his political agenda.





			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Okay, so technically, even though it is the Sovereign's representative who prorogues government (GG for Federal, LGs for Provinces) to end the parliamentary session, let's give the author the benefit of the doubt...the Right Honourable Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament twice.
> 
> "So what," you ask?
> 
> ...



So Kilo_302, I guess you must have overlooked the above?  No?



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I would encourage both of you to read the report and decide before you judge it based on the source. Everything in it is verifiable and fact based. The author describes past Conservative and Liberal government policies in a favourable light. The point is, this government IS different. Canada has not seen anything like this before, and we are now less democratic.


  

So I read the report and repeat my question to you based on the report you quoted, amongst other questions flowing from the report is "when is Stephen Harper worse than Bob Rae?"  

   ???


----------



## MARS (29 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> We all have low expectations of politicians at this point, but I do think public service is a noble endeavor (even if the majority of those who pursue it tend to be on the megalomaniacal side). Anyone who actively tampers with the election process, whether it's Dean Del Mastro or this staffer should be punished to the full extent of the law (no matter the party affiliation, lest anyone think I'm a Liberal or NDP supporter). Viewing crimes like this as "shenanigans" or a "prank" is a disservice to anyone who has fought for democracy in Canada. We tend to forget that liberal democracies are a very new (and probably temporary) way of organizing things. If this is the best we've done, we need to protect that.
> 
> 
> Agreed. Although I do believe that under Harper, the Conservatives have taken things further than the Liberals have, no matter how despicable they've been at times.



I agree with everything you wrote there, for sure.  Perhaps it is because I have such a low opinion of most politicians that I can't generate too much outrage over these things.  

The counter argument would be that these are the first steps down a slippery slope, but I personally am not sure that would be the case.  I can think of a whole host of other things that would worry me, but from which I could still see us able to arrest any fall before things got too bad.

Im not sure that Prime Minster Harper has taken things further, I think he simply has an unsophisticated, ham fisted way of doing disagreeabkle things that is really quite unappealing to most.  That is pretty irritating, i have to admit.  Drives me nuts that he and his party get burned for some of the stuff they do.  Im not convinced the CPC is irreparably harming the country, if thats the concern.  But then again, they are winning elections, so who am I to criticize.  :-\

Just because I call them shenanigans doesn't mean I disagree with you on punishing them, again if only for being so stupid as to get caught out.  I do think democracy is an imperfect and often dirty business and these kinds of things are just part of that.

 :radar:

That smiley has no bearing on this discussion.  I was looking for a 'shrug' smiley and thought the radar one looked neat...


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Jul 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So Kilo_302, I guess you must have overlooked the above?  No?
> 
> 
> So I read the report and repeat my question to you based on the report you quoted, amongst other questions flowing from the report is "when is Stephen Harper worse than Bob Rae?"
> ...



That's one point out of dozens she makes. I'm no Bob Rae supporter, and what he did was also undemocratic. 

Look, as we've been discussing, ALL parties and MANY politicians have acted inappropriately, or even broken the law at times. It's the sheer scale of offenses that the Conservatives are racking up that has people talking. The argument "but they did it too" doesn't hold water if what "they" did was a fraction of what our current government is doing. We've got left wing radicals like Brian Mulroney coming out and saying Harper has crossed the line. It's different this time, I'm not sure why that's so hard for some people to see.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jul 2015)

Here's a thought: perhaps some folks agree with dismantling government - and it is neither a surprise nor is it undesirable.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> That's one point out of dozens she makes. I'm no Bob Rae supporter, and what he did was also undemocratic.
> 
> Look, as we've been discussing, ALL parties and MANY politicians have acted inappropriately, or even broken the law at times. It's the sheer scale of offenses that the Conservatives are racking up that has people talking. The argument "but they did it too" doesn't hold water if what "they" did was a fraction of what our current government is doing. We've got left wing radicals like Brian Mulroney coming out and saying Harper has crossed the line. It's different this time, I'm not sure why that's so hard for some people to see.



Not "they did it too," but "they did it worse than the Cons."   

...but don't let that ruin your narrative -- you keep picking only the issues that support your case.  It's actually becoming somewhat endearing...if not comfortably predictable.

Perhaps next time you should be more specific when recommending that people read the reference you provide, and state which parts they should read so as to avoid those inconvenient portions that make your mortal enemy appear less evil.


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Jul 2015)

Again, there's nothing inconvenient about that  "portion." I am not a Bob Rae fan. I'll repeat it since it appears the movie Memento was inspired your true story: I am not a Liberal supporter and while I'm voting NDP I'm no fan of theirs either. You'll have a hard time convincing me however that Harper's government isn't decidedly worse than previous governments. Again (again), we're seeing Conservative supporters come out in increasing numbers against Harper because he no longer represents what they believe in. Andrew Coyne has written at length about this. My "narrative" is based on many things, not least of which is the incredible dissonance required to believe that the Harper government is conservative in the first place. If anything, your inability to understand that Harper is different than say, a Mulroney or a Joe Clark, your ideological rigidity, would suggest that YOU are following a narrative. A deeply entrenched one at that.


----------



## McG (29 Jul 2015)

Can we, maybe, keep this thread about its topic and not about our opinions of other posters?


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Jul 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Can we, maybe, keep this thread about its topic and not about our opinions of other posters?


----------



## cupper (29 Jul 2015)

Ha. Imagine that. A campaign that lasts only only 11 weeks. Pity.

* Federal election 2015: Stephen Harper to launch campaign as early as Sunday*

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/federal-election-2015-stephen-harper-to-launch-campaign-as-early-as-sunday-1.3172602



> Prime Minister Stephen Harper will call an election as early as this Sunday, kicking off what would be the longest federal election campaign in modern history, CBC News has confirmed.
> 
> The election is generally considered to be set for Oct. 19, 2015, under the Conservatives' fixed election law, although there is wiggle room. But Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Bloomberg News Wednesday that he considers that date to be set in stone.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jul 2015)

The _tactical_ advantage in a long campaign goes to the CPC in the sense that the LPC and NDP are less "rich" and will have some difficulty in allocating their financial resources in the long haul.

There is a risk, however ...

I remind readers of something the late Harold Macmillan* _might_ have said in response to a question regarding just what would defeat his government: "Events, dear boy, events," _SupeMac_ is reported to have responded. A lot of _events_ can transpire in a long campaign and at least some (likely many) of them will bite the CPC in the ass.


_____
* Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, (1894 – 1986) was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1957 to 1963.
   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



   Also know as _SuperMac_


----------



## George Wallace (29 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Again, there's nothing inconvenient about that  "portion." I am not a Bob Rae fan. I'll repeat it since it appears the movie Memento was inspired your true story: I am not a Liberal supporter and while I'm voting NDP I'm no fan of theirs either. You'll have a hard time convincing me however that Harper's government isn't decidedly worse than previous governments. Again (again), we're seeing Conservative supporters come out in increasing numbers against Harper because he no longer represents what they believe in. Andrew Coyne has written at length about this. My "narrative" is based on many things, not least of which is the incredible dissonance required to believe that the Harper government is conservative in the first place. If anything, your inability to understand that Harper is different than say, a Mulroney or a Joe Clark, your ideological rigidity, would suggest that YOU are following a narrative. A deeply entrenched one at that.



Conservative supporters coming out in increasing numbers against Harper, does not necessarily represent a fact that they are jumping ship.  They are voicing their discontent.  If they did not do so, and accepted the status quo, then nothing would change in the Conservative platform.  If the membership voices their opinions, then the leadership will, or should, take notice, and that to me is a good thing.   If the membership is apathetic to the direction the Party is going, then there would be no such voicing of discontent.  Of course, if you really think that the leadership is a 'dictatorship' and will not listen to the Party membership, then of course they deserve to lose.  Do you really think the leadership is that dumb?


----------



## cupper (29 Jul 2015)

The rumblings within the CPC are simply a warning to Harper that this needs to be a successful election for the party (ie a majority win) or he will need to step down as leader, and allow the party to begin a rebuild.

I've said this before, I think he should have taken the traditional walk in the snow and allow a new leader time to move the party in a more favorable direction, or at least begin the process of putting the party in a position of surviving the upcoming election without being a bunch of also rans.

Interestingly enough, only Laurier and MacDonald have won 4 consecutive elections.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jul 2015)

Funny thing about Harper - his body language doesn't look any different now than any time earlier.

I honestly don't think it bothers him if he wins or loses.  He wants to win but I believe he is comfortable with losing if he believes he has done what he can.

I wouldn't play poker with him.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jul 2015)

Prime Minister Harper is obviously scary smart to have made so many strategic and tactical victories throughout his political career (from merging the Reform and PC's to becoming PM with a majority government), but he is also human, so I suspect there is an element of Hubris involved.

He may well have contemplated the "walk in the snow" option, but there is the issue of leaving at the height of his power, and his very probable desire to end his political career with the Young Dauphin's scalp on his belt, to display with the other three. I think his "ideal" outcome would be to win with a reduced majority in 2015, then call a leadership convention at some time thereafter to "renew" the party and gracefully step down before the 2019 election (when he will retire and a new candidate will be groomed for his riding as well).

Since no plan survives contact with the enemy, we have no way of knowing how this will play out on the end. Tom Mulcair gets a very large vote, the Young Dauphin gets a small one but even Elizabeth May could find some way to stumble in the path of the oncoming party machinery and derail one or more campaigns. Perhaps even the Libertarians could finally unleash the horde of cats they have been gathering for the last 20 years, or something equally unlikely from one of the other 19 registered parties could cause consternation and upset carefully made plans. (I might also get a pony....).

So in the end, the only poll which will count is the one on election day....


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Jul 2015)

I think that even a minority could be considered a win. Mr Harper gets to serve at least one year and then call a leadership confernce to set his successor up for the inevitable fall of the government.


----------



## cupper (29 Jul 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think that even a minority could be considered a win. Mr Harper gets to serve at least one year and then call a leadership confernce to set his successor up for the inevitable fall of the government.



I think that it would need to be a substantial minority, not just a squeak by the second place party result. There are too many unhappy people behind the scenes, and some potential successors who walked before things got nasty to allow a skin of the teeth win to stand.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Jul 2015)

Harper is different from Mulroney, certainly.  I don't think anyone has accused Harper of taking money, or for that matter intervening to obtain favourable treatment in a real estate deal.  No-one has accused any of Harper's COS of altering a document to protect Harper.  Harper is, fortunately, a pretty bland guy; I'm sure if he were caught on questionable premises he'd dominate the Canadian internet for a while.

People's disagreements with Harper are about policy.  Remarkably, there are still no hordes of soldiers with guns in the streets.


----------



## Harrigan (30 Jul 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Conservative supporters coming out in increasing numbers against Harper, does not necessarily represent a fact that they are jumping ship.  They are voicing their discontent.  If they did not do so, and accepted the status quo, then nothing would change in the Conservative platform.  If the membership voices their opinions, then the leadership will, or should, take notice, and that to me is a good thing.   If the membership is apathetic to the direction the Party is going, then there would be no such voicing of discontent.  Of course, if you really think that the leadership is a 'dictatorship' and will not listen to the Party membership, then of course they deserve to lose.  Do you really think the leadership is that dumb?



But I thought that "membership voicing their discontent" was the sign of a civil war within the party?   ;D

Harrigan

P.S. I am joking of course, but surely you see my point.


----------



## Harrigan (30 Jul 2015)

I am glad someone mentioned debt in an earlier post.  I am concerned about the shape of the nations's debt-to-GDP ratio, and what the three parties intend to do to address it and ideally get it back to where it was in 1988 and 2007.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/government-debt-to-gdp

As you can see, being a "left-wing government" or a "right-wing government" does not appear to have any bearing at all on how the government manages our money.  Both have good and bad history.

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (30 Jul 2015)

Here's a separate question that I'll frame in an Electoral perspective:

Given that the one constant in efforts within the CAF to reduce budgets in various iterations was that the two sacred cows are personnel numbers and infrastructure (ie. bases), do you think there might be movement post election in one or both of these depending on who wins?  Obviously those two areas are both the ones with the most impact at the voting booth and a massive chunk of our defence budget - and effectively untouchable.

I guess what I am asking is:  Do you think there could be a reduction in personnel and/or bases post-October?

Harrigan


----------



## Remius (30 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Here's a separate question that I'll frame in an Electoral perspective:
> 
> Given that the one constant in efforts within the CAF to reduce budgets in various iterations was that the two sacred cows are personnel numbers and infrastructure (ie. bases), do you think there might be movement post election in one or both of these depending on who wins?  Obviously those two areas are both the ones with the most impact at the voting booth and a massive chunk of our defence budget - and effectively untouchable.
> 
> ...



Yes.   

The CPC certainly don't/didn't want to see this before an election.  My guess is that post election, our new CDS will be given broad directions on making the forces leaner.  You know, the same language we've been hearing.  The CPC have been cutting the CAF through neglect but after a win would be ina position to do it through cuts and re-allocations.  Not sure exactly where, but I see a plan to increase the reserves (this way they can claim that they aren't really cutting anything), a reduction in top heavy positions, a further reduction in non-reserve class b positions and the real possibilty of losing an infantry batallion (likely by merging understrength ones).  CANSOFCOM to get an increase in numbers and budget.  Navy to get a bit of attention recruiting wise and an airforce that will be left stagnant. 

If the NDP get in and I see a retraction in operations, increase in reserves while reducing the regular force.  Combat arms to likely take the brunt of that one as teh mentality will be domestic ops and humanitarian aid.  CANSOFCOM to remain the same.  Savings through attrition and by slowing recruiting into the regular force.  ironically I see reserve restructuring as more of a possibility under an NDP government than under a CPC one. 

As for bases I doubt either will cut or close any but I wouldn't be shocked if some facilities and land on bases get sold. 

You'll notice I didn't mention the liberals as I doubt they will form government so my hypothetical will not have any basis due to the practical not having a chance of happening.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Jul 2015)

Problem is that closures incur upfront costs for longer term savings, so they may not be popular options if savings are required immediately.  That said, moving 1 RCHA and 2 VP to Edmonton (or Wainwright) would let us turn out the lights in Shilo; Goose Bay is long overdue for closure... there are numerous other installations that have likely outlived their usefulness as well.

On the personnel front, the question becomes "What do we expect the CAF to do?"  Pers and equipment should be driven by that question - and not by the unfortunate parochial concerns that require us to have a Reg F infantry organized with battalions in some multiple of three to maintain a balance of terror.  Selection and maintenance of the aim is followed - but the aim is not always readiness of forces to meet the nation's needs.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jul 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Here's a separate question that I'll frame in an Electoral perspective:
> 
> Given that the one constant in efforts within the CAF to reduce budgets in various iterations was that the two sacred cows are personnel numbers and infrastructure (ie. bases), do you think there might be movement post election in one or both of these depending on who wins?  Obviously those two areas are both the ones with the most impact at the voting booth and a massive chunk of our defence budget - and effectively untouchable.
> 
> ...




_I think_ the more pertinent question is: does anyone really important really care any more?

I know we care, and so does Gen Vance, of course, and Jason Kenny cares too (and he, Kenny, is pretty important) but my question remains: does anyone _*really important*_ really care any more?

Back in June of 2012 the prime minister (who is _*really important*_) sent a letter (presumably drafted by the Clerk of the Privy Council, who is also _really important_) to Defence Minister Peter Mackay (who is pretty important) telling him to cut some _fat_ from the "administrative" side ~ people (including those in HQs) and some real property, too. The minister, presumably advised by his CDS (then Gen Walt Natynczyk, six months later it was Gen Tom Lawson), decided to ignore the "guidance" from the _*really important*_ people in the centre and, now, we have the current mess.

What I find interesting is that nothing happened ... _My guess_ is that Prime Minister Harper _*did care*_, but not enough to fire his MND; but, seeing that his minister and CDS didn't care enough, he, Prime Minister Harper, moved on to other, more pressing matters. _I suspect_ we you the CF had a window of opportunity to secure the prime minister's attention and they, the MND and CDS _et al_ screwed the CF the country by placing the wants of a few admirals and generals over the needs of the organization and the government.

_I don't believe _that any Canadian prime minister since Louis St Laurent has actually *cared* about the military ~ and M St Laurent only cared to the extent that the CF was doing, efficiently and effectively, the role he had assigned them in his quest to make Canada a "leading middle power." (Prime Minister Trudeau _*cared*_, in his own, way: he actively _disliked_ the military ~ seeing it as a mindless tool of nationalism, his "great evil" in society, and he mistrusted the people in it, including the most senior _Francophomnes_. M Trudeau's dislike was _principled_, not personal.) I do _not believe_ that Prime Minister Harper ever really _cared_, but he was willing to, and did invest some political capital in DND ~ that letter was important to him and to DND ~ but when he got _no return on his investment_ he turned his attention to more fruitful endeavours.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _I think_ the more pertinent question is: does anyone really important really care any more?
> 
> ...
> 
> What I find interesting is that nothing happened ... _My guess_ is that Prime Minister Harper _*did care*_, but not enough to fire his MND; but, seeing that his minister and CDS didn't care enough, he, Prime Minister Harper, moved on to other, more pressing matters. _I suspect_ we you the CF had a window of opportunity to secure the prime minister's attention and they, the MND and CDS _et al_ screwed the CF the country by placing the wants of a few admirals and generals over the needs of the organization and the government....



I can't help but wonder how often that window has been assaulted, and occasionally levered open, only to be slammed shut by the institutional inertia behind it.

I love tradition.  But I also want to see a reactive, adaptive force that is supplying real value to the citizens of Canada, through their government, operating in the real world.

To be honest, at this stage, after 12 years of listening to, and participating in, these discussions, I would be just as happy if the Canadian Army disappeared and the dollars and manpower assigned to CANSOFCOM and CJOC.  The Canadian Army and CADTC could soldier on in the Militia.

If you want to maintain traditions then kilts, rifle green tunics and tan berets on CANSOFCOM troopers would make quite a fashion statement - and you could wear the kilts Aberdeen style - with cowboy boots.


----------



## Remius (30 Jul 2015)

In other related election news, does anyone else see this as the Ontario Liberals doing the LPC a favour?  Looks almost like baiting in the hopes that Ontarians will turn away from the CPC.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-liberals-want-federal-support-for-pension-plan-1.3173930


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jul 2015)

But, I see that the CPC is calling it (as the CBC item notes)  the _"Trudeau-Wynne Massive Payroll Tax Hike."_

There is considerable opposition, in Ontario, especially from e.g. small business owners, to the _Ontario Retirement Pension Plan_, just as there is considerable support from the expected quarters.

It seems, over the past few days, anyway, that the CPC attacks have turned away from _"Just Not Ready"_ and towards economic issues ...







But it is possible to combine the two:






The Conservative Party of Canada _seems to believe_ that there is enough opposition to Premier Wynne's policies in the ridings in which they (the CPC) need to win to create a _wedge_ that can be used against Liberals.


----------



## Acorn (30 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Harper is different from Mulroney, certainly.  I don't think anyone has accused Harper of taking money, or for that matter intervening to obtain favourable treatment in a real estate deal.  No-one has accused any of Harper's COS of altering a document to protect Harper.  Harper is, fortunately, a pretty bland guy; I'm sure if he were caught on questionable premises he'd dominate the Canadian internet for a while.
> 
> People's disagreements with Harper are about policy.  Remarkably, there are still no hordes of soldiers with guns in the streets.



No, but they have accused his COS of "buying off" The Ol' Duff. My concerns about the party are the direction it has taken which deviates from the path promised - transparency, trustworthiness, no more "business as usual" politics. But every move I can see over the past five years seems in the direction of one goal - remaining in power.

Things like the dirty tricks described above as "pranks" are a result of the direction of the leadership, if not explicitly directed. The Duffy payoff (and the original appointment) was a failure of leadership. Making Tony "Gazebo" Clement head of the Treasury Board (!) is a failure of leadership - though to be fair, Clement hasn't had an original thought and he seems good at repeating the party line even in the face of court challenges, so I guess he's a suitable puppet appointment for a leadership that wants central control. Fantino? Are you kidding me? And Blaney has a creepy resemblance to The Smoking Man (OK, I admit that'sunfair, but I couldn't resist).

Then there's the new tactic, since the SCC proved to be less than co-operative: neglect. It's been mentioned above regarding the CF - for years the Army got stuff because of Afghanistan while the Air Force got what it needed to support the Army - all good. But the RCAF and RCN have really been neglected throughout the current gov'ts tenure. If I was a cynic I'd think the CF was just a platform for photo ops. But that can't be, can it, given the tough stance on Foreign Affairs. Nonna that lefty crap about diplomacy and stuff.

Why did Baird quit in such a fashion? Or McKay? Or the others who have taken a walk in the past few months? They think the leadership has set course for the rocks and tied down the wheel. Kenney may weather it, or he may end up Kim Campbelled.

Whatever else this election is, it will be the one that has me most conflicted marking my ballot since I first voted. At least I still can, even though I've been out of the country for a bit more than three and a half years.


----------



## Kilo_302 (30 Jul 2015)

Here's an article that describes the government's dismal record of managing the economy:


http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/07/worst-canadas-economy-under-harper-government



> The very poor economic record of the Harper government cannot be blamed on the fact that Canada experienced a recession in 2008-09. In fact, Canada experienced a total of 10 recessions during the 1946-2014 period. Most governments had to grapple with recession at some point during their tenures -- and some prime ministers had to deal with more than one. Instead, statistical evidence shows that the recovery from the 2008-09 recession has been the weakest (by far) of any Canadian recovery since the Depression. A uniquely weak recovery, not the fact that Canada experienced a recession at all, helps explains the Harper government's poor economic rating.




Also, Acorn it looks like your questions regarding Baird may be answered soon. This is gonna be good.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/anonymous-threatens-to-decrypt-text-messages-from-john-baird-to-reveal-real-reason-he-left-politics



> Hackers with Anonymous — who last week leaked a seemingly legitimate secret document on cyber-security at Canada’s spy agency — threatened Wednesday to release decrypted text messages from former Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird allegedly showing the “real reason” why he abruptly left politics.
> 
> The warning was made in social media from an account the National Post confirms is one that has been operated by activists responsible for the CSIS leak.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jul 2015)

Acorn said:
			
		

> No, but they have accused his COS of "buying off" The Ol' Duff. My concerns about the party are the direction it has taken which deviates from the path promised - transparency, trustworthiness, no more "business as usual" politics. But every move I can see over the past five years seems in the direction of one goal - remaining in power.
> 
> Things like the dirty tricks described above as "pranks" are a result of the direction of the leadership, if not explicitly directed. The Duffy payoff (and the original appointment) was a failure of leadership. Making Tony "Gazebo" Clement head of the Treasury Board (!) is a failure of leadership - though to be fair, Clement hasn't had an original thought and he seems good at repeating the party line even in the face of court challenges, so I guess he's a suitable puppet appointment for a leadership that wants central control. Fantino? Are you kidding me? And Blaney has a creepy resemblance to The Smoking Man (OK, I admit that'sunfair, but I couldn't resist).
> 
> ...




Not quite, for me, but I'm a lot older than most and I cast my first ballot in the early 1960s ~ for Prime Minister Pearson's Liberals, but I never voted Liberal again after Pearson retired. I disagreed with Pearson's Liberals on social policy, they were "lurching left" at that time, but I disagreed even more with John Diefenbaker's Conservatives on on several key issues, including his own leadership (but not on civil rights where the Tories always were out in front of the Liberals, nor on his _vision_ for the North).

But, you're right, I will be conflicted, too ... but, _I am convinced_ that Prime Minister Harper's Conservatives are the least bad choice, even though I disagree, in a few cases quite vehemently, with about half of their policies ~ in so far as I understand them. The problem is that I disagree, even more vehemently, with almost everything Messers Mulcair and Trudeau appear to propose ~ again as far as I can understand what they're saying since both seem to have different policies for different parts of the country. Of course it's no secret that I completely mistrust M Trudeau's leadership ~ I think he is _weak_ and _*indecisive*_, little more than a ventriloquist's dummy with good looks and even better hair. (I do trust M Mulcair's leadership ~ I'm just not persuaded that he can drag his party into the political centre with him.)

_I believe_ that the whole of politics in all (almost all, anyway) of the modern, _liberal_, Western democracies is broken ~ parties are, most often, captive of special interests with money, on all sides of the many and varied issues; the _*business*_ of politics has become a public relations exercise ~ marketing has overwhelmed policy ideas; leadership has been replaced by _image_ ~ how else to explain M Trudeau? I was never surprised when the late Lee Kuan Yew expressed his _fear_ that the _liberal_ democracies were sowing the seeds of their own destruction through their selfishness and disregard for their communities; he was a Confucian and a lawyer: he came close to worshiping the rule of law and he despised the sort of rampant individualism that, he thought, _weakened_ the Western _liberal_ democracies. I watched this _evolution_ from our own _communitarian liberalism_, in the 1950s and '60s, under e.g. St Laurent and Eisenhower, to a mix of rampant _individualism_ coupled, contradictorily, with the rise of the _entitled_ "nanny state." We tossed aside the values of Main Street in favour of behind the scenes rule by Wall Street and Bay Street in and after the 1970s (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter and Trudeau, in Canada).

I'm not surprised that you and I find it almost distasteful to cast our votes ... it's a bit like giving money to panhandlers when you know, for certain, that it will just go for booze or drugs.


----------



## Remius (30 Jul 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Here's an article that describes the government's dismal record of managing the economy:
> 
> 
> http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/07/worst-canadas-economy-under-harper-government
> ...



Kilo, I actually respect your positions on all of this despite not always agreeing.  I do agree with some of your points and positions at times, but quoting anything from rabble.ca is akin to someone quoting something from sun TV. Both are on the extreme of each spectrum.  No one is going to take that seriously. 

As to the other thing about John Baird, I concur.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jul 2015)

Good numbers for the NDP ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Jul 2015)

>2008-09 recession has been the weakest (by far) of any Canadian recovery since the Depression. A uniquely weak recovery, not the fact that Canada experienced a recession at all, helps explains the Harper government's poor economic rating.

That is what you get from weak minds, or minds determined to hide inconvenient facts.  Most countries experienced uniquely - or uncommonly - weak recoveries since the 2008-2009 recession.  Canada's recovery has been remarked upon at various points in time since the recession as being one of the stronger ones relative to other nations.


----------



## cupper (30 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >2008-09 recession has been the weakest (by far) of any Canadian recovery since the Depression. A uniquely weak recovery, not the fact that Canada experienced a recession at all, helps explains the Harper government's poor economic rating.
> 
> That is what you get from weak minds, or minds determined to hide inconvenient facts.  Most countries experienced uniquely - or uncommonly - weak recoveries since the 2008-2009 recession.  Canada's recovery has been remarked upon at various points in time since the recession as being one of the stronger ones relative to other nations.



To add to that, Canada was not impacted as significantly as other countries, particularly the US with respect to the collapse of the housing markets, and needs for bailouts for financial institutions.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Jul 2015)

>Why did Baird quit in such a fashion? Or McKay? Or the others who have taken a walk in the past few months? They think the leadership has set course for the rocks and tied down the wheel. 

The pension rules change is a simpler explanation.  To that we can add the fact that most of the people involved had reached the end of the typical length of service of a parliamentarian.

I'm underwhelmed by whether or not some of Harper's appointments have been mediocre.  But I live in BC, where the NDP has been dominated for much of the past two decades by the Clark - Sihota - Dix - Etc wing.  The bar for my disapproval is high.


----------



## cupper (31 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Why did Baird quit in such a fashion? Or McKay? Or the others who have taken a walk in the past few months? They think the leadership has set course for the rocks and tied down the wheel.
> 
> The pension rules change is a simpler explanation.  To that we can add the fact that most of the people involved had reached the end of the typical length of service of a parliamentarian.



I can't buy that explanation with regards to McKay. Having met him several times in his pre MP days, I think a better explanation is there was no progression for him as long as Harper was in the leader's seat.


----------



## Harrigan (31 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _I think_ the more pertinent question is: does anyone really important really care any more?
> 
> I know we care, and so does Gen Vance, of course, and Jason Kenny cares too (and he, Kenny, is pretty important) but my question remains: does anyone _*really important*_ really care any more?
> 
> ...



Well, I assume the PM doesn't read this website, so my question was aimed more at us, not at him.  

I don't disagree with your subsequent comments, but I am interested to know if people think the restraints placed on reducing the size of the CF and closing unnecessary bases will be eased post-election, regardless of who is in power.  I know of many within the CAF who would much rather have closed a base than cut O&M year after year.  

dapaterson has provided two examples that I probably agree with.  Goose Bay seems a no-brainer.  Shilo seems a reasonable choice, though the negative impact on the local economy would be far greater there than Edmonton, which plays a factor.

Harrigan


----------



## Kilo_302 (31 Jul 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >2008-09 recession has been the weakest (by far) of any Canadian recovery since the Depression. A uniquely weak recovery, not the fact that Canada experienced a recession at all, helps explains the Harper government's poor economic rating.
> 
> That is what you get from weak minds, or minds determined to hide inconvenient facts.  Most countries experienced uniquely - or uncommonly - weak recoveries since the 2008-2009 recession.  Canada's recovery has been remarked upon at various points in time since the recession as being one of the stronger ones relative to other nations.



Yes but being "remarked upon" is not the same as hard data. The fact is we are not recovering as fast as we could be, and this in a large part due to government policy. Jim Stanford is not what I would call a "weak mind," though you probably would disagree with him on many things. 

http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/07/31/Unifor-Report/



> Economist Mike Moffatt of Ontario's Mowat Centre, an independent think tank, reviewed the report and said it holds up to scrutiny.
> 
> Moffatt said the figures in the report are accurate, but more context would help explain why the economy has performed poorly.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jul 2015)

What Jim Stanford, and many economists, especially on the _left_, want is more and more spending. They note, correctly that _stimulus_ can create (temporary) jobs and alleviate some of the effects of a recession.

Other economist take a longer view and believe that frugality is necessary to _strengthen_ the economy for the long term.

You will not be surprised that I, being a _utilitarian_ (the greatest good for the greatest number, and all that) favour the second course of action.

First: _I believe _that some unemployment and _pain_ is good for a growing economy, there needs to be a "pool" of willing workers to allow new industries/businesses to grow.

Second: I do not oppose borrowing (bonds) to finance infrastructure maintenance and replacement ~ sewers, water mains, roads, transit systems and bridges, airports, seaports and so on, but not arenas or even public housing. The bonds must be long term, the life of the infrastructure and some roads and bridges and airports and so on ought to have some user fees.

Third: I vehemently oppose even a single new dollar for any social programme, and that includes child care benefits.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jul 2015)

David Akin (_Sun News_) posted this (from _iPolitics_):






Decided and leaning, only ~ undecideds not counted

NDP and CPC continue to "grow" their support, Liberals continue to fall.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jul 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_ is some advice, very good advice, _in my opinion_, for Justin Trudeau, but it's from a highly suspect source (Andrew MacDougall, a former communications director in Stephen Harper's PMO):

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/macdougall-some-sincere-advice-for-justin-trudeau?hootPostID=3dedef9104005b845021b0b59473951f


> Some (sincere) advice for Justin Trudeau
> 
> ANDREW MACDOUGALL
> 
> ...




I am, like Andrew MacDougall ~ and there should be many of us in the _Conservative_ ranks ~ "someone with a sincere interest in seeing a competitive Liberal Party that is able to siphon votes off the NDP," I go even farther: I want the Liberal Party, not the NDP, to be the _alternative_, government-in-waiting, ready to take over when, NOT IF, the CPC becomes old, stale, corrupt and in need of a rest, likely in or before 2019.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jul 2015)

More bad news for M Trudeau: _CBC News_ reports that "While the NDP did initially agree in principle to attending the consortium debate held by Canada's biggest broadcasters, it now says it will only attend that debate and any others if the prime minister is present ... The Conservatives had already declined to participate in the consortium debate saying they had received too many invitations." 

Thomas Mulcair only wants to go toe-to-toe with Prime Minister Harper, not with the kid who leads the third party.

That leaves the _consortium_ (representing the _Laurentian Consensus_), and M Trudeau, with Gilles Duceppe and Elizabeth May  :

That probably means that M Trudeau will, also, have to drop out, disappointing that segment of his base that worships the CBC, and being seen, yet again, to be a _follower_, not a leader.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Jul 2015)

I think that Brian Gable, in the _Globe and Mail_, understands what must be worrying the NDP's campaign tacticians ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



          Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorial-cartoons-for-august-2015/article25744115/


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Jul 2015)

"The fact *hazy opinion of people who can not make reliable economic predictions but always seem to be able to explain the past* is we are not recovering as fast as we could be, and this in a large part due to government policy."


----------



## Acorn (31 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Not quite, for me, but I'm a lot older than most and I cast my first ballot in the early 1960s ~ for Prime Minister Pearson's Liberals, but I never voted Liberal again after Pearson retired. I disagreed with Pearson's Liberals on social policy, they were "lurching left" at that time, but I disagreed even more with John Diefenbaker's Conservatives on on several key issues, including his own leadership (but not on civil rights where the Tories always were out in front of the Liberals, nor on his _vision_ for the North).
> 
> But, you're right, I will be conflicted, too ... but, _I am convinced_ that Prime Minister Harper's Conservatives are the least bad choice, even though I disagree, in a few cases quite vehemently, with about half of their policies ~ in so far as I understand them.



My first ballot was cast about 20 years later I think. 

I'm conflicted because I don't see the Harper Conservatives as the least bad choice. A while ago I would have cleaved to the Liberals as the viable alternative, but I have the same issues as you with Justin Trudeau. Mr Mulcair has the baggage of the NDP, though I acknowledge the federal party isn't the same as provincial parties (for Brad - Kamloops is a long way off, but my federal voting was always geared to kicking Nelson Riis to the curb). Still Mr Mulcair has in the past had a bit of foot-in-mouth that makes me wonder (the 911 Truther thing in particular) and the NDP as a party creeps me out. 

The current government is pursuing policies that seem, to me, to be 1. easy, and 2. populist, all with the sole goal of retaining power, rather than the benefit of the country. I suppose I should be cynical and assume that's what all parties do, but I'm having a hard time believing the Conservatives aren't doing it to the exclusion of everything else. 

Trudeau is shallow, and inexperienced, but, as we see in the article quoted earlier, he has a few (quite a few) experienced people who can give good advice if he's willing to follow it and stop sounding like some new age fool. Harper, on the other hand, has the experience, but seems to have a deficit of good advice (and, I'll add, seems reluctant to accept any advice anyway). 

Do I vote for the boy advised by experienced men, or the experienced man advised by boys? Or, the third choice, the experienced man leading a party that has never governed nationally and has other issues?


----------



## MARS (31 Jul 2015)

Acorn said:
			
		

> The current government is pursuing policies that seem, to me, to be 1. easy, and 2. populist, all with the sole goal of retaining power, rather than the benefit of the country. I suppose I should be cynical and assume that's what all parties do, but I'm having a hard time believing the Conservatives aren't doing it to the exclusion of everything else.



^This.  This is what is driving me nuts.  Although my opinions are not nearly as informed or nuanced as many in this thread, the "doing it at the exclusions of everything else" is what I was trying to get at in my earlier post when I called the Cons "ham fisted" in their approach.  They lack a lot of sophistication.  Their policies, particularly the way they go about them, have begun to offend me.  I can only conclude that the CPC doesn't feel the need to attract any new voters.  Aside from the most recent of immigrants who may not yet be up to speed on our national parties, I can't imagine there is anyone in Canada who is considering voting conservative if they haven't already done so previously.  It appears to be the opposite - conservative voters considering voting on the left side of the spectrum.  I don;t really know what their numbers are like, so maybe they actually don;t need any new votes and just need to keep the left split.

I agree with what Kady O'malley said tonight that perhaps the Cons have caused too much support to bleed from the LPC to the NDP and they actually need that balance to change a bit.  

sort of related: I heard it mentioned that the U.S republican debates are airing the same night as the first Canadian debate and that despite the apparent high level of interest in our own debates, the opportunity to see what else comes out of Donald Trump's mouth might be too much to resist, thus drawing some Canadian viewers there.  I will record them both but will likely watch the US debate.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Aug 2015)

>The current government is pursuing policies that seem, to me, to be 1. easy, and 2. populist, all with the sole goal of retaining power, rather than the benefit of the country.

"5 Priorities" worked when they were fresh and the Liberals were tired and corrupt, but was only good enough for a minority.  Despite Adscam, the Liberals pulled almost 37% in 2004 and a bit over 30% in 2006.  And there was something new: it was the first Conservative government of the internet era, and the expressed bitterness on the centre left and left was voluble.  (At the time I figured it was spillover of the universal disaffection for Bush.  Conservatives = Republicans; therefore, hate them.)  I haven't forgotten that the new government was under attack from day 1, and I doubt Harper has either.  Canadians used to take transitions in stride - not any more.  So - a defensive posture lacking boldness and substance while marking time.

Whatever the CPC might have that is "deep", I doubt they will reveal it this far out from the election - people who report Martin's Health Accord as Harper's Fault and simultaneously blame the government for spending too much and spending too little will not really give it a fair hearing.  And I believe the early start isn't intended merely to exploit a funding advantage, but to also change the conditions for non-party pamphleteers.

There is a "benefit of the country" program backbone there that is easy to see and follow - Paul Wells in Macleans frequently covers it - but it depends on whether you agree the federal government needs to be involved in fewer aspects of life rather than more.

Trudeau wanted to make French Canadians more equal participants in Canada and to patriate the BNA.  Mulroney wanted free trade and the GST and to paper over QC's never-ending resentment.  Harper wants a federal government that does a few important things well and respects the federal-provincial and society-individual boundaries.

Further: from Stephen Gordon at Worthwhile Canadian Initiative, which also refers to a Macleans article he wrote at the end of last year.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Aug 2015)

Acorn said:
			
		

> My first ballot was cast about 20 years later I think.
> 
> I'm conflicted because I don't see the Harper Conservatives as the least bad choice. A while ago I would have cleaved to the Liberals as the viable alternative, but I have the same issues as you with Justin Trudeau. Mr Mulcair has the baggage of the NDP, though I acknowledge the federal party isn't the same as provincial parties (for Brad - Kamloops is a long way off, but my federal voting was always geared to kicking Nelson Riis to the curb). Still Mr Mulcair has in the past had a bit of foot-in-mouth that makes me wonder (the 911 Truther thing in particular) and the NDP as a party creeps me out.
> 
> ...





It is the _cynicism_ in our political "business," in the PR machine that has replaced policy making, that bothers, indeed frightens me and it is (was, 2+ years ago) Liberal _cynicism_ that I found most sickening  :boke: . Many (most?) Liberals (and I know a few, including one or two "insiders") understood that Canada, in 2015 was not going to be like Canada in 1975; they knew that their whole party needed renewal, top to bottom; but they chose the easy way out and elected the vacuous pretty boy with the big name in the (entirely cynical) hope that could ride him back into power and put off the necessary rethink on policies.

_I believe_ that if we get a Trudeau led Liberal government we are going to get a repeat of Kathleen Wynne, policy-by-policy, (because the Trudeau team is, largely, composed of McGuinty-Wynne Liberals) and I also believe that will be somewhere between bad and disastrous for Canada. If we get a Mulcair led NDP government I have less _fear_ in the early going, but I am not convinced that M Mulcair can reshape the NDP _movement_ into a mainstream, _centrist_ governing party. If we're lucky he can keep the economy in the hands of the _centrists_ and confine his own "loony left" (and it's a large wing of that party) to social and, maybe, foreign and defence policy. If we get a Harper led Conservative government then _I suspect_ we get a new CPC leader in 2016 and, _I think_, we will get a repeat of the cynical vote buying we've seen for the last year, but with a commitment to free trade and a measure of frugality that _I also believe_ is good, and necessary, medicine for our economy.

On balance, and since _I think_ protest votes are a poor second choice, I will hold my nose and vote Conservative.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Aug 2015)

Sorry, CPC, this new attack ad, against M Mulcair just doesn't work:

     1. It's a cheap, second rate imitation of the "Just Not Ready" ad; and

     2. It doesn't have a _defining_ item ~ except for the envelope stuffed with cash (which reminds us of (Conservative) Mulroney) it could be describing Stephen Harper.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Aug 2015)

Well, the news.gc.ca web page seems to have stopped it's sausage-like cranking out of announcements  (almost 200 yesterday alone) - countdown to writ drop?

This past week, 694 news releases.
Same week last year:  147

Week of 5 January 2015:  110
Week of 12 January 2015:  202


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Aug 2015)

Part 1 of 2

John Ibbitson, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the [i[]Globe and Mail[/i][, gives us, in excerpts from his new book (due out in Aug), and overview of Stephen Harper ~ a _Lion in Autumn_, Ibbitson calls him ~ and his impact on Canadian politics and on Canada, itself:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/stephen-harper-the-making-of-a-prime-minister/article25809825/


> Stephen Harper: The making of a prime minister
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...



End of Part 1 of 2


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Aug 2015)

Part 2 of 2



> CONTROL
> 
> In early February, 2006, Derek Burney sat across a desk from Harper, who was reading the mandate letters Burney had prepared for the new cabinet. Each letter was three pages. The first reminded the new minister of the Conservatives’ governing priorities: tax reduction, the child care benefit, the Accountability Act, reducing patient wait times, criminal-justice reform. The second page outlined the minister’s particular responsibilities. The third page contained what Burney called the “mother of God” paragraphs, reminding the minister of his or her duty to act with integrity, to avoid conflicts of interest, to adhere to directives coming from the Prime Minister’s Office, and to be prepared for instant dismissal if the minister committed any act that tarnished the image of the government, the party, or, especially, the Prime Minister. Burney had routinely prepared these documents when he was chief of staff to Brian Mulroney, who paid little attention to them. Now Burney sat silently as Harper went through each letter, line by line. By the time he had finished, the pages were festooned with changes. “I don’t agree with this,” Harper explained to Burney, or, “This isn’t in our election platform.” Burney shrugged. “It’s your government.” Yes it was. This is how Stephen Harper would govern for the next decade.
> 
> ...




I really _don't think_ Stephen Harper, _per se_ has done as much as Mr Ibbitson suggests to change Canada. _I think_ Canada changed, largely by itself and, in some measure, in _reaction_ to changes, social, demographic, political and economic, imposed by previous Liberal regimes. I believe that Stephen Harper simply reacted, in his turn, to the changes and, as Palph Klein put it, saw the direction in which the crowd was going and dashed out front to lead it there.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Aug 2015)

Perhaps "likeability" is over-rated.  MacKenzie King was PM for about 25 years (discontinuous service).  I don't think many would admit to having liked the man.

Charisma may get you elected but does it get you re-elected?


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Aug 2015)

Advantage Harper?


Canada election 2015: NDP threatens to pull out of broadcasters' debates
Stephen Harper has already declined invitation from broadcast consortium

The NDP is telling Canada's biggest broadcasters to either get Stephen Harper into the debate or they are skipping out too.

CBC News has learned the NDP will only consider debate invitations until Friday, Aug. 7.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Aug 2015)

>He has never successfully cultivated the social skill of pretending to connect. He has difficulty feigning interest. His associates talk of him sometimes simply turning his back and walking away from them while they are in mid-sentence. He rarely displays much ability or desire to be collegial, or even polite. This tendency toward abruptness gets worse when he is tired or under stress.

That almost mirrors descriptions I have read of Pierre Trudeau.

>perhaps the most introverted person ever to seek high office in this country

This is the root.  A high degree of introversion often looks like dysfunction to people accustomed to or enthusiastic for the trivial and banal aspects of human interaction.  Think of it as "extrovert privilege".


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Aug 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Advantage Harper?
> 
> 
> Canada election 2015: NDP threatens to pull out of broadcasters' debates
> ...




What it is, as I mentioned, is Disadvantage Trudeau ...

M Trudeau must, now, _react_ to the lead taken by the other two; they, in other words, have the initiative and he is on the defensive ... both _strategically_ and _tactically_.

Staying with the _consortium_ (debating Gilles Duceppe and Elizabeth May  : ) will make his look like a fringe party candidate ~ bad move, even though it will please that segment of his support base that loves the CBC.

Dropping out of the consortium's debates will kill them, which is no real loss, but, worse for M Trudeau, it will make him look like the _weak_ guy, the "last guy picked" for the team, the kid who always follows along after the big guys. It's not the _image_ he needs to project.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Dropping out of the consortium's debates will kill them, which is no real loss, but, worse for M Trudeau, it will make him look like the _weak_ guy, the "last guy picked" for the team, the kid who always follows along after the big guys. It's not the _image_ he needs to project.



His only real choice is to actively pull out NOW, (not even wait for the NDP to firm up, thereby seizing what could best be described as pretending to be #2 in the fight) and demonize Harper for his anti-democratical refusal to participate....Yound Dauphin should characterize his position as a withdrawal from an event that otherwise would hold little value as the real issue is challenging the horned, pointy-tailed and cloven-hoofed Harper...


----------



## McG (1 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Sorry, CPC, this new attack ad, against M Mulcair just doesn't work:
> 
> 1. It's a cheap, second rate imitation of the "Just Not Ready" ad; and
> 
> 2. It doesn't have a _defining_ item ~ except for the envelope stuffed with cash (which reminds us of (Conservative) Mulroney) it could be describing Stephen Harper.


The career politician swipe does not feel to work either, coming from the party with an aspiring career prime minister.


----------



## Acorn (1 Aug 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >He has never successfully cultivated the social skill of pretending to connect. He has difficulty feigning interest. His associates talk of him sometimes simply turning his back and walking away from them while they are in mid-sentence. He rarely displays much ability or desire to be collegial, or even polite. This tendency toward abruptness gets worse when he is tired or under stress.
> 
> That almost mirrors descriptions I have read of Pierre Trudeau.
> 
> ...



Interesting take, especially considering no-one ever accused Trudeau Sr of being an introvert.

From Ibbitson's work quoted above it seems to me that Mr Harper is more like Richard Nixon - anger, funk, enemies, trust issues.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Aug 2015)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Interesting take, especially considering no-one ever accused Trudeau Sr of being an introvert.
> 
> From Ibbitson's work quoted above it seems to me that Mr Harper is more like Richard Nixon - anger, funk, enemies, trust issues.




But remember, also, Acorn, that Nixon was a brilliant _strategist_ who was, almost uniquely post Eisenhower, able to see America's vital interests in an ever shifting global context and act effectively (e.g. towards China) to promote and secure them. Yes, Nixon was, as Harper is, a deeply flawed human being, as are we all, but he also had remarkable strengths ~  complex and contradictory are just two of the terms used to describe him, _I think_ they apply to Stephen Harper, too.

Will Stephen Harper be known for anything as extraordinary as _Nixon in China: The Week That Changed the World_? No, _I think not_, but nor should he be reviled, as Nixon still is, for lawless political chicanery.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Aug 2015)

Before we go too overboard on Then and Now:

This is what the middle east looked like when Trudeau and Nixon were in charge







The security environment has changed considerably.

Yes, we had the Russians and the Chinese with nukes but both states had a firm hand on both their people and their weapons.

Today?  

I would remind that when the Social Justice Premier was confronted with a solitary act of insurrection he had no trouble imposing martial law on his home province with a dismissive "Just Watch Me".  In keeping with "Fuddle Duddle" in parliament, flipping the bird at Western farmers, "why should I sell your grain", pirouette at Buckingham Palace and any number of other juvenile acts and statements. (NEP and taking fish from Canadian fishermen to give to Eastern Block trawlers).

Harper has a long way to go before he plumbs the depths that Trudeau reached.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Aug 2015)

I've met Mr Harper three times, and can only wonder if those commenting on his personality have done the same. Based solely on my first hand experience, he's nothing as described by either the media or his detractors.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Aug 2015)

Here is a very good ad from Justin Trudeau: short, sharp, pointed and it counter-attacks the CPC's "Just Not Ready" ads. Is it enough? No, of course not, but it's a good start.

My only complaint is that it reinforces the impression that he is a young man (one does not wish to say "callow youth") who _may_ be inexperienced ...


----------



## GAP (1 Aug 2015)

His comment that he's not afraid of asking the rich to pay more so middle class taxes can be reduced is gonna come back to bite his rear....


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Aug 2015)

As is the “benefiting every single family isn’t what is fair” quote.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Aug 2015)

I have made this observation before, but it is worth repeating: I have had the opportunity to see the Prime Minister up close and personal at an event and he is 1800 from the cold and calculating persona depicted in the media. I have also (at a different time and event) seen the Young Dauphin give a speech at an event, and he was most certainly not "warm and charismatic" (for $20,000, he should have at least done more than telephoned in a speech full of warmed over left wing tropes).

So we are making assumptions which are based on reporting which is actively false (if not mendacious) in the way they characterize two of the party leaders. One only wonders what sort of man Tomas Mulcair really is (sadly, I have not had any opportunity to see him in person in any event, much less a small scale one, so am in no position to judge). And of course if the media is busy presenting a narrative rather than a factual accounting of events, what else are we wrongly speculating about?

One other issue which I hope to see more discussion on: who exactly is paying for all the partisan anti-CPC ads which have suddenly flooded the airways? Only the PSAC ones openly display thier affiliation and make it easy to determine who is funding them (the answer, of course, is us, through our tax dollars being diverted via union dues to partisan political advertising). But who are all these other people? I would find it extremely disturbing if (like much of the anti-oil sands "activism") the advertising is being funded by foreign sources. Remember the last election saw some activity by a group called Avaaz, which is an offshoot of the US political activist group Moveon.


----------



## cavalryman (1 Aug 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> One other issue which I hope to see more discussion on: who exactly is paying for all the partisan anti-CPC ads which have suddenly flooded the airways? Only the PSAC ones openly display thier affiliation and make it easy to determine who is funding them (the answer, of course, is us, through our tax dollars being diverted via union dues to partisan political advertising). But who are all these other people? I would find it extremely disturbing if (like much of the anti-oil sands "activism") the advertising is being funded by foreign sources. Remember the last election saw some activity by a group called Avaaz, which is an offshoot of the US political activist group Moveon.


Whenever I look at what the left is up to, I'm invariably reminded of George Orwell.  Where some of us take his novels as cautionary tales, lefties seems to take them as 'how-to' books.


----------



## McG (1 Aug 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Only the PSAC ones openly display thier affiliation and make it easy to determine who is funding them (the answer, of course, is us, through our tax dollars being diverted via union dues ...


Speaking of distorting facts, our tax dollars do not pay union dues; the union members pay union dues.  Our tax dollars do pay PS wages, but before any money gets put into union dues that money belongs to the employee who earned it.

Once that money is paid out as a wage, you no longer get to claim ownership over it as a tax payer.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Aug 2015)

Since the money comes from us, then yes, we are indeed paying for it.


----------



## Infanteer (2 Aug 2015)

That's like saying we in the military are self-employed.  MCG is right.


----------



## McG (2 Aug 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Since the money comes from us, then yes, we are indeed paying for it.


You can take that idea and stuff it.  My paycheck is my money, not your money as a tax payer.  How I spend my money is none of the taxpayer's concern.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Aug 2015)

There has to be a cutoff.

People own their wages.  Any standard less is a concession to the people who see all income as something belonging to the government, and of which government lets you keep a portion.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Aug 2015)

>Interesting take, especially considering no-one ever accused Trudeau Sr of being an introvert.

I'm not going to go hunting for quotation in print, but I have two of Christina McCall's books and PET fits that description - regardless whether she or anyone else used the "I" word.  One of his major political weaknesses was his unwillingness to play the back-slapping, glad-handing pol.


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Aug 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That's like saying we in the military are self-employed.  MCG is right.



To be fair, we too are taxpayers.  As tax dollars are the financial source of our pay, we are, however minutely, self employed to a very very small degree.  Said degree not easily measured.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Aug 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> To be fair, we too are taxpayers.  As tax dollars are the financial source of our pay, we are, however minutely, self employed to a very very small degree.  Said degree not easily measured.


That's like saying that since companies get, in one way or another, government subsidies/grants, their employees are sorta-kinda public service workers, to a degree not easily measured?

Toooooooooooooooo many shades of grey for me ....

Meanwhile, the final countdown:


> Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was set to call a parliamentary election for Oct 19 on Sunday, kicking off a marathon 11-week campaign likely to focus on a stubbornly sluggish economy and his decade in power.
> 
> Harper's office said in a statement he is due to visit Governor General David Johnston - the representative of Queen Elizabeth, Canada's head of state - at 9:55 am (1355 GMT).
> 
> ...


Countdown clock to PM's walk to GG here  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> David Akin has posted a new Predictinator:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




David Akin says, in his blog that _"here we go! The game is on as of Sunday. Prime Minister Stephen Harper hits Rideau Hall Sunday morning at 10 ET..  The fixed election date — which Prime Minister Stephen Harper has ignored before — is October 19th. We’ll see tomorrow if he keeps to his word and commits to that day  – which is 78 days or 11 weeks away from this Sunday ... In any event, every political journalist in the country has some prediction at this point how this will all turn out. (Just ask one!)  So, here’s where I stand, based on my completely untested and likely incorrect Predictionator model : If the vote were held today, I’d bet a nickel we’d come back with a Conservative minority government, and a strengthened New Democrat Official Opposition and a strengthened Liberal Party that, for the first time since 2000, won more seats and found more voters than the previous election."_

And here is his latest prediction ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          ... which_ appears_ to show that the CPC continues to gain and the Liberals continue to weaken.

Is the momentum shifting at just the right moment fore the CPC?
.
.
.
.
.
.
As always, remember ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          ... and we have eleven "long times" to go until 19 Oct, and ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




               ... there can be a lot of "events" in eleven weeks which can derail campaigns, too: Trudeau's campaign, Mulcair's campaign and Harper's campaign.


----------



## GAP (2 Aug 2015)

I probably be wrong, but I do not see where an 11 week campaign does the CPC any favors. 

I suspect Harper will ignore the Oct 19th date.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Aug 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> I probably be wrong, but _I do not see where an 11 week campaign does the CPC any favors_.
> 
> I suspect Harper will ignore the Oct 19th date.




Some commentators suggest that it will play to the CPC's financial strength: they have the most money and they can afford to run a steady, high cost, long campaign. The theory is that neither the Liberals nor the NDP have enough money to match the CPC's campaigning and they will have difficulty in husbanding their resources for such a long period.  :dunno:  _I think_ it will, also, have some impact on third party advertising (see, e.g. _Engage Canada_'s new ads). The CPC shut down an attempt to have a US style PAC supporting them; I suspect it, the long _official_ campaign, will defang groups like _Engage Canada_ and, therefore, deny the _anti-Harper movement_ access to the media.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Aug 2015)

_Caveat lector_: David Akin, of _Sun News_ is a member, here and is known by some members. He is, very generally, pro-Conservative, or, at least, not part of the _anti-Harper movement_.

Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Sun_ is his look ahead at the long campaign:

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/08/01/the-race-of-his-life


> The race of his life
> Stephen Harper starts his re-election bid weighed down by the economy and pork-barreling
> 
> BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF
> ...



_My opinion_:

First: _I remain persuaded_ that Stephen Harper is a more Chinese (a long term _strategist_) than American (a short term, next quarter, "what have you done for me recently?") sort of politician. I think he understands that it is time to go ... there will be no more Mackenzie Kings in Canada, no prime minister will serve 22 or even 15 years (Pierre Trudeau) in office. Nine or ten years is, likely, to be about the max ~ St Laurent, Mulroney, Chrétien and Harper. He will "go," either through electoral defeat or, very possibly, shortly after winning another term (perhaps a minority term) in office. 

Second: Prime Minister Harper has left the Conservative Party strong, albeit not, yet, united. I think most Conservatives share his, Harper's, fiscal _vision_, which is not all that _conservative_, but divisions remain on the social issues between the _Progressives_, who Prime Minister Harper has, generally (almost always) supported (because he understands that the country is, broadly and generally, socially moderate), and the real _"red in tooth and claw"* conservatives_. This division will not be healed naturally ... the next leader must take a stand, as Harper has done, and enforce his or her will on the caucus and the whole party.

Third: As David Akin says, while _"the fiscally conservative voter will also be disappointed to see MPs from Harper's party engaged in an orgy of pork barrel spending in the final hours before the election call ... for the fiscally conservative voter -- assuming that species still exists -- there may be little else on the menu this election season ... _[because]_ Mulcair and Trudeau also have ambitious, mega-billion-dollar spending plans ... Both say they'll spend that money within a balanced budget framework but I'm skeptical it can be done without raising taxes or user fees."_

_____
* Tennyson, _In Memoriam A. H. H._, 1850. _Canto_ 56


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Aug 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That's like saying that since companies get, in one way or another, government subsidies/grants, their employees are sorta-kinda public service workers, to a degree not easily measured?
> 
> Toooooooooooooooo many shades of grey for me ....



Well there you go,  we're all somewhat self employed even after retirement, come to think of it.  Utopia, here we come.  :nod:


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Aug 2015)

And the starting pistol has been fired.  I am sooo going to be sick of hearing about the election by Oct 19th.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-stephen-harper-confirms-start-of-11-week-federal-campaign-1.3175136


----------



## cupper (2 Aug 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And the starting pistol has been fired.  I am sooo going to be sick of hearing about the election by Oct 19th.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-stephen-harper-confirms-start-of-11-week-federal-campaign-1.3175136



Oh stop your whining. Not like you have to sit through a 2 year election campaign.  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Aug 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> Oh stop your whining. Not like you have to sit through a 2 year election campaign.  ;D



Ha!  We still have to listen to the BS to some degree up here too.  But, yeah, you're right.  That must be one of the seven circles of hell.   >


----------



## Rocky Mountains (2 Aug 2015)

The opposition will have enough money to run a reasonably effective campaign this time.  They will have a problem in the election 6 months down the road.  The stupidest thing the Liberals could do is to attempt to put the NDP in power.  Once the NDP are in power, there is no more Liberal Party.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Aug 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Sun_ is an analysis of the Mulcair vs Trudeau campaign:

http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/08/02/why-mulcair-wants-to-kill-the-liberals


> Why Mulcair wants to kill the Liberals
> 
> BY LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN
> 
> ...




Two points on which Mr Goldstein and _I agree_:

     First:     _"There are many “blue Liberal” voters who, faced with a stark choice between a Conservative and NDP government, will vote Conservative";_ and

     Second: _"the Liberals_ [are] _hypocrites, mouthing left-wing platitudes during elections while arrogantly asking NDP supporters to abandon their party and vote Liberal to stop the Conservatives ... then,
                   after the election, the Liberals return to governing from the right."_


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Aug 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> The opposition will have enough money to run a reasonably effective campaign this time.  *They will have a problem in the election 6 months down the road*.



This is why we have a 78 day election.  The government refunds 50% of the spending by parties federally, and 60% locally, once the election is done.  That means that if the Conservatives spend the full $50M on this election (and I do not believe that the other two parties will be able to raise that much), they will have a war chest of $25M which is the maximum for a normal 37 day election - say in 6-12 months after a Conservative or NDP minority.

This is a cynical genius at work.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Aug 2015)

A lot of the _financial tactics_ portion of a campaign involves _how_ and _when_ to spend money on advertizing. This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Hill Times_ illustrates that dilemma from a Liberal perspective:

https://www.hilltimes.com/news/news/2015/08/03/nervous-liberals-say-trudeau-should-counter-conservative-attack-ads-hard-now/42964


> ‘Nervous’ Liberals say Trudeau should counter Conservative attack ads hard, now
> 
> By ABBAS RANA |
> 
> ...




The conventional wisdom is that parties should have a big war chest to spend in the last week of a campaign, because experience, in Canada, the UK and the US, suggests that this is when the most votes can be _swayed_, shifted from one party to another or, more likely from "undecided" to a party. _*But*_, as the article suggests, some Liberals want to spend a lot, now, to counter the "Just Not Ready" ads which, many observers agree, have worked. The Liberals are, I think, in third place in funding, too, so the calculation is triply hard for them: if they spend, now, to refurbish M Trudeau's image, to counter the CPC's efforts to _"define"_ him as "Just Not Ready," then they may not have enough money ready for the "big push" in the second week of Oct.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Aug 2015)

The _Ottawa Citizen_ reports that:_ "Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne is wasting no time in plunging into the federal election campaign, challenging Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s early election call ... Wynne plans to campaign hard for the federal Liberals and leader Justin Trudeau, just a year after her party won an unexpected majority government in Ontario ... But the Ontario Liberals support could also bite the federal parties, as some have already suggested. The new sex ed curriculum and the planned sale of 60 per cent of Hydro One are two provincial policies some say could bleed into the federal campaign."_

Premier Wynne is very popular in areas where the _anybody except Harper_ sentiment is already strong; in other words, she's preaching to the choir. The new _sex-ed_ curriculum is problematic in the suburbs, especially amongst some Asian-Canadians, ditto the planned sale of Hydro One ~ but amongst even more people. That, the suburbs, is where M Trudeau needs help and that's where Ms Wynne might do more harm than good.

But, in areas where she is popular, she may help the Liberals siphon votes away from the NDP, with unpredictable results.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, in areas where she is popular, she may help the Liberals siphon votes away from the NDP, with unpredictable results.



It will be interesting to see what the unions make of this. I'm sure they're still smarting from being stabbed in the back following their having Wynne elected.


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 Aug 2015)

Getting back to the "just not ready" TV spots for a second.  I've spoken to my kids, 3 out 4 capable of making a semi informed decision, the fourth being autistic and quite clearly the happiest of any of them. All under 30, and all have said the same thing; the old guy and the smarmy "some growing up to do" line has done more harm than it has good. Each of them feels the add is saying young = stupid, and honestly I can't disagree.  I know it's us cranky old farts that keep the conservatives ticking over, but today's youngsters are tomorrow's cranky old farts.


----------



## GAP (3 Aug 2015)

But how likely are they to make the time to vote.....the demographics show they don't, but the old guys do.

that's the difference.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Aug 2015)

My concern is with Podemos, Beppo, Tsipras and Corbyn politics entering into this election.  In a sense they are an extension of the Obama Hope-Change campaign.  In Calgary we have had the Nenshi campaigns.  

And it is not just a left wing phenomenon - Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium, Hungary.

Tom Mulcair or Trudeau could be beneficiaries.  It could also be somebody breaking out of the backfield - previously unknown.

On the plus side for the CPC - David Cameron managed to campaign successfully against those very threats.

Anyone seen any itinerant Aussies in Ottawa recently?


----------



## Rocky Mountains (3 Aug 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> All under 30, and all have said the same thing; the old guy and the smarmy "some growing up to do" line has done more harm than it has good. Each of them feels the add is saying young = stupid, and honestly I can't disagree.  I know it's us cranky old farts that keep the conservatives ticking over, but today's youngsters are tomorrow's cranky old farts.



The ads sure seem to be working.  I suspect many young people will figure out the ads are more about Trudeau's Bozo eruptions than anything else.  The "growing up to do" comment is because saying "the guy's a moron" might be too negative.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Aug 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> ..........  The "growing up to do" comment is because saying "the guy's a moron" might be too negative.




 ;D

Yes.  We don't want to get too negative, too early in the game.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Aug 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Getting back to the "just not ready" TV spots for a second.  I've spoken to my kids, 3 out 4 capable of making a semi informed decision, the fourth being autistic and quite clearly the happiest of any of them. All under 30, and all have said the same thing; the old guy and the smarmy "some growing up to do" line has done more harm than it has good. Each of them feels the add is saying young = stupid, and honestly I can't disagree.  I know it's us cranky old farts that keep the conservatives ticking over, but today's youngsters are tomorrow's cranky old farts.



Kat, if your young'ns are taking the "some growing up to do" line personally, they may still be developing the thick skin you have...they'll get there, but may need some gently, lovingly-applied fear, sarcasm and ridicule the next time they come by the house looking for sympathy.    That being said, unless the "old fart's" line gets them motivated to at least think about why the ordained Young Dauphin is drawing fire for being in-experienced, and do something about it, they are exactly the type of folks that the people their old man voted for, are counting on.   ;D  That said, I'm sure that in due course, perhaps a few elections down the road, they'll perhaps see things differently.*

Regards
G2G

* - like old farts do


----------



## suffolkowner (3 Aug 2015)

The he's just not ready ads have actually been driving me a little nuts and almost make me want to vote Liberal out of spite, but then I calm down. It could be because it just seems overplayed to me. I mean I'm not sure that Trudeau is ready, actually, when he should be the most ready considering his upbringing and it is that which I find the most disappointing.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Aug 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> The he's just not ready ads have actually been driving me a little nuts and almost make me want to vote Liberal out of spite, but then I calm down. It could be because it just seems overplayed to me. I mean I'm not sure that Trudeau is ready, actually, when he should be the most ready considering his upbringing and it is that which I find the most disappointing.



It's less disappointing when you think of young Justin simply as a branding veneer.  Kind of like Bush junior was a veneer for the command team behind him.  :nod:

G2G


----------



## Acorn (3 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But remember, also, Acorn, that Nixon was a brilliant _strategist_ who was, almost uniquely post Eisenhower, able to see America's vital interests in an ever shifting global context and act effectively (e.g. towards China) to promote and secure them. Yes, Nixon was, as Harper is, a deeply flawed human being, as are we all, but he also had remarkable strengths ~  complex and contradictory are just two of the terms used to describe him, _I think_ they apply to Stephen Harper, too.
> 
> Will Stephen Harper be known for anything as extraordinary as _Nixon in China: The Week That Changed the World_? No, _I think not_, but nor should he be reviled, as Nixon still is, for lawless political chicanery.



Fair comment - Harper is "Nixon Lite" all the flaws, but without the same level of strength, or willingness to cross the line.

He'll join Cretien, among other PMs as one who didn't put the ship on the rocks, but doesn't have any stand out accomplishment, even if it's something as simple as McKenzie-King's longevity. Though maybe Cretien can take credit for fiscal responsibility when  needed - how's that for galling?


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Aug 2015)

Chretien, back-street fighter as he was, recognized early on that for as much as he truly despised Paul Martin Sr., that PM Jr. was the right man to get Canada's fiscal house back in order, so Chretien whipped him for all he was worth, then kicked him in the teeth during the painfully protracted handing over of the LPC reigns.


----------



## cupper (3 Aug 2015)

It's funny, when it comes to election advertising the one thing I can be grateful for living where I do, the only political ads I get are either attack ads against local politicians, or PAC ads targeting policy specific issues. And that is only if Virginia comes into play as a potential swing state. Even with all the money that gets plowed into the US Election process, advertising money gets spread strategically.

In Canadian elections, since we really vote for the leaders and party, and not the local candidate, advertising tends to be national in scope, so you get inundated with it (albeit for a limited period of time) regardless of where you reside.


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 Aug 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Kat, if your young'ns are taking the "some growing up to do" line personally, they may still be developing the thick skin you have...they'll get there, but may need some gently, lovingly-applied fear, sarcasm and ridicule the next time they come by the house looking for sympathy.    That being said, unless the "old fart's" line gets them motivated to at least think about why the ordained Young Dauphin is drawing fire for being in-experienced, and do something about it, they are exactly the type of folks that the people their old man voted for, are counting on.   ;D  That said, I'm sure that in due course, perhaps a few elections down the road, they'll perhaps see things differently.*
> 
> Regards
> G2G
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Aug 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> In Canadian elections, since we really vote for the leaders and party, and not the local candidate, advertising tends to be national in scope, so you get inundated with it (albeit for a limited period of time) regardless of where you reside.


It's a subtle difference, but just because _parties/leaders_ may be marketed cross country doesn't mean we _vote for_ the parties/leaders - unless you're in the leader's riding.


----------



## cupper (3 Aug 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> It's a subtle difference, but just because _parties/leaders_ may be marketed cross country doesn't mean we _vote for_ the parties/leaders - unless you're in the leader's riding.



And that is the unfortunate part. There are many deserving local candidates who should be elected, but lose because the riding is on a pro / anti party bent.


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Aug 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Actually, they agree with the sentiment, it's just the snidely condescending tone the old guy uses that's galling. Got to admit it sets my teeth on edge too, flashes me back to my grandmother when I was six.



Concur, KS.  The newest variant is even worse...they need to refresh the overall concept -- their latest spots are getting flakier. 

G2G


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Aug 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Concur, KS.  The newest variant is even worse...they need to refresh the overall concept -- their latest spots are getting flakier.
> 
> G2G




_I agree_, "Just Not Ready" almost certainly worked, maybe even worked very well ~ it _defines_ M Trudeau, but it must be used sparingly. I expect (hope) to see a mix of "good" ads ~ good production values, simple "top" message with layers of more subtle messages, too, and highlighting _positive_ Conservative policies/programmes ~ and attack ads, aimed at both Messers Mulcair and Trudeau.

I suspect the CPC might use more negative advertising, now, early in the campaign, to entice the LPC and NDP to overspend, early, on _defensive_ response ads, and then use _positive_ ads for several weeks and then end the campaign with a HUGE, mixed, advertising blitz: Harper = smart and reliable; Mulcair = giant deficits; Trudeau = confused and not (yet) ready.

It may be necessary to soften the attacks on M Trudeau, stressing, as the "Just Not Ready" ad does, that he _might_ get better with time and experience, but "he's just not ready right now," thereby encouraging some left leaning Liberals to not shift over to the NDP.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Aug 2015)

Yjis article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ offers some reasons (_highlighted_) why the Conservatives may be attacking M Trudeau more than M Mulcair:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/two-thirds-of-canadians-votes-up-for-grabs-poll-suggests/article25819640/


> Sixty percent of Canadians’ votes up for grabs, poll suggests
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> The Globe and Mail
> ...


----------



## cupper (4 Aug 2015)

Just before I hit the road yesterday, I caught the report on NPR News about the Election announcement, One point that they made in the brief spot was that the Canadian public appears to be in the mood for a change in government.

Does Dan Karpenchuk have his finger on the pulse of the nation?


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Aug 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> Does Dan Karpenchuk have his finger on the pulse of the nation?


He's been a CBC radio reporter & producer (the same way some newspaper journalists/columnists write for _The Economist_), so I'd say "as much as any other Toronto-based journalist".


----------



## cupper (4 Aug 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> He's been a CBC radio reporter & producer (the same way some newspaper journalists/columnists write for _The Economist_), so I'd say "as much as any other Toronto-based journalist".



So that would be a definitive "who the hell knows".  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Aug 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act is a rather unflattering, but _I suspect_ quite accurate portrait of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his views on our courts:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/harper-fumed-privately-about-supreme-court-activism-book


> Harper fumed privately about Supreme Court activism: book
> 
> MARK KENNEDY, OTTAWA CITIZEN
> 
> ...




Stephen Harp[er came to Ottawa with what one might call the _Conservative prejudice_ against the _institutional capital_; it infected John Diefenbaker and Brian Mulroney, too. Who can forget Mulroney's "pink slips and running shoes" remark directed at the civil service? He thought, with some good reason ~ _Google_ Mitchell Sharp and Marcel Massé ~ the upper ranks of the _Mandarinate_ in Ottawa were like a branch plant of the civil service, and it was not surprising, the men and women in it had been hand picked by the men (they were all men) who were, previously, hand picked, personally, by Mackenzie King, OD Skelton and Louis St Laurent. The civil service, and the courts, might as well have been part of the Liberal Party of Canada.

But, after Pierre Trudeau, there was some _distance_ between many (by no means all) _Mandarins_ and the Liberals; many senior public servants were dismayed at what Trudeau had done to Canada and they mistrusted the entire Liberal edifice. But Conservatives could no trust them; Stephen Harper, _in my opinion_, still believe that the _establishment_, the old _Laurentian elites_, are "out to get him." And there may be some merit in his belief ...

     (Parenthetically: Like Prime Minister Harper I dislike the _Charter of Rights and Freedoms_; _I think_ it gives us nothing new, nothing special, nothing that we, Canadians, would not have had in the same measure
      and in the same time without it ... nothing, that is, except courts that must, often reluctantly, "make laws" because the _Charter_ was, still is ~ as all written constitutions, even the very must ones, must be ~ poorly drafted , incomplete,
      unable to have foreseen everything, deeply flawed, in other words, and more trouble than it's worth.)


----------



## Infanteer (4 Aug 2015)

> The top court “obliged their worst fears” with rulings that have limited police powers, struck down the abortion law, and extended civil rights to gays and lesbians



...with such rulings, can one really sympathize with complaints against perceived judicial activism"?  After watching the last two decades of politics in Canada, I'm somewhat convinced that a Supreme Court of appointed, very intelligent judges is a good democratic firebreak against demagoguery and zero-value politics.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Aug 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...with such rulings, can one really sympathize with complaints against perceived judicial activism"?  After watching the last two decades of politics in Canada, I'm somewhat convinced that a Supreme Court of appointed, very intelligent judges is a good democratic firebreak against demagoguery and zero-value politics.



Unfortunately, that is not always the case.  They have made several decisions that have made me scratch my head.  It is their place to interpret the Law, in the coming to their decisions; not to write the Law to match their decision.   They seem to have done this once or twice, and I find that offensive.


----------



## cupper (4 Aug 2015)

With respect to the Nadon affair, from what I understand, he really has no one to blame but himself.

If you are trying to put you own influence on the High Court to fight what you perceive as judicial activism, you damned well need to make sure that the nominee for that vacant seat on the bench meets *ALL* of the necessary criteria.

It seems to me, from what I've observed from afar since Harper has come to the national stage that Harper has a difficult time accepting that he has F'd up when things don't go the way he wanted or planned them to go.

I wonder if his distrust of the legal community has influenced is selection of staffers dealing with the legislative agenda. Is it a staff that favors conservative political technocrats over legal experts of both conservative and liberal leanings who would be better suited to developing challenge resistant legislation? Especially when it comes to changes to the justice system.

When you look at what is happening south of the border with a document that is over 200 years old trying to adjust to the changing societal views (Justice Scalia's views not withstanding), how can you expect our Charter of Rights and freedoms that came about only in the later part of just ended century not make so-called judicial activism an issue?


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Aug 2015)

The amusing part is that here we have a right-ish government which harbours a belief that a left-ish SC will not defer sufficiently to the legislature, while to the south they have a left-ish government for which a SC perceived to be right-ish has been performing acrobatics in order to defer the legislature.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Aug 2015)

>One point that they made in the brief spot was that the Canadian public appears to be in the mood for a change in government.

Opposition party supporters are going to beat the "mood for change" drum.  Government party supporters are going to beat the "no appetite for change" drum.  It is election time.  Every reporter's bias is subject to examination - after applying the customary assumption that only 1/3 of reportage is an accurate reflection of reality.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Aug 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> ...with such rulings, can one really sympathize with complaints against perceived judicial activism"?  After watching the last two decades of politics in Canada, I'm somewhat convinced that a Supreme Court of appointed, very intelligent judges is a good democratic firebreak against demagoguery and zero-value politics.



I prefer my democracy red of tooth and claw.

It is supposed to prevent red streets.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Aug 2015)

Interesting article in The Financial Post by Diane Francis.  She feels that the election is Harper's to lose, but he won't as all his opponents are critics, not contenders.  They really don't have anything to offer Canadians.

http://business.financialpost.com/diane-francis/diane-francis-why-stephen-harpers-opponents-are-critics-not-contenders


----------



## Scott (4 Aug 2015)

Guffaw. Someone on CBC radio just said that if Justin walks to the debate lectern with pants on that many in his camp will consider the debate a success.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Aug 2015)

Scott said:
			
		

> Guffaw. Someone on CBC radio just said that if Justin walks to the debate lectern with pants on that many in his camp will consider the debate a success.



However, if you continually undersell your opponent he merely has to perform as semi-competent and your narrative has been defeated.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Aug 2015)

In this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, Jeffrey Simpson laments the demise of the "moderate Conservative" (the _Red Tory_) in Canada, and the "moderate Republican" in the USA, and he implicitly blames Prime Minister Harper for following the evil Yanks:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-disappearance-of-the-moderate-conservative/article25836587/


> The disappearance of the moderate conservative
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




_I think_ that, as he so often does, Jeffrey Simpson gets it all back-asswards.

Mr Simpson wants to blame Stephen Harper for leading Canada in the footsteps of the USA. In fact, I believe, Prime Minister Harper is, generally, a "follower," not a leader, and he is "following" Canadians, not Americans. 

Canadians follow American leads in damned near everything, and it is only normal, even natural that our political proclivities are shaped as much by what we see on CNN or MSNBC or Fox News as by what we see on CTV or read in the _Sun_ newspapers. American "moderation" began to die in 1964, when Doyle Dane Bernbach, (now DDB Worldwide Communications Group Inc) released the famous "Daisy" ad. That, 50 years ago, not Stephen Harper in the 2000s in when politics, in all of North America, began to shift from "moderates in the middle" to more and more extremism, wtth the middle both shrinking and becoming less engaged. Canadians went along with it ... 








                                   Canada, too, abandoned non-partisan "moderation" and embraced differing ideologies: right and left leaning

By the 1980s and '90s the "moderates" were already dying, on the vine, and the extremists were gaining control.

We have what we have ... but it's wrong, and unfair, to blame Stephen Harper for leading us there. You want someone to blame? Look in the mirror ...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (5 Aug 2015)

I agree Edward.  For the record, I consider myself to be a Red Tory who is also a swing voter.  I would vote for either a Conservative or a Liberal; however, scoring my vote is dependent on policy and the personality of the leader.  Right now I think Justin Trudeau is taking the LPC in the wrong direction so I'm seeing blue but if  someone like Paul Martin were the leader, I would be seeing red.


----------



## Kilo_302 (5 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, Jeffrey Simpson laments the demise of the "moderate Conservative" (the _Red Tory_) in Canada, and the "moderate Republican" in the USA, and he implicitly blames Prime Minister Harper for following the evil Yanks:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-disappearance-of-the-moderate-conservative/article25836587/
> 
> ...



I disagree with your analysis. One of the main factors behind the success of conservatives in the US was the rise of the "moral majority" and the right finally realizing it had to organize to win. The same strategies (and strategists) that helped put Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. in the White House have migrated north. Perhaps a chicken before the egg type argument, but Canadian conservatives have seen the light, and have become extremely efficient at organizing, largely through appealing to a base of voters that are further right than the traditional "Red Tory."


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Aug 2015)

If you like the "Moral Majority" as the catalyst for change (and I'm happy to agree that it played some role in the "rise of the right" which began in the 1950s and '60s) then you still must not blame Stephen Harper. The Moral Majority was founded in the 1970s and was disbanded in the 1980s, when Stephen Harper was fresh faced young aide to progressive Conservative MP Jim Hawkes. I do not deny, for a moment, the Canadian Conservatives learned from their cousins in the US GOP; but so did the Canadian left from their cousins in the US Democratic Party. The fact is that Canada and Canadians changed, following the US lead, and Stephen Harper just joined the parade.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Aug 2015)

Gwyn Morgan, not loved by the political left, has lashed out at a lazy, uncritical media, including the _Globe and Mail_ which publishes his columns, for failing to think about the drivel that gushes from the mouths of Messers Mulcair and Trudeau and their spokespersons, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/media-failing-to-provide-perspective-on-conservatives-economic-record/article25834784/


> Some vital perspective on Conservatives’ economic record
> 
> GWYN MORGAN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




A few days ago I explained my socio-economic views, including my belief in low spending as the better choice for national fiscal management. That puts me at odds with some people here and with both the Liberal and New Democratic Parties.

Mr Morgan, nearly alone, asks the important question: _how is it "that Canada can remain the only G7 country besides Germany not facing a major deficit?”_ _I believe_ that sensible Canadian voters need to ask that question of the candidates on their doorstep. I also believe that Liberal and NDP candidates will hem and haw and stumble because, quite frankly, their either don't know or, if they do, are afraid to say that it was good, sound, _austere_ fiscal policies ~ not austere enough, _in my opinion_ ~ that did the job. Messers Mulcair and Trudeau want to turn that around; they want to spend, wildly; they want to buy your votes with your grandchildren's money; they are irresponsible ... but many of you will vote for them, anyway.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (5 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I disagree with your analysis. One of the main factors behind the success of conservatives in the US was the rise of the "moral majority" and the right finally realizing it had to organize to win. The same strategies (and strategists) that helped put Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. in the White House have migrated north. Perhaps a chicken before the egg type argument, but Canadian conservatives have seen the light, and have become extremely efficient at organizing, largely through appealing to a base of voters that are further right than the traditional "Red Tory."



I disagree with your disagreement. The biggest factor in the Conservatives fortunes was uniting the Reform and PC parties. If you look at the 1997 election results, for instance the total "right wing" vote was 38.19% (Reform and PC) with the total left wing vote adding to 49.51% (liberal and NDP). The remaining 12% would be your Bloc Quebecois largely along with the minor parties.

Further, to state that the Conservatives are appealing to the voters further right of the "Red Tory" is misguided IMHO, as those votes would vote Conservative no matter what the case... what other real option, outside of fringe parties, do they have? Further, unlike in the US, those voters make up a very low number of persons, and outside of a few ridings would have only a minor effect at the best of times. I would say that the Conservative party is trying to distance themselves from those voters if anything.

On the left spectrum, the people significantly "left of red tory" traditionally went to the NDP. With the NDP now moving into a position to make a legitimate shot at power, they are equally attempting to distance themselves from their fringe elements on the left and move into the centre. That's why the liberals seem out of sorts- they're not right enough to be right and not left enough to be left.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (5 Aug 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Opposition party supporters are going to beat the "mood for change" drum.  Government party supporters are going to beat the "no appetite for change" drum.  It is election time.  Every reporter's bias is subject to examination - after applying the customary assumption that only 1/3 of reportage is an accurate reflection of reality.



And 47 % of statistics are made up on the spot.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (5 Aug 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> It is supposed to prevent red streets.



Guns in the streets?  That was Shiny Pony's dad.


----------



## larry Strong (5 Aug 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Guns in the streets?  That was Shiny Pony's dad.



Never knew PM Harper went up against PET....IIRC it was Mr. Dithers who was running the show......



Cheers
Larry


----------



## Rocky Mountains (5 Aug 2015)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Never knew PM Harper went up against PET....IIRC it was Mr. Dithers who was running the show......
> 
> Cheers
> Larry



The last person to physically have guns in the streets was Mr. Fuddle Duddle in 1970.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Aug 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> The last person to physically have guns in the streets was Mr. Fuddle Duddle in 1970.



Your quote is more famous from P Martin Jr's campaign.

Also, many of us were armed during the '76 Olympics in Montreal, you just didn't see it


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Aug 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Your quote is more famous from P Martin Jr's campaign.
> 
> Also, many of us were armed during the '76 Olympics in Montreal, you just didn't see it



Luckily they took photos...er...well, made paintings of your company...this was before you got your 'hooks', right RG?  47th Grenadiers deployed up the river from Quebec?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Aug 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Luckily they took photos...er...well, made paintings of your company...this was before you got your 'hooks', right RG?  47th Grenadiers deployed up the river from Quebec?



Just got busted in rank........again.  8)


----------



## a_majoor (5 Aug 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Your quote is more famous from P Martin Jr's campaign.
> 
> Also, many of us were armed during the '76 Olympics in Montreal, you just didn't see it



Plenty of guns at the Vancouver Olympics and the G-8/G-20 meetings as well, but once again, just carried very discreetly. And plenty of guns did come out when Parliament hill was attacked (but the armed presence in Canadian cities now is the police, not the Armed Forces).


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Aug 2015)

In this video John Ibbitson suggests that a long campaign may be dangerous for Prime Minister Harper. The PM is an introvert, Ibbitson says, and a long campaign may wear him down and cause him to make mistakes.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (5 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Messers Mulcair and Trudeau...... want to spend, wildly; they want to buy your votes with your grandchildren's money; they are irresponsible ...



Is it any less irresponsible to buy critical 905 swing votes using those very same swing voters own money via the Renovation Tax Credit?


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Aug 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Is it any less irresponsible to buy critical 905 swing votes using those very same swing voters own money via the Renovation Tax Credit?


A tax credit that's clearly stated to hinge on a balanced budget, something Muclair and Trudeau hasn't (and will not ever) promise? They'd rather just raise taxes to fund whatever vote buying they can think up.


----------



## Remius (5 Aug 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> A tax credit that's clearly stated to hinge on a balanced budget, something Muclair and Trudeau hasn't (and will not ever) promise? They'd rather just raise taxes to fund whatever vote buying they can think up.



Aren't they already claiming that they balanced the budget?


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Aug 2015)

They technically did, but the economy taking a big crap unbalanced it shortly after. That still doesn't change the fact that they're the only party putting a caveat about economic stability on thier campaign promises. What's $15 a day daycare going to do to the budget?


----------



## ballz (5 Aug 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Is it any less irresponsible to buy critical 905 swing votes using those very same swing voters own money via the Renovation Tax Credit?



I'm not supporting the CPC, but yes, it is less irresponsible to let people keep their own money. The problem is, as you alluded to, the government arbitrarily picking and choosing who it lets keep their money.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Aug 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Is it any less irresponsible to buy critical 905 swing votes using those very same swing voters own money via the Renovation Tax Credit?



I don't like most of the spending the CPC has announced, it's mostly unnecessary and some of it is downright wrong ... but I'm going to offer a half-hearted defence of the renovation tax credit because it fits, in a way, with my thesis that it is OK to borrow (long term bonds) for long life infrastructure programmes ~ especially to maintain and upgrade existing infrastructure. Renovating, upgrading your home, is _similar_ and this is a way, not a very efficient way, of encouraging Canadians to hire other Canadians (that jobs! Jobs!! JOBs!!! thing again) and use Canadian products to maintain and upgrade their own, private _infrastructure_ ... all that to say that it is, at least, not social spending: another _family allowance_ thingy might cause me to vote _Libertarian_ or something.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Aug 2015)

Jeffrey Simpson's thesis about what happened to moderate conservatives is wrong.

Here (from Pew Research Center) are some plots of data from attitude surveys, covering the period 1994-2014.

If you click the animation, it illustrates why progressives think conservatives have become dramatically less moderate: for a time, values of Democrats and Republicans were shifting leftward; then, Republican values began moving rightward while Democrats continued drifting left.

Compare 1994 and 2014 to see who has really become "less moderate".

Those are measures from the US (part of Simpson's thesis addresses perceived changes in the US).  But if political attitudes in Canada have undergone similar evolutions, the same general conclusion would apply: that conservatives have not become remarkably less moderate - it just looks that way from a progressive frame of reference which is moving leftward.

Has the conservative faction in Canada become less moderate?  If it has, it's hard to see: this government has avoided revisiting most of the major social changes and is mainly focused on fiscal issues.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Aug 2015)

Renovation Tax Credit:

Basically, what was said above: it's contingent on conditions, and it tends to promote voluntary consumer activity in domestic markets.  The labour can't be off-shored.  While materials can come from anywhere, I find much of what I use is local (particularly landscaping materials) and of the rest most is Canadian.  It mitigates against the deterioration of housing stock.  It can be tuned up or down if the economy is weak or strong.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Aug 2015)

Scott Barlow, writing in a SUBSCRIBER ONLY article in the _Globe and Mail_ says that a "Weak loonie implies election defeat for federal Tories.". His "roundup" says:

     "Macleans magazine and Bloomberg each published reports that, combined, form an excellent summary of the economic issues surrounding the upcoming federal election. Both reports are objective, presenting arguments for and against
       a change in government. The most provocative of the ideas comes from Bloomberg who note,

     “Large dollar drops don’t bode well for sitting prime ministers. Major depreciations also occurred before elections in 1993 and 1984 that saw incumbents Kim Campbell of the Conservatives and John Turner of the Liberals suffer resounding defeats.”

     “Five Must-Watch Charts for Harper During Canada Re-Election Bid” – Bloomberg

     “The top economic indicators to watch before October’s election” – Moffatt, Macleans

      CNBC presented an outsider view of the Canadian economy, emphasizing the term “unusual recession.” The most salient quote was from TD Bank economist Derek Burleton who reported, “[Foreign investors are] worried about Canada;
      they're still short Canada," Mr. Burleton said. "There's not a lot of upside to growth."”

     “Canada is on the brink of a ‘very unusual recession’” – CNBC

Time will tell, of course, but the gloomy economic news doesn't rwally help anyone, very much, _I think_. Yes: it makes Canadians less trusting in Prime Minister's Harper's leaderrship and managerial abilities. But, it also will make Canadians fearful of Liberal and NDP spending promises.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (6 Aug 2015)

Weak loonie?  Isn't that what Shiny Pony and Angry Tom wanted to cure Dutch disease?  Ontario's economy only seems to work well with a 62 cent dollar.  Every economy in the world is doing a dive for the bottom and we are winning.  They all seem to be looking for economic stimulus brought on by low prices.  Some might say Harper is a genius.  Personally I am not a fan of devaluation.


----------



## Kilo_302 (6 Aug 2015)

Meanwhile Canadian scientists are starting to abandon their traditionally apolitical stance:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/11/07/canada-scientists-harper_n_6124598.html




> "This government has forced non-partisan organizations such as ours to make a very difficult choice: to remain silent or to speak out. We have chosen to speak out."
> 
> Daviau cited several controversial bills as proof that the government has targeted "the very existence of unions and collective bargaining."
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (6 Aug 2015)

Harper desperately trying to appear human. This actually reminds of the Roddy Piper classic, "They Live!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/06/harper-netflix-tax-conservative-video-twitter_n_7949074.html

Not mention that none of the federal parties have suggested a Netflix tax.


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Aug 2015)

For the sake of balance:

Also from the Huffington Post:

Thomas Mulcair: An NDP Government Will Ensure Cops Can Track Every Gun

and

NDP's $15 Minimum Wage Pledge: Party Says Promise Isn't Misleading

This video would seem to indicate that it is.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Here's an article that describes the government's dismal record of managing the economy:
> 
> 
> http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/07/worst-canadas-economy-under-harper-government
> ...




Konrad Yakabuski, in the _Globe and Mail_ says Jim Sanford, and others, are cherry picking their data when they accuse Prime Minister Harper of being a bad manager. On the contrary, Mr Yakabuski says, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, whoever take over in Oct will inherit a pretty good situation thanks to Prime Minister Harper's good management:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/judge-harpers-economic-record-by-the-hand-he-was-dealt/article25867267/


> Judge Harper’s economic record by the hand he was dealt
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I think Konrad Yakabuski asks the right question: _Can Canadians "do better" by electing either M Mulcair or M Trudeau? _

My answer, based on what each man has promised, to date, is a resounding *"No."*

Many of you are going to vote against Mr Harper; that's all well and good, and it's your right. But, if you're going to vote against him because _you believe _some Big Labour claptrap about his poor fiscal record then you are voting based on a very selective and incomplete analysis of the facts.


----------



## McG (6 Aug 2015)

For those who want to see the debate when it kicks off in an hour:
http://www.macleans.ca/national-leaders-debate/


----------



## George Wallace (6 Aug 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> For those who want to see the debate when it kicks off in an hour:
> http://www.macleans.ca/national-leaders-debate/



Here is a list with links where to other locations that you can watch the debate:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-macleans-national-leaders-debate/


----------



## Kilo_302 (6 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Konrad Yakabuski, in the _Globe and Mail_ says Jim Sanford, and others, are cherry picking their data when they accuse Prime Minister Harper of being a bad manager. On the contrary, Mr Yakabuski says, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, whoever take over in Oct will inherit a pretty good situation thanks to Prime Minister Harper's good management:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/judge-harpers-economic-record-by-the-hand-he-was-dealt/article25867267/
> 
> ...




Here's a more balanced assessment of Stanford's report:

http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/07/31/Unifor-Report/


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Here's a more balanced assessment of Stanford's report:
> 
> http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/07/31/Unifor-Report/



I feel like this whole quote fits into "Whats the dumbest thing you've heard all day" thread. Unifor would declare the sun sets in the east if it was a counter to a Conservative position.


----------



## Kilo_302 (6 Aug 2015)

Did you even read it? I would say this is relatively balanced. No one can argue with the veracity of the data, however as Moffatt points out, it was "kind of selective." Of course Unifor is opposed to Harper, but again, the data doesn't lie and while this doesn't paint the whole picture it gets some things right. Namely that the Conservatives have not been good for our economy. 



> Economist Mike Moffatt of Ontario's Mowat Centre, an independent think tank, reviewed the report and said it holds up to scrutiny.
> 
> Moffatt said the figures in the report are accurate, but more context would help explain why the economy has performed poorly.
> 
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Did you even read it? I would say this is relatively balanced. No one can argue with the veracity of the data, however as Moffatt points out, it was "kind of selective." Of course Unifor is opposed to Harper, but again, the data doesn't lie and while this doesn't paint the whole picture it gets some things right. Namely that the Conservatives have not been good for our economy.



"Kind of selective" and "relatively balanced" do not belong in the same sentence. When you hand pick data out to support a conclusion you've already made, that's not an unbiased article. If you present all the data and then present arguments as to why your view on policies would have provided better results, then you have an actual article that is unbiased.


----------



## Kilo_302 (6 Aug 2015)

You're confusing the article with the report. Of course neither is unbiased, but Moffat (quoted in the article about the actual report) has it exactly right. They have been somewhat selective, but the data is correct and most of the major economic indicators are overwhelmingly negative.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Aug 2015)

When you're citing Rabble and the Tyee citing a Unifor "study", you're basically citing a circle jerk.


----------



## McG (6 Aug 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> For those who want to see the debate when it kicks off in an hour:
> http://www.macleans.ca/national-leaders-debate/


Well, I don't think that will have changed anything for anyone.


----------



## GAP (6 Aug 2015)

Pretty Bland......Nothing there convinced me to change my vote from Conservative.


----------



## dimsum (6 Aug 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Well, I don't think that will have changed anything for anyone.



Missed it (funny, it wasn't playing in the mess for TGIT) but I guess I didn't really miss anything at all.


----------



## McG (6 Aug 2015)

At best, it would have reinforced any decision or indecision you had already reached.

I was amused by a few statements where Mr Mulcair presented himself as the rational middle ground between Mr Harper and Mrs May; I do not think it was deliberate but it it exaggerated previous suggestions that Mr Trudeau (who was placed to one side in the debate) is on the side watching this election as opposed to leading a viable campaign.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Aug 2015)

It'll be interesting to see if this comes into play at the national level.  Alberta votes in the NDP.  NDP raises corporate taxes.  Companies now report losses.  Companies claim losses cost Canadian jobs.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/canadian-natural-posts-405-million-net-loss-after-alberta-tax-hike-1.2505394


----------



## CougarKing (7 Aug 2015)

Wow. To think Trudeau actually ended his closing remarks by saying "So that's why I want to be your Prime Minister!" 

Yeah, like that won't play to voters as the baby-faced Trudeau saying "I'm entitled to this position because of my surname."  :facepalm:

And he was continually interrupting and not letting the other party leaders finish their sentences during their turns.

Maybe his debate coaches just told him to be more aggressive, but Trudeau's incessant "No that's not true Mr. Harper!" made him come across as a child stamping his foot that no one's listening to him.


----------



## Altair (7 Aug 2015)

As a biased liberal, I'll give my spin on trudeau's performance. 

For a rookie leader, think he did quite well. He couldn't afford to be marginalized and concede the ABC role to mulcair. I don't think he did enough to win this election but I sure think he didn't lose it tonight. He was aggressive, which should help counter some of those ads saying he's a lightweight airhead. He wasn't overwhelmed by the three other very experienced opponents which was my main worry.

He wasn't able to give much specifics when it came to his plan, but I don't think any of the leaders did too much of that. He tried too hard to speak over others, which tends to be annoying. I understand that he needed to be very involved but it still got to me and the wife a bit. His arms were going g crazy, but between mulcair crazy eyes and harpers non smile, I'll call that a wash.

All told, a positive night for the liberals. I just hope that justin trudeau is playing the long game in the sense that he doesn't just resign ig he doesn't win the election. He looks like he's going to be able to just about triple his parties seat count to 90 something from the mid 30s in what looks like a upcoming minority parliament. He will hold the balance of power nobody who wins the minority and he can then hone his skills a bit. Seeing as this will probably be harpers last election he will have a bit of experience going up against a rookie CPC leader whenever the minority goverment falls. I think that counts as success when you consider the LPC was on its deathbed after the 2011 election results.

He reminds me a bit of Stephen Harper in the sense that he didn't win his first two elections but stuck it out until the Canadian public wasn't terrified of him anymore. If trudeau plays the long game and sticks it out for what I believe to be the next two minority parliaments we are likely to have that he will have positioned himself well.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> As a biased liberal, I'll give my spin on trudeau's performance.
> 
> _For a rookie leader, think he did quite well._ He couldn't afford to be marginalized and concede the ABC role to mulcair. I don't think he did enough to win this election but I sure think he didn't lose it tonight. He was aggressive, which should help counter some of those ads saying he's a lightweight airhead. He wasn't overwhelmed by the three other very experienced opponents which was my main worry.
> 
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (7 Aug 2015)

John Robson of the National Post is experiencing some angst:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-robson-i-cant-vote-for-the-harper-conservatives-i-just-cant



> Elections are such infuriating spectacles that sometimes one doesn't know which obscenity to utter first. But I've decided to aim my initial outburst at the Harper Tories.
> 
> I cannot vote for them. I just can't. They should be my natural choice but their coarse, vindictive, proudly unprincipled cynicism must not be rewarded with electoral success, regardless of the consequences.
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (7 Aug 2015)

I suspect that many traditional fiscal conservatives feel the same way.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Aug 2015)

If it's there, I'll use it. I'm more concerned that income splitting is going to be cancelled by the opposition. That's thousands of dollars out of my pocket every year, and I'm hardly the "rich, upper class".


----------



## PPCLI Guy (7 Aug 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I suspect that many traditional fiscal conservatives feel the same way.



 :nod:


----------



## Remius (7 Aug 2015)

I saw the debate yesterday and overall I think it was a very GOOD debate.  Maclean's certainly had a good format and a great moderator.  I can't say anyone came out on top but will make the following observations about the leaders.

*Stephen Harper:*  The man who was the primary target (as is always the case with incumbents) held his own.  But i don't think he did with ease.  The opposition hammered him and made sure he didn't have an easy time of it.  He did look like a leader and was to the point.  I thought he was a little weaker when it came to the environment and the senate (I think we were expecting that) and he let the three others dictate the conversation on the economy.  He was strong on the whole ISIL issue in the middle east but I think he could have done better and really slammed the other three on this o, and he scored some great points by being(surprisingly) the moderate middle man when the whole clarity act issue came up.  That last point for me was his strongest performance last night. 

*Thomas Mulcair:*  I don't know.  Maybe I was expecting more.  When he was good he was good but he had a few waffles and looked uncomfortable for a bit.  While I understand he needs Quebec's support, his position on the clarity act will only hurt him in places like Ontario.  This was an English debate, he likely should have tried to change the tune on that one rather than push it further.  He also looked weak on the questions about the Ukraine and ISIL.  His position is clear enough but I don't think it was communicated very well.  He gets points from me for setting the tone on the economy issue and scoring what some say was a solid hit when he managed to get Stephen Harper to admit (sort of) that we are indeed in a recession.

Justin Trudeau:  I didn't like his closing speech.  Too wordy and trying to sound inspiring without inspiration.   I think his party can walk away happy with last night's performance.  He didn't let up and while he won't convince the partisan or hardcore conservative base he may have shown the undecided and middle of the road voters that he is more than just hair.  More importantly he may have shown dissaffected liberals that he might have more substance than his opponents would have them believe.  I noticed something interesting in his choice of words- "No one believes you" and "No one trusts you on..." and "Failed plan".  I wonder if this is how the Liberals will attempt to frame Mr. Harper in the coming weeks.

Elizabeth May:  Solid performance.  I think of all the leaders there she exceeded expectations.  She knew her material and ws clearly the best prepared.  But I really don't think a significant amount of Canadians care what she has to say so it is a moot point in the end.  

All this to say that this was good debate.  A lot of policy talk and really put the party platforms to the forefront.  The format was excellent I think.  Andrew Coyne stated that this makes for a good start to the campaign and I agree.  I also agree that with a looooong campaign ahead that this debate likely will have little impact on the end result but it does set the tone. 

Many more things to come I think.  For me though at this time, no one has convinced me yet why I should vote for them.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Aug 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> John Robson of the National Post is experiencing some angst:
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-robson-i-cant-vote-for-the-harper-conservatives-i-just-cant




Makes me wonder where John Robson wants the money to be handed out, if not to promote business?  Just give it to the homeless guy sitting with his cup out on the street corner, a block from a liquor store?


----------



## dapaterson (7 Aug 2015)

Perhaps he thinks government shouldn't be in the business of making handouts?  That's the traditional conservative approach.


----------



## Remius (7 Aug 2015)

Especially handouts of questionable value.  I think, that was Robson's point.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Aug 2015)

I look at the 'trickle down effect' of these decisions/handouts.  For some it is a tax break, and if that is where you want to stop your opinion will vary.  If you follow the affects further to the labourers, for instance those who will be employed in renovating the home and the materials purchased, as well as the labourers and businesses involved in producing those materials, and the businesses and labourers involved in procuring the raw materials and transporting them to production facilities, and so on.  We then see the 'trickle down effect' has greatly affected a vast number more Canadians than just the one getting a tax break.  99% of Canadians can not see past the tips of their noses.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Aug 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Perhaps he thinks government shouldn't be in the business of making handouts?  That's the traditional conservative approach.



 :bravo:

It's not the home renovation tax credit, itself, that I find really objectionable: it is the enormous pile of "boutique tax credits," especially and above all the _family allowance_ rubbish.* 

     (I don't propose an end to social programmes but I would like to see a slow, steady but implacable federal government withdrawal from the field, beginning with a simple repeal of the Canada Health Act which would allow (force?) provinces to
      get both _creative_ and _cooperative_ in funding health care, freeing up money for infrastructure maintenance, especially for helping towns and cities water and sewers ~ clean water and good sewage disposal has done more,
      over the past 500 years, and still does more to to keep us all alive and healthy than does _medical care_ ~ and education ~ which will involve spending our grandchildren's money on them, rather than on us.)

My problem, and the reason I cannot look elsewhere, other than to the CPC, is that Messers Mulcair and Trudeau, the only viable alternatives, offer only to be worse than than Prime Minister Harper and his Conservatives.

_____
* Our current system of family allowances was set up in 1945, it was, in some measure a reaction to the surge in support for the CCF (MJ Coldwell was leader then, during the war) and it's (the CCF's) emphasis on social programmes. It, along with the entire Liberal platform of a "New Social Order" (land, jobs and business support for veterans; new housing (aimed at veterans); family allowances; establishing an Industrial development Bank; loans to farmers, floor prices for agricultural products; and tax reductions) was all "pork barrelling" of the highest order.


----------



## Remius (7 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I look at the 'trickle down effect' of these decisions/handouts.  For some it is a tax break, and if that is where you want to stop your opinion will vary.  If you follow the affects further to the labourers, for instance those who will be employed in renovating the home and the materials purchased, as well as the labourers and businesses involved in producing those materials, and the businesses and labourers involved in procuring the raw materials and transporting them to production facilities, and so on.  We then see the 'trickle down effect' has greatly affected a vast number more Canadians than just the one getting a tax break.  99% of Canadians can not see past the tips of their noses.



The problem is that there are far better ways to stimulate the economy.  As well this isn't even in the cards until they balance the budget so is years away.  How many people actually do the renovations themselves?  Or hire under the table labourers?  And how many people with the intention of moving and decide to stay put because ofthe tax break.  

I don't disagree with this particular tax break in principle but the timing, the implementation and the fact that they themselves stopped it a few years ago is raising some alarm bells that this is in fact another boutique tax that has nothing to do with the economy and everything to do with getting votes.  Some fiscal conservatives are seeing through this.  I've listened to Jon Robson before on teh radio etc, and if he is upset about this then maybe there is a problem.  

I'm not sure that dissaffected conservatives would vote liberal or NDP (certainly not now) but they might just not vote at all.  Something, for the CPC, is just as bad as voting for the other guy.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Aug 2015)

I agree ERC.

There are a few 'social programs' that are 'necessary'; but to create a myriad of 'social programs' for any conceivable social problem is not only a drain on the nation's finances, but will bring about the collapse of the nation.  We only have to look at Greece.  

Should we only concentrate on Health Care, Infrastructure and Education and do away with all other social programs?   Those seem to be supporting an the overall aim towards 'nation building' as opposed to handouts that terminate in bottomless pits that solve no problems and produce nothing.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Did you even read it? I would say this is relatively balanced. No one can argue with the veracity of the data, however as Moffatt points out, it was "kind of selective." Of course Unifor is opposed to Harper, but again, the data doesn't lie and while this doesn't paint the whole picture it gets some things right. Namely that the Conservatives have not been good for our economy.



You have a very irritating habit of posting links to reports with a one-liner "here's balance", then when others respond to the material you have linked to which provides indications that don't fully support your "here's balance" narrative, you then accuse them of not having read the report/article/publication.  Why don't you refer to the material, then add your own perspective and thoughts on why the material is balanced, instead of accusing any one with a view different than yours of not reading it when they clearly have -- how else could they have responded with specific references to the material?

G2G


----------



## George Wallace (7 Aug 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> The problem is that there are far better ways to stimulate the economy.



I agree, but feel that any stimulus, no matter how small, is still better than none.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> .....  As well this isn't even in the cards until they balance the budget so is years away.  How many people actually do the renovations themselves?  Or hire under the table labourers?  And how many people with the intention of moving and decide to stay put because of the tax break.



Doesn't matter who does the renovations, it still has a trickle down affect.  Materials do not magically appear out of thin air.  With a Tax Break, you need receipts.  That has an affect on the 'under the table' contractors and labour.  Property owners, whether they are staying or moving, know that property needs maintenance.  Before we get into the fact that this is aimed at Property owners, don't forget that the contractors, labourers, manufacturers of the materials, truckers, etc. are not all Property owners.  

Along with this tax break, came another earlier announcement about increasing the number of years to help train Apprentice's in the Trades.  Another step towards, what I feel, nation building.  Encouraging people to get into the Trades and 'build'.



			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> I don't disagree with this particular tax break in principle but the timing, the implementation and the fact that they themselves stopped it a few years ago is raising some alarm bells that this is in fact another boutique tax that has nothing to do with the economy and everything to do with getting votes.  .....



It is an election.  Some of these announcements are naturally going to be 'good' and many are going to be 'fluff'.  Hopefully the winner is the one with the best to offer.


----------



## McG (7 Aug 2015)

CTV says that the "experts" are divided on the renovation tax credit, but their article reflects more negative to disinterest.  The sums are apparently too small to influence the economy, there is doubt that such a credit causes people to spend money they were not going to spend anyway, and there is conflicting opinion as to what this might do for housing sales market:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/harper-s-home-reno-tax-credit-promise-divides-realtors-1.2504528

If the goal was to leave money in Canadians' pockets, then a simple, little tax cut for everybody would be preferable.


----------



## Kilo_302 (7 Aug 2015)

I thought Elizabeth May performed well last night. Obviously she had little to lose, but her fact checking of the other leaders was effective and to the point. I thought Trudeau on the other hand was a train wreck, particularly his closing statement. It was embarrassing and cringe inducing to watch.

Harper and Mulcair I thought were pretty evenly matched, though I was expecting a more lively discussion between them. Mulcair's handlers probably coached him to keep things toned down, as Harper's handlers no doubt coached him to try and draw out the others in the hopes that they would make a mistake. 

Overall, it was nothing special. But just as I was disappointed with the state of affairs in Canada, I turned on the US debate. The first thing I heard (as my TV was warming up) something about "millions of dead babies." Turns out we can still be proud of the state of affairs in Canada for the time being.


----------



## CougarKing (7 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I thought Trudeau on the other hand was a train wreck, particularly his closing statement.



Didn't I say the same thing on the previous page?  ;D 

Anyways, it's quite sad when our politicians have to compete with Donald Trump for attention in one's own country, since the US GOP primary debates happened at nearly the same time, last night. 

Reuters



> *Trump could trump Trudeau & Co in big Canadian election show*
> Tue Aug 4, 2015 4:35pm EDT
> Businessman and Republican candidate for president Donald Trump speaks to supporters at a campaign event in Laconia, New Hampshire, July 16, 2015.  REUTERS/Dominick Reuter
> 1 of 1Full Size
> ...


----------



## Rocky Mountains (7 Aug 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> CTV says that the "experts" are divided on the renovation tax credit, but their article reflects more negative to disinterest.  The sums are apparently too small to influence the economy, there is doubt that such a credit causes people to spend money they were not going to spend anyway, and there is conflicting opinion as to what this might do for housing sales market:
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/harper-s-home-reno-tax-credit-promise-divides-realtors-1.2504528
> 
> If the goal was to leave money in Canadians' pockets, then a simple, little tax cut for everybody would be preferable.



How is it possible to find people to criticize the effectiveness of a home renovation tax credit?  On principle I object to the potpourri of tax credits but construction is the best thing to subsidize and the classical thing for stimulus spending.  The vast majority of construction dollars are spent in Canada.  If subsidizing construction in a recession has a downside, then everyone is getting it wrong because everyone does it, not just Conservatives.


----------



## McG (7 Aug 2015)

Changing your kitchen or bathroom is not real construction.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (7 Aug 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Changing your kitchen or bathroom is not real construction.



I'll play.  Then what is it?


----------



## mariomike (7 Aug 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> I'll play.  Then what is it?



Renovation?


----------



## McG (7 Aug 2015)

Somewhere on a spectrum of maintenance and cosmetics.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Aug 2015)

If the NDP is seriously proposing to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr, they had better take a quick trip to US "Blue" States and cities, and see the almost immediate results.

Promising to implement a policy which will lead to massive increases in unemployment among young and low skilled workers while hammering small and generally undercapitalized business is going to be a sure winner. I can almost see the CPC ads now: interviews with small restaurant, independent bookstore and other business people in Seattle on how they were forced to lay off staff or close down because of the forced wage hike.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/22/seattle-sees-fallout-from-15-minimum-wage-as-other-cities-follow-suit/



> *Seattle sees fallout from $15 minimum wage, as other cities follow suit*
> Dan Springer
> By Dan SpringerPublished July 22, 2015
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Aug 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If the NDP is seriously proposing to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr, they had better take a quick trip to US "Blue" States and cities, and see the almost immediate results.



I think I covered the other problems with it here:

NDP's $15 Minimum Wage Pledge: Party Says Promise Isn't Misleading

This video would seem to indicate that it is.

It only covers federally regulated industries where nearly all of the workers already make more that $15 per hour. The public perception would appear to indicate otherwise.


----------



## McG (7 Aug 2015)

To get an idea of who you can vote for, have a look here:

http://www.elections.ca/home.aspx

CAF electors will have to use the postal code associated with their SOR and not current address, unless the two match, when visiting the site.


----------



## Remius (7 Aug 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If the NDP is seriously proposing to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr, they had better take a quick trip to US "Blue" States and cities, and see the almost immediate results.
> 
> Promising to implement a policy which will lead to massive increases in unemployment among young and low skilled workers while hammering small and generally undercapitalized business is going to be a sure winner. I can almost see the CPC ads now: interviews with small restaurant, independent bookstore and other business people in Seattle on how they were forced to lay off staff or close down because of the forced wage hike.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/22/seattle-sees-fallout-from-15-minimum-wage-as-other-cities-follow-suit/



Apples and oranges.  That hike would affect maybe 100 000 people if that and only in federally regualted areas.  Most of the examples seen in your example are provincially regulated.  The NDP proposal is just smoke and mirrors.  Makes them look good to their own base and likely fools certain people in the wrong industries into thinking they'll get a raise when in fact they won't..


----------



## Kilo_302 (7 Aug 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If the NDP is seriously proposing to raise the minimum wage to $15/hr, they had better take a quick trip to US "Blue" States and cities, and see the almost immediate results.
> 
> Promising to implement a policy which will lead to massive increases in unemployment among young and low skilled workers while hammering small and generally undercapitalized business is going to be a sure winner. I can almost see the CPC ads now: interviews with small restaurant, independent bookstore and other business people in Seattle on how they were forced to lay off staff or close down because of the forced wage hike.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/22/seattle-sees-fallout-from-15-minimum-wage-as-other-cities-follow-suit/




This article says "evidence is surfacing" and then doesn't produce much evidence. Outside of the Basic Food Program stats (and they're only citing one month at the new wages), all of the evidence they've included is anecdotal. Most academic studies (upon which Seattle based much of it's decision) have concluded that such an increase can be absorbed by economies without too much disruption. 

I would add that if rabble.ca The Tyee are biased sources, Fox will also publish anything that questions the efficacy of wage increases. Overall, it's too soon to tell if benefits outweigh the downsides. The Washington State Employment Security Department collects data from employers on wages and hours on a quarterly basis, so I expect we will have a better idea of what's actually happening after Q3-Q4. However, even that is a bit short term to really measure the impact.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (7 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I would add that if rabble.ca The Tyee are biased sources, Fox will also publish anything that questions the efficacy of wage increases.



Fox is the largest news network in the US by far.  It's agenda must be appealing to at least the lowest common denominator.  

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/08/05/cable-news-ratings-for-tuesday-august-4-2015/442995/

I don't know who in the federal jurisdiction would pay less than $ 15 per hour.  Approaching none?


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Aug 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Fox is the largest news network in the US by far.  It's agenda must be appealing to at least the lowest common denominator.
> 
> http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/08/05/cable-news-ratings-for-tuesday-august-4-2015/442995/
> 
> I don't know who in the federal jurisdiction would pay less than $ 15 per hour.  Approaching none?


Be careful about what "jurisdiction" means.  Here in Canada, the federal minimum wage (which applies to federally-regulated industries, like broadcasting) is lower than Ontario's minimum wage - not all federally _regulated_ workers are federally _employed_ workers.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Aug 2015)

As usual, Kilo ignores what is in the article and tries to disqualify because of the source. Funny how _we_ are not supposed to disqualify things posted on rabble.ca or MSNBC.

However googling deeper into the issue provides surprising second and third order effects (especially once supporters are directly faced with the real costs), so I am pretty sure if the CPC sees a need to use attack ads against the NDP platform, this is a rich lode of material to mine. The real question is if or when is the best time to start, since the overarching issue for the CPC is to ensure the LPC is crushed and prevent NPD support from bleeding to the Liberals. Far better for the "Blue wing" of the LPC to start bleeding to the CPC, where there is more growth potential, than for NDP support to start bleeding towards the LPC.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (7 Aug 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Be careful about what "jurisdiction" means.  Here in Canada, the federal minimum wage (which applies to federally-regulated industries, like broadcasting) is lower than Ontario's minimum wage - not all federally _regulated_ workers are federally _employed_ workers.



Understood but do any bank clerks even make under $ 15 per hour?  Mind you, I live in Alberta where the only people working for less than $ 15 are imports from the third world.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Aug 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Changing your kitchen or bathroom is not real construction.



So building a house is = full spectrum warfare

Renovating a kitchen = Police Action

Painting the bathroom is = Peacekeeping


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Aug 2015)

Painting a bathroom involves a wife and paint swatches.  It's more like a Cold War with only two possible outcomes, both bad.


----------



## Kilo_302 (7 Aug 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> As usual, Kilo ignores what is in the article and tries to disqualify because of the source. Funny how _we_ are not supposed to disqualify things posted on rabble.ca or MSNBC.
> 
> However googling deeper into the issue provides surprising second and third order effects (especially once supporters are directly faced with the real costs), so I am pretty sure if the CPC sees a need to use attack ads against the NDP platform, this is a rich lode of material to mine. The real question is if or when is the best time to start, since the overarching issue for the CPC is to ensure the LPC is crushed and prevent NPD support from bleeding to the Liberals. Far better for the "Blue wing" of the LPC to start bleeding to the CPC, where there is more growth potential, than for NDP support to start bleeding towards the LPC.



Read my post again. I directly addressed what was in the article. Two anecdotal stories from a retirement home and a comic book store, and some stats from the Basic Food Program based on one month of new wages. Not exactly what I would call compelling evidence. It's simply too soon to tell.

I also stated that just as rabble.ca would be considered a "left wing" or "progressive source" and therefore biased, so can Fox News be considered the equivalent on the right. I don't watch MSNBC either, it's a joke just like Fox and CNN.

However, let's not forget that Fox News consumers are consistently far less informed than people who consume other media. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes-you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5

More recently:

http://www.inquisitr.com/2105906/fox-news-viewers-least-informed-among-media-consumers-says-new-study-by-former-reagan-adviser/


----------



## Blackadder1916 (7 Aug 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> . . . . . I live in Alberta where the only people working for less than $ 15 are imports from the third world.



So will an organization that proclaims to be "contributing to the operational readiness and effectiveness of the Canadian Armed Forces" be a beneficiary of the Temporary Foreign Workers Program.
https://www3.cfpsa.com/HRAdmin/JobPosters/e8a7f41a-9834-4bb2-9054-5017c75112ad.pdf



> Bartender
> Personnel Support Programs
> Warrant and Sergeant Mess
> CFB Edmonton
> ...



I suppose it says something that 1 Bde bartenders make approx $2.00 more an hour than 2 Bde and then there's gratuities, however back about twenty years ago when I was VPMC of a mess, our staff did comment that we were cheap bastards when it came to tipping.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Aug 2015)

David Reevely, of the _Ottawa Citizen_ provides a good primer on how _strategic voting_ might work, using one suburban riding as an example, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/reevely-this-election-is-about-nepean-surrey-and-mississauga


> This election is about Nepean, Surrey and Mississauga
> 
> DAVID REEVELY
> 
> ...



     (Nepean is a bedroom/big box mall suburb in Ottawa's west end.)

I'm not posting David Reevely's article just because he agrees with me ... he also explains how strategic voting might help Prime Minister Harper's Conservatives IF the anti-Harper vote splits just the right way: allowing Conservatives to come up through the middle in rising, after suburban riding, after suburban riding in city after city.

But if he's right, if M Trudeau is going to swing _waaaay_left and try to hive off the NDP's left wing, rather than ~ one one would have though is more logical: to appeal to the NDP's _right_ wing ~ then _I believe_ he's taking a bad risk. Like "the lady" (Margaret Thatcher), the left wing of the NDP is not, _in my opinion_, "for turning." It's been there for a long, long time: ever since the Canadian Labour Congress and the old, prairie, Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) merged in 1961. The NDP's left survived the crisis of the _Waffle_ movement in 1971 and it survived Pierre Trudeau's _silk stocking socialism_ in the late 60s and throughout the 70s. It will not be "turned" by kind of arguments M Trudeau is making, now.

His own "right wing," the Blue or Manley Liberals are, however, nervous, right now, _I think_, and they could be panicked ~ panicked enough to stampede towards the Tories ~ if M Trudeau is perceived to be really intent on campaigning and[ governing on the left. Plenty of Liberal leaders have "campaigned left" but the party power brokers, from Big Business, Big labour and the Big Banks, have always been quite sure that those leaders would "govern right," when the time came ...  and, except for Pierre Trudeau, they all did.

I see that the CPC is increasing its attacks on M Trudeau's (and M Mulcair's) fiscal plans: warning Canadians that both will run deficits. That's aimed squarely at the suburbs where, by and large, deficit financing causes real (albeit unreasoned) fear.

That M Trudeau is going after M Mulcair suggests, to me, that he knows who the real enemy is: he's fighting for Stornoway, not 24 Sussex Drive and it's an uphill battle.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Aug 2015)

>(albeit unreasoned) fear.

Unreasoned?  We ran deficits on behalf of the past recession, and here we are on the verge of another without having put anything back in the pot.  (I'm not particularly worried; I think Canada - and all other countries currently experiencing unspectacular recoveries from the last one - could spend the next few years sliding in and out of recessions just because of the way a recession is defined.)  I don't object to theoretical Keynesian management of cycles; I object to the real-world version in which we have deficits during a recession and deficits between recessions.

Looking back not too far, we know that when governments manage finances badly, things can get very bad - or fearsome, if you prefer.  There is nothing in the physical universe to prevent today's NDP or LPC from fussing up as badly as the Trudeau Liberals, the Rae NDP, or the McGuinty-Wynne Liberals (who have governed longer than Harper with less to show for it except a desperate hope that the next government of Canada will be happy to take the heat for new taxes and give the money to ON to spend).

Enough articles have been written pointing out that the real burden of tax revenue is borne by the middle class for the middle class to be aware of it.  We know that when governments get up against a wall, the problems aren't to be solved by taxing merely "the rich".


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Aug 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >(albeit unreasoned) fear.
> 
> Unreasoned?  We ran deficits on behalf of the past recession, and here we are on the verge of another without having put anything back in the pot.  (I'm not particularly worried; I think Canada - and all other countries currently experiencing unspectacular recoveries from the last one - could spend the next few years sliding in and out of recessions just because of the way a recession is defined.)  I don't object to _theoretical Keynesian management of cycles_; I object to the real-world version in which we have deficits during a recession and deficits between recessions.
> 
> ...





I know I'm preaching to the choir, Brad, but I need to repeat that it appears to me that most politicians never managed to finish John Maynard Keynes' book: they just got tot he bit where it said "spend during a recession or depression to _stimulate_ growth" and then put the book away. John Maynard Keynes was not subtle: he prescribed spending of sorts that can be, without too much political pain, switched on and then off again, when the economy is booming or, at least, motoring along happily. Most politicians (conveniently for those who are of the tax and spend variety) invoke Keynesian theory without having understood it.

I don't find deficits overly alarming ... but, then, I did finish the book.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Aug 2015)

This ...

        
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




               ... from NDP candidate and former journalist Linda McQuaig (on _CBC TV's_ "Power and Politics") and not anything said in the debate may be the "story" for the NDP in Alberta.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Aug 2015)

_Things that make you go_





There have been a series of posts, in the last day or so, about Liberal lawns signs, in Quebec, that do not feature M Trudeau's image at all or, even, in large print, his name.

Now we see (at least some of) the same in Ontario:

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Much was made, including by me, of the Liberals relying too heavily upon M Trudeau's _image_ and _charisma_; now it appears some Liberals want nothing much to do with him.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Aug 2015)

At the same time, if it is too expensive to take to oil out of the oilsands due to the world economic situation, it is only good business to leave it in the ground.  We have seen this for years in the mining sector.  Is it really a concern?


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Aug 2015)

This is what I think the CPC advertising campaign should look like for most of the campaign season:

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Both the Liberals and the NDP has promised to raise taxes in order to fund new social programmes. Neither leader can deny that. Prime Minister Harper can run on the fact, and it is a fact, that both taxes and government spending are lower than they've been in decades.

The "Just Not Ready" campaign has, probably, worked well enough ~ likely better than expected. Let M Trudeau's Liberals attack M Mulcair. Campaign on the truth: lower taxes and lower spending.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Aug 2015)

Which is to say, government spending as a fraction of economic activity (eg. of GDP) is lower.  This is, after all, the "highest spending government ever".

If oil stays in the ground long enough, it stays there forever.  Alternatives will eventually dominate - just not as suddenly as some people think is necessary.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There have been a series of posts, in the last day or so, about Liberal lawns signs, in Quebec, that do not feature M Trudeau's image at all or, even, in large print, his name.


Same in this part of Ontario - no pix at all, in fact, on many of the ones I've seen.

The signs would have been ordered well in advance of the writ, so it was also a decision made a while back.

- edited to qualify statement, now that I've seen a few with candidate pix -


----------



## McG (8 Aug 2015)

I prefer signs that only show the local candidate.  That is who we are voting for.
Sticking a party leader on the signs just contributes to people's misbelief that they are voting for a PM.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Aug 2015)

Mulcair has been claiming the Conservatives added $150 "in new debt".  I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, with the modifier "new" in there.  The number should be $135B [1].

One big hit was -$55B in 09-10, when revenues were down since 07-08 by $23B and expenses were up by $46B.  [2]

The major pressure point was Paul Martin's Health Accord [3].

The point: the Conservative government upheld and extended a major social spending commitment, did it while they trimmed some taxation, did it through a major recession and mediocre recovery, and did it for amounts that dwarf the piddling $2-3B the NDP and LPC are hoping to find for their daycare subsidies.  Criticisms that the Conservatives have been poor fiscal managers, have attacked the social welfare fabric of Canada, or have been unable to do the right thing to serve the interests of Canada don't stand up - except where there is flysh!t in the pepper.

[1] What the fiscal reference tables show is that the accumulated deficit at the end of FY 05-06 was $481.5B and at the end of FY 13-14 was $611.8.  Given ~$2B deficit for last year and ~$2B deficit for this year (assume debt, not surplus), that means the accumulated deficit increase will be a little under $135B.  It's still a big number, but I keep finding bullsh!t under the NDP's numbers.

[2] No-one should believe the Conservatives engineered a world-wide fiscal crisis; no-one should forget that the opposition parties (led by Ignatieff, with his "on probation" shtick) pressed for well over $30B in "stimulus" spending.

[3] The difference between Paul Martin's 6% growth rate in the Health Accord and 3% will be a cumulative ~$80B over the life of the Conservative government from 06-07 to 15-16, and a ~$12B difference in the year it ends.  My chosen 3% comparison is not entirely arbitrary - it's the rate the Conservatives intend to apply after the Accord expires, and is closer to (still above) recent rates of revenue growth and GDP growth.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Aug 2015)

Yesterday I wrote: "...I think Canada - and all other countries currently experiencing unspectacular recoveries from the last one - could spend the next few years sliding in and out of recessions just because of the way a recession is defined."

Here is an opinion on the value of the definition of "recession".

With or without an imminent election, the opposition parties may be expected to beat the "Canada is in recession; therefore, Conservatives are poor managers" drum.  But without that sharp recession/not-recession cutoff, they are just waffling and really saying "We don't like Conservatives.  Elect us instead!".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Aug 2015)

In a word: Arseholes.

Lying, truth bending, hypocrites.

We lose over 50% of our national wealth, due to the price of oil and Mulcair and Trudeu say it's all the CPC's fault.

Morons.


----------



## Harrigan (9 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Much was made, including by me, of the Liberals relying too heavily upon M Trudeau's _image_ and _charisma_; now it appears some Liberals want nothing much to do with him.



So not having the party leader's name on a sign automatically means some Liberals want nothing to do with Trudeau?  Really?  

Just because the CPC campaign is "all Harper, all the time", doesn't mean that the other parties have to be a one-man show too (and in the Liberals case, they should be focussing on their team anyway).  Could it not also be equally/more likely that pretty much everyone in the country already knows who the Liberal leader is?

Harrigan


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Aug 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> So not having the party leader's name on a sign automatically means some Liberals want nothing to do with Trudeau?  Really?
> 
> Just because the CPC campaign is "all Harper, all the time", doesn't mean that the other parties have to be a one-man show too (and in the Liberals case, they should be focussing on their team anyway).  Could it not also be equally/more likely that pretty much everyone in the country already knows who the Liberal leader is?
> 
> Harrigan




_Google_: www.harper.ca ~ you get some guy's empty blog, or _Google_ www.stephenharpoer.ca and you redirected to the CPC web site

_Google_: www.mulcair.ca ~ you get a commercial photographer's website (with some very nice photos, by the way)

But _Google_: www.justin.ca and see what you get (www.trudeau.ca is already taken by a kitchen appliance maker)

So, yeah, it has, in fact, been _"all Justin all the time"_ since 2013 and it is a wee bit surprising to see his name/image relegated to the fine print.


----------



## Harrigan (9 Aug 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Yesterday I wrote: "...I think Canada - and all other countries currently experiencing unspectacular recoveries from the last one - could spend the next few years sliding in and out of recessions just because of the way a recession is defined."
> 
> Here is an opinion on the value of the definition of "recession".
> 
> With or without an imminent election, the opposition parties may be expected to beat the "Canada is in recession; therefore, Conservatives are poor managers" drum.  But without that sharp recession/not-recession cutoff, they are just waffling and really saying "We don't like Conservatives.  Elect us instead!".



I don't disagree with your assessment on a recession, but the problem the government has is twofold:

1.  They are telling everyone that the economy is growing!, Growing!!, GROWING!!!, and that they are the ones (the only ones) who made it happen.  Yet people are seeing the dollar fall, the record of 8 straight years of deficits (now that the "surplus" is no longer) and the statistics stating exactly the opposite of what the govt is saying.  Of course, statistics are malleable, but voters are being asked to square what the government is saying and what they are seeing, which are not the same.  Most people don't share the govt's disdain for evidence-based decision making - and the evidence is not their friend at the moment.

2.  I completely agree that the current problem is heavily related to oil.  Problem for the government is that they are the party that has self-identified as pushing a heavily oil-based economy moreso than a diversified economy.  (Of course they are not trying to eliminate diversification, but no party pushes the oil-based economy more than the CPC).  This has been their strategy throughout their government, and the risks of this strategy must be all too apparent in the CPC bunker at the moment.

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (9 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _Google_: www.harper.ca ~ you get some guy's empty blog, or _Google_ www.stephenharpoer.ca and you redirected to the CPC web site
> 
> _Google_: www.mulcair.ca ~ you get a commercial photographer's website (with some very nice photos, by the way)
> 
> ...



I have no idea why you think that Domain Name Hijacking is even remotely relevant to this conversation.  You clearly agree that everyone knows who the leader of the Liberal Party is already, based on their (and the CPC's) pre-election promotion.  

What I find a leap in logic is automatically equating an election sign with only the candidate's name on it as somehow meaning that they don't support the party leader.  That is ridiculous.  Does a Green Party sign in Newfoundland HAVE to have Elizabeth May on it?  Does the attached photo means there is a front-bench revolt underway against the PM?






Harrigan


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Aug 2015)

1.  Whenever the economy is not shrinking, it is growing.  I suppose some people must feel the Conservatives have been claiming the economy is "GROWING!!!"; my impression is that they have been telling everyone Canada has been doing as well as or better than most other countries.

1a.  Can we leave talk about "8 straight years of deficits" to the spinners?  One office's projection isn't a fact, nor is it destined to be one if the office doesn't control the levers.  I'm peeved by all the sloppiness: 7 years of recession-induced deficits and a tight projection becomes "8"; a proposed Liberal tax cut worth about $670 is worth "almost a thousand dollars"; an increase in accumulated deficit of $135B is "$150 billion".

2. You fish where the fish are.  Our problem isn't governments that tried to make the most of favourable resource prices (main effort); our problem is people who are determined to not exploit those prices.  If the best that can be said about the Conservatives is that they have not tried to hinder diversification, the worst that can be said about the NDP is that they will hinder it - they plan to raise corporate taxes.

There was never any problem finding articles about how the GST cut was effective politics but poor economics.   Yet I have seen very few people attack a major part of the NDP platform - corporate tax increases - for the same thing.  See A Tale of Two Tax Cuts (Stephen Gordon in Maclean's, Dec 2013).

However poorly people feel the CPC has done, the NDP is plotting a course to do worse.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Aug 2015)

Let's also remember it was the Liberals and NDP that demanded those deficits as a condition of confidence. They conveniently wash their hands of it now, when it doesn't suit the rhetoric.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Aug 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Let's also remember it was the Liberals and NDP that demanded those deficits as a condition of confidence. They conveniently wash their hands of it now, when it doesn't suit the rhetoric.


Even during a _majority_ government?

Meanwhile, from the hustings ....


> *Harper Announces Banned Travel Zones to Combat Terrorism*
> 
> OTTAWA – Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that a re-elected Conservative government will take additional steps to stop the flow of foreign fighters to and from Canada. Building on previous counter terrorism measures implemented under Prime Minister Harper’s leadership, a re-elected Conservative government will create a new category of banned foreign travel zones known as “declared areas”. Declared areas will be designated regions within foreign countries where listed terrorist entities such as ISIS are engaged in hostile activities, and are recruiting and training followers. New legislation will make it a criminal offence for Canadians to travel to such areas.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (9 Aug 2015)

Quote from: PuckChaser on Today at 10:12:36


> Let's also remember it was the Liberals and NDP that demanded those deficits as a condition of confidence. They conveniently wash their hands of it now, when it doesn't suit the rhetoric.





> Even during a majority government?



Yes they did demand a stimulus package and Harper gave in probably more for PR than anything else......


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Aug 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> Yes they did demand a stimulus package and Harper gave in probably more for PR than anything else......


So his choice, maybe for optics reasons, even if he didn't need their votes, is their fault?


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Aug 2015)

Or it was required because we were already addicted to stimulus. Once we went down that road, I strongly doubt a policy 180 would have been good for the fragile recovery period, majority government or not. The fact that he was able to hack spending and reduce to near balance in a few short years while cutting some tax revenue, speaks volumes. Look at what Ontario has done with its deficits: spend more, and beg for more money.


----------



## GAP (9 Aug 2015)

Well....like ERC quotes Keynesian economics, the idea is to spend during a recession/depression, so yeah...


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Aug 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Or it was required because we were already addicted to stimulus.


Maybe (no matter the party).


			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Once we went down that road, I strongly doubt a policy 180 would have been good for the fragile recovery period, majority government or not.





			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Well....like ERC quotes Keynesian economics, the idea is to spend during a recession/depression, so yeah...


So it wasn't the opposition's fault then   



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The fact that he was able to hack spending and reduce to near balance in a few short years while cutting some tax revenue, speaks volumes.


_That's_ true enough.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Aug 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> So it wasn't the opposition's fault then



Maybe not completely, but they were the catalyst, so they have no right to make an issue of successive deficits that they wanted and pushed for, all the while proposing massive social programs without a clue on how to pay for them.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Aug 2015)

>Even during a majority government?

Together with the collapse of federal revenues due to the recession, the government - while still in its minority period - committed itself to four things which probably account for all or very nearly all of the deficits: the "action plan" that the opposition demanded as the price of allowing the minority to continue; the GST cut; the Health Accord (extended for 2 years); and not cutting transfers to fix a deficit.


----------



## Remius (10 Aug 2015)

Something I've noticed in the last few days is the CPC moving away from the economy and seem to be trying to focus on security.  Even the "not ready" commercials seem to be re tailored or edited.  Maybe their internal polling is showing that they are taking some heat on the economy.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Aug 2015)

I think that David Parkins, in the _Globe and Mail_, understands the _strategic_ issue:






Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorial-cartoons-for-august-2015/article25744115/

Prime Minister Harper (rather than his government or the CPC, itself) "wins" by not losing badly (à la Kim Campbell (1993), Joe Clark (2000) or even Michael Ignatieff (2011)). He keeps his reputation and his party lives to fight anew. Prime Ministers Campbell and Clark left the old Progressive Conservative Party _shattered_, ripe for a takeover by Stephen Harper. Michael Ignatieff left the Liberals badly _weakened_, not, necessarily, doomed to the PC's fate, but in danger of being overwhelmed in the centre from both the right and the left. In fact, _in my opinion_, the right kind of loss* might serve the CPC very well.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------​
     * The "right kind of loss" is a minority that falls. Let's say, just for argument, that on 20 Oct we have (roughly) this situation:

            CPC:    150 seats
            NDP:    125
            LPC:      55 
            Others:   8     

        The CPC forms a government and Prime Minister Harper resigns, immediately. The CPC, being prepared for this, calls a leadership convention for January. The other parties, being polite, in Canadian parliamentary tradition, agree to pass
        an _interim supply_ bill to allow the Conservative government to operate until a budget is brought down in February. (The NDP are not inclined to change leaders and the Liberals, while still 3rd, have improved and decide to "stand pat.")
        The New CPC Prime Minister meets parliament in early February and a budget is brought down in mid February. It is defeated. The government falls. The Governor General, quite correctly, calls upon M Mulcair to form a government. He does
        and, in summer, he brings down his budget. It is too far left for some Liberals and they break ranks and vote against the budget with the CPC. The NDP government also falls. This time the GG, also very correctly, drops the writs
        for another general election ... in early October 2016. This time the CP wins a small majority because Canadians are frightened of the direction the NDP took and they don't know ~ and neither does the Liberal leader ~ just where the LPC
        stands on much of anything.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------​
If we agree that one of Prime Minister Harper's aims is to change the political alignment in Canada, then the right* sort of NDP victory might serve him well.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (10 Aug 2015)

Two things:

I suspect there is zero chance that if the Conservatives get the most seats and are defeated in Parliament that the opposition will be asked to form a government.  I would assume the Governor General will do what is asked of him by the Prime Minister and that would be to call for new elections.

If the NDP are the opposition, the dumbest thing that Trudeau could do is defeat a Conservative government to force an election in which they will not place first or second.  I suspect that once the NDP rule, any reason to vote Liberal pretty must is gone.  Mind you Trudeau hasn't been all that good in showing smarts.


----------



## Kilo_302 (10 Aug 2015)

Interesting bit from John Robson (a Conservative) on the disaster that this government has been:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-robson-i-cant-vote-for-the-harper-conservatives-i-just-cant



> Power has corrupted him and his party. I wrote nearly two years ago that Harper is unfit for office because he lied to Parliament over the Wright-Duffy affair, insolently telling incompatible tales five days apart in October 2013, and lying about having contradicted himself.
> 
> Instead of recoiling from this cynical deceit, his party enthusiastically embraced it. If they think him worthy of public trust, they aren’t either.
> 
> ...




And here's some news on the NDP front. I feel John Robson's pain, as in my opinion, Morgan Wheeldon is entitled to his own and I don't find anything he said to be factually incorrect. If we're going to have a party on the left, that party should at least act like it. This underlines my point about the NDP not _really_ being a left wing party. It's embraced neo-liberal economics, and now it appears willing to whitewash what are indisputably war crimes in order to avoid raising the ire of supporters of Israel. Ironically the parties at both ends of our very narrow spectrum have completely abandoned their "principles." Now, the Liberals never had any of their own, so do I vote Trudeau now?   ;D

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/09/morgan-wheeldon-ndp-israel-nova-scotia_n_7962834.html



> Wheeldon is featured on a Conservative Party of Canada website calling Israel’s action against Palestinians a war crime — comments he made on a Facebook post in August 2014.
> 
> "One could argue that Israel’s intention was always to ethnically cleanse the region — there are direct quotations proving this to be the case. Guess we just sweep that under the rug. A minority of Palestinians are bombing buses in response to what appears to be a calculated effort to commit a war crime," Wheeldon wrote.
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (10 Aug 2015)

One can look at other parties, on both the Federal and Provincial levels, and find the same poor leadership decisions:

http://globalnews.ca/news/2085210/ndper-brent-danceys-apparent-criminal-history-needs-explanation-wildrose/


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Aug 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Even during a majority government?
> 
> Together with the collapse of federal revenues due to the recession, the government - while still in its minority period - committed itself to four things which probably account for all or very nearly all of the deficits: the "action plan" that the opposition demanded as the price of allowing the minority to continue; the GST cut; the Health Accord (extended for 2 years); and not cutting transfers to fix a deficit.


I stand corrected, then - thanks for the education/reminder.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------​
> * The "right kind of loss" is a minority that falls. Let's say, just for argument, that on 20 Oct we have (roughly) this situation:
> 
> CPC:    150 seats
> ...


*Hugely* interesting scenario - how confident are you that the current PM will resign if the CPC wins a minority, though?  Nobody can say he's not tenacious.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Aug 2015)

While reading the Prime Minister's mind is not something anyone should try lightly, I suspect that Mr Harper can step down gracefully after a victory of any sort in October, having accomplished a great many things and fulfilling much of whatever his personal agenda is.

He has:  

United the Right under a single party banner
Gone from opposition to Minority to Majority government
Crushed three Liberal leaders in sucession (Mr Dithers, Mr Dion and Mr Ignatieff)
Moved the country more to the right, where it is impolite if not actively dangerous to talk about creating bigger deficiets or increasing taxes
Moved some of the other public dialogue on issues further right
Created conditions for a "two party" system of politics
Taken Canada from the position of "leaving the table when the cheque is presented" to at least throwing in a bit in international diplomacyImplimented or initiated more free trade agreements (t\with the EU and the TPP), more in keeping with an image of Canada as a true "middle power".

I suspect the last things on his "to do" list is to hang the Young Dauphin's scalp on his belt, and ensure Canada running on a new set of rails pointed center-right for the next several decades.


----------



## McG (10 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Interesting bit from John Robson (a Conservative) on the disaster that this government has been:
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-robson-i-cant-vote-for-the-harper-conservatives-i-just-cant


That is a good article, but better in full than the little bit you cropped out.  From the bit where he admonishes Harper for buying votes through subsidizing backyard decks, to the equally significant conclusion where he concedes the other parties are not an option for him.


----------



## Kilo_302 (10 Aug 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> That is a good article, but better in full than the little bit you cropped out.  From the bit where he admonishes Harper for buying votes through subsidizing backyard decks, to the equally significant conclusion where he concedes the other parties are not an option for him.



The intent is always that people read the whole article, so cropping out whatever I did serves underline the main thrust of author's point. It's not about cherry picking, more generating interest so that people will want to see the whole thing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, NDP insider Gerald Caplan launches a blistering, but cogent attack on Prime Minister Stephen Harper and explains why he, Caplan, believes that he, Harper, is undeserving of re-election:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/this-election-the-question-is-does-harper-deserve-another-term/article25719375/
> 
> ...




Some of you don't like Gerald Caplan (he is, in person, witty, charming and erudite, if, _in my opinion_, totally "out to lunch" politically) but he gets a periodic "free ride" in the _Globe and Mail_, as a guest columnist, representing the left/NDP, and so his influence has more reach than yours and mine. Here is his latest offering, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, this time taking aim at M Trudeau:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/is-trudeau-really-just-not-ready-maybe/article25903903/


> Is Trudeau really ‘just not ready’?
> Maybe
> 
> GERALD CAPLAN
> ...




I don't disagree with most of Mr Caplan's thesis, especially not about the likely outcome of the election. Unlike Mr Caplan I have read neither _Common Ground_ by Justin Trudeau nor _Dreams of my Father_ by President Obama but I suspect that President Obama could afford first rate ghost writers and editors and used them, perhaps M Trudeau could (afford them) did not. _I disagree_ with the penultimate sentence in the last paragraph: _in my opinion_ neither M Mulcair nor M Trudeau are a "good result" for Canada.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Aug 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _The Economist_, is that newspapers take on our election:

http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21660571-stephen-harper-wants-fourth-term-prime-minister-he-faces-tough-fight-long-not?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/LongButNotBoring


> Canada’s election campaign
> Long, but not boring
> *Stephen Harper wants a fourth term as prime minister. He faces a tough fight*
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Aug 2015)

>fascinating but dysfunctional parents;

That's unfair to Pierre.  All accounts I have read indicate Pierre was a pretty good father.  A political writer should know what he is writing about, and present evidence when he challenges commonly held views.


----------



## Acorn (11 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _The Economist_, is that newspapers take on our election:
> 
> http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21660571-stephen-harper-wants-fourth-term-prime-minister-he-faces-tough-fight-long-not?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/LongButNotBoring
> 
> ...


[/quote]

It really hurts when a small sip of single malt goes through one's nose.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (11 Aug 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >fascinating but dysfunctional parents;
> 
> That's unfair to Pierre.  All accounts I have read indicate Pierre was a pretty good father.  A political writer should know what he is writing about, and present evidence when he challenges commonly held views.



Maggie more than makes up for Pierre's quality parenting.  People I've known with Maggie's affliction tend to keep everyone uneasy.  Dysfunctional to the nth degree.


----------



## McG (12 Aug 2015)

Justin Trudeau calls for economic growth "from the heart" and not "top-down" ... what does that mean?


----------



## Halifax Tar (12 Aug 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Justin Trudeau calls for economic growth "from the heart" and not "top-down" ... what does that mean?



It's defined in the article...


----------



## McG (12 Aug 2015)

He talks about investing in the middle class but, again, where is the detail?


----------



## Halifax Tar (12 Aug 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> He talks about investing in the middle class but, again, where is the detail?



I hazard a guess that's about as far as he has the capacity to go.  It's really just a catch phrase, the equivalent of holding up a kitten while everyone goes "awwwwww".


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> He talks about investing in the middle class but, again, where is the detail?



My suggestion for the Young Dauphin (and for Stephen Harper or Tom Mulcaire as well, for that matter) is if you want to "invest" in the middle class, reduce their burden of government taxes and fees from 40-44% of a middle class family of four's income to 30-34% of their income.

There is plenty of fat to cut (without even touching a cent of the @$60 billion/year + in federal subsidies to individuals), and an effective 10% pay raise would be quite an "investment".

Just saying...


----------



## Harrigan (14 Aug 2015)

I am surprised that election topics have suddenly gone silent, though maybe we shouldn't be.  While I think there is still much to come out about the "topic which must not be mentioned", I find it hard to believe that there is/will be no impact on the federal election.

Harrigan


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Aug 2015)

Which topic is that? 

Maybe people are doing pretty much what the prognosticators said, enjoying the rest of their summer then start to kind of care some time after Labour Day? :dunno:

G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Aug 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Maybe people are doing pretty much what the prognosticators said, enjoying the rest of their summer then start to kind of care some time after Labour Day? :dunno:


I think part of it is that, for sure - still +9 weeks to election day.



			
				Harrigan said:
			
		

> While I think there is still much to come out about the "topic which must not be mentioned" ....


If you're talking about the military or veterans, it will still be interesting to see how much the parties throw out there - and there's still a fair bit of time to do so.

That said, remember  what those way smarter than me have to say about public support for the CF being (to use the metric) a kilometre wide and a centimetre deep, so it may not come up soon.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Aug 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I think part of it is that, for sure - still +9 weeks to election day.
> If you're talking about the military or veterans, it will still be interesting to see how much the parties throw out there - and there's still a fair bit of time to do so.
> 
> That said, remember  what those way smarter than me have to say about public support for the CF being (to use the metric) a kilometre parsec wide and a centimetre micron deep, so it may not come up soon.



TFTFY...


----------



## dimsum (14 Aug 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That said, remember  what those way smarter than me have to say about public support for the CF being (to use the metric) a kilometre wide and a centimetre deep, so it may not come up soon.



...unless another hot spot, or something really bad within the CAF, happens within the next few months.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Aug 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> TFTFY...


Thanks for correcting my starry-eyed optimism  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Aug 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> TFTFY...



or can be summarized to "Return to peacekeeping"   :


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Aug 2015)

The Conservative "ground war" is going strong in the _ethnic_ suburbs, especially around Vancouver and Toronto. Defence Minister Jason Kenney is wallpapering the Internet with this:







... and this






... and more of this:







And Veteran's Affairs Minister Erin O'Toole is out there, too:






... as is Labour Minister Kellie Leitch






Popular MPs like Ministers Kenney and Leitch are being sent all across Canada to shore up Conservative support in small towns and suburbs.

_My sense_ is that CPC will concede some of the inner cities, especially Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, (say 30-50 ridings) to the NDP and Liberals, but they plan to win the election in rural Canada, in small towns small cities, and in the suburbs around the big cities (the other 285-310 ridings of which they need 170 to win a majority.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (14 Aug 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> I am surprised that election topics have suddenly gone silent, though maybe we shouldn't be.  While I think there is still much to come out about the "topic which must not be mentioned", I find it hard to believe that there is/will be no impact on the federal election.
> 
> Harrigan



Are you talking about Mike Duffy's trial?  If so . . .  so far . . . yawn


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Aug 2015)

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, Prof Emmett Macfarlane (_Waterloo_) compares the Liberal and NDP campaigns for the _progressive_ voter and concludes that both are very, very _conservative_ in their promises, _"operating in a box designed by the Conservatives, one where government revenues are constrained and, as a result of a desire among all leaders to be seen as good fiscal managers, spending is therefore constrained as well:"_

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/emmett-macfarlane-whos-more-progressive-the-liberals-or-the-ndp


> http://cfl.uploads.mrx.ca/ott/images/general/2014/07/crop_20562474919.jpg[/imng]
> [SIZE=19px]Who's more progressive, the Liberals or the NDP?[/SIZE]
> 
> EMMETT MACFARLANE
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Aug 2015)

In the "figures don't lie, but liars can figure" department, this graphic ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



          Source: _National Post_ based on _Statistics Canada_ data

               ... should be popping up in CPC propaganda campaign material to suggest that Messsrs Mulcair and Trudeau are fabricating _poverty_ problems when poverty is at its lowest level (if you believe the LICO
                    is a valid measure of poverty) since they started collecting the data.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Aug 2015)

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is an analysis of the "looooooong campaign" that suggests that Prime Minister Harper is looking at this (2015) election and a potential next election is he only gets a minority:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-long-campaign-is-the-strategy/article25959325/


> The long campaign is the strategy
> 
> DAVID MCLAUGHLIN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (14 Aug 2015)

:facepalm: Justin Trudeau...the gift that keeps on giving.

CBC



> *Trudeau pledge to grow economy 'from the heart outwards' greeted with mockery*
> CBC – Thu, 13 Aug, 2015
> 
> Liberal leader Justin Trudeau became the butt of a few internet jokes after saying he wants to grow Canada's economy "from the heart outwards" during a campaign event in Regina on Wednesday.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Aug 2015)

The candidate issue (and who decides on who gets to run) has come up, again, to bite M Trudeau in the bum according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Exec+federal+Liberal+party+resigns+over+nomination+snub/11285162/story.html


> Federal Liberal party executive resigns over Richmond nomination snub of Wendy Yuan
> 
> GEORDON OMAND, THE CANADIAN PRESS  08.11.2015
> 
> ...




In a related story, Ms Yuan alleges that former Liberal MP (and minister) Raymond Chan blocked her nomination. She does not say why this happened.

     "The Liberal Party of Canada shrugged off allegations raised Monday by a Richmond candidate hopeful who claimed her nomination was intentionally blocked by a former high-profile Liberal MP from B.C. who once served in cabinet.

      Wendy Yuan told a large crowd of supporters gathered at the Sheraton Vancouver Airport in Richmond that she was shocked on learning last Friday that the party would not be green-lighting her nomination for Steveston-Richmond East.

      Yuan — who has twice been green-lit by the party for election runs that ultimately proved unsuccessful — claimed this was because the process had been interfered with, an allegation she said was supported by a sworn affidavit that was
      sent to her by another party member.

      “I have received a sworn affidavit from a party member which clearly spells out interference with the party green-light process by one of our leader’s advisers, and his name is Raymond Chan,” Yuan told the sign-waving crowd.

      “That affidavit has it that Mr. Chan stated that he would personally ensure that I would not achieve green light and therefore be disqualified as a candidate for the Liberal Party of Canada.”

      Chan, who was first elected to Ottawa as the Richmond MP in 1993, served in cabinet under both Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien. He lost the 2008 election to the Conservatives’ Alice Wong."

Steveston-Richmond East is a classic _ethnic_ suburb of the sort that, currently, seems to lean towards the Conservatives but used to be a Liberal stronghold. It is heavily East Asian. The candidates include:

Kenny Chui for the CPC;

The aforementioned Mr Peschisolido for the LPC; and

Scott Stewart for the NDP.


----------



## MARS (14 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Wendy Yuan told a large crowd of supporters gathered at the Sheraton Vancouver Airport in Richmond that she was shocked on learning last Friday that the party would not be green-lighting her nomination for Steveston-Richmond East.
> 
> Yuan — who has twice been green-lit by the party for election runs that ultimately proved unsuccessful...



So a two-time loser was shocked that perhaps party brass figured she might turn out to be a three-time loser and decided to back another, potentially more successful horse?  She should give her head a shake.

Not denying her hard work signing up new members.  But the LPC needs that kind of staff effort right now, so it would make sense to capitalize on her ability to do that.  A kick in the pants to then be cut at the last minute, if that was the plan all along, but to be honest, if I were the party brass, that would be one of my COAs for sure.  Maybe even COA #1 and no, I would't tell her either.  Would she really have worked that hard if she knew she was;t going to get the nomination?  This is an election campaign and the 'natural governing party' finds themselves losing it.  I don't understand why anyone - party members, the general voting public...anyone...thinks that 'fair play' is going to win the day.  Or that it even has a place in an election campaign.  That is so Pollyanna it makes me gag.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Aug 2015)

The Wendy Yuan kerfuffle is just the sort of thing that plays straight into the "not ready" meme the CPC has deployed. The Young Dauphin publicly stated that nominations would be open and democratic, but on multiple occasions has ham handedly intervened in nomination battles to parachute "star" candidates into ridings.

While this is every party leader's right, and done well can even make the party stronger in the campaign, the Young Dauphin has shown very little subtlety or finesse in his dealings with the riding associations, and of course the last thing you need in an election is pissed off volunteers and party workers who form the ground troops of your campaign. If they have little or no motivation to come out and help "your" candidate, then even a candidate with lots of star appeal might discover they don't have armies of volunteers knocking on doors, calling phone in shows, tweeting etc. to support them (and of course, what happens if they stay home on election day itself..?). 

If the Young Dauphin isn't able to deal with his own party's riding associations, what happens when the challenge is raised to the level of a Provincial Premier, much less foreign heads of state like Vladimir Putin (or worse yet a Sun Media reporter!)?


----------



## YZT580 (14 Aug 2015)

MARS said:
			
		

> So a two-time loser was shocked that perhaps party brass figured she might turn out to be a three-time loser and decided to back another, potentially more successful horse?  She should give her head a shake.
> 
> Agreed.  The problem is not with the boot. What will cost the LPC is the boss's stupid statement that all nominations would be open and without interference.  He has intervened on a number of occasions now and is rapidly losing credibility amongst the grunts in the party who actually do the work.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Aug 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...of course, what happens if they stay home on election day itself..?).



There's also the option that they go over to the "enemy".


----------



## MARS (15 Aug 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> What will cost the LPC is the boss's stupid statement that all nominations would be open and without interference.  He has intervened on a number of occasions now and is rapidly losing credibility amongst the grunts in the party who actually do the work.



Agreed.  I guess he should have given his head a shake before saying that.  Also Pollyanna in my opinion.  

I guess I am not inherintly against intervention from the top, providing you don't try to snow your subordinates that the system is open.  Maybe if he had never said that, he might not be having issues on the scale he is.  I dunno.


----------



## McG (15 Aug 2015)

Here is an idea that I would like to see all the parties buy into.



> *Kill the tax credit, reduce taxes*
> Tom Kott, National Post
> 13 August 2015
> 
> ...


http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/tom-kott-kill-the-tax-credit-reduce-taxes


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, is a rather lengthy but informative look at Stephen Harper ... the man and his rise to power:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/nerd+came+from+nowhere+Stephen+Harper+knows+need+like+politician+elect/11287551/story.html


> The nerd who came from nowhere: Stephen Harper knows you don’t need to like a politician to elect him
> 
> TRISTIN HOPPER  08.12.2015
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Aug 2015)

This from the Green machine:


> Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada and MP (Saanich – Gulf Islands), today unveiled the Green Party’s plan to reverse damaging cuts to services and support for our veterans. She made the announcement in Nanaimo, and was joined by Afghanistan war veteran Capt. Trevor Greene and his family.
> 
> “Under Stephen Harper, our veterans have experienced a loss of respect and of needed services,” said Ms. May. “The use of lump sum payments have left disabled veterans without income security for their lifetimes.  The shuttering of Veterans Affairs offices has left veterans without needed services. We have sent our military into war zones without planning for the needed services for them and their families on their return.  The failure to respond adequately has led to tragic losses at home to suicide.”
> 
> Working as a strong partner in what is projected to be a minority Parliament after the next election, the Green Party’s plan calls for reversing damaging changes brought in under the New Veteran’s Charter. The Green Party will increase funding to ensure any veteran with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) who wants a service dog will have access to one. Service dogs reduce PTSD in 82% of the cases, comparing favourably to pharmaceutical approaches. The Green Party commits to re-opening the Veterans Affairs offices ....


More in the attached backgrounder.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Aug 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This from the Green machine:More in the attached backgrounder.



That's rich.  Especially as she was howling at one time we were nothing but a bunch of Crusaders.  I believe she doesn't give a shit about us now or when we're veterans.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, is a rather lengthy but informative look at Stephen Harper ... the man and his rise to power:
> 
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/nerd+came+from+nowhere+Stephen+Harper+knows+need+like+politician+elect/11287551/story.html



Excellent read and goes a long way to explain to me why I got the impressions I did of the man during the personal contacts I've had with him here and overseas.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is an analysis of the "looooooong campaign" that suggests that Prime Minister harper is looking at this 92015) election and a potential next election is he only gets a minority:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-long-campaign-is-the-strategy/article25959325/




There is more on this in an _Ottawa Citizen_ story about election war-chests which says that, "The Conservatives have, by far, the strongest fundraising machine of the four main national parties. The Conservative Party of Canada raised $7.4 million in the second quarter of 2015 alone, followed by the NDP with $4.5 million, the Liberals at about $4 million and the Green party at $760,475 ... In 2014, the Tories raised a total of $20.1 million, the Liberals collected $15.1 million, the NDP $9.5 million and Greens $3 million," and "Federal political parties running candidates in all 338 ridings will be able to spend a maximum of about $52 million, with a huge portion of that being reimbursed by taxpayers ... Elections Canada reimburses federal political parties up to 50 per cent of their paid campaign election expenses, while individual party candidates can be reimbursed up to 60 per cent of the election expense limits established for the riding."

Here is a listof individual candidate's spending limits by riding: from a low of under $40,000 in Nunavut to a high of almost $220,000 in Niagara Falls (quick scan, only, maybe I missed a higher or lower limit). 


Clearly, the CPC is more ready and able, financially, to fight a long campaign, and still have cash in reserve, than are the Liberals and the NDP.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2015)

I have repeatedly said that winning government is a very long, very steep uphill climb for Justin Trudeau's Liberals, but in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, John Ibbitson makes the same case for Stephen Harper's Conservatives and he rests his case on real CPC fear of Thomas Mulcair and the NDP in Alberta:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/harpers-fight-for-alberta-betrays-a-worried-conservative-party/article25970726/
(My emphasis added.)


> Trip to Edmonton shows how worried Conservatives have become
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (15 Aug 2015)

The changes in boundaries in Saskatchewan are also a concern for the Tories; traditionally, the federal ridings in Saskatchewan were hybrids, mixing urban and rural.  The new ridings are more clearly divided between urban and rural; urban voters tend to be more (small L) liberal, creating new challenges for the incumbents.


----------



## Jed (15 Aug 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The changes in boundaries in Saskatchewan are also a concern for the Tories; traditionally, the federal ridings in Saskatchewan were hybrids, mixing urban and rural.  The new ridings are more clearly divided between urban and rural; urban voters tend to be more (small L) liberal, creating new challenges for the incumbents.



This will eventually push Saskatchewan in a direction similar to what Manitoba has taken, It will be Regina and Saskatoon count, let the other folks take the hindmost. Just like the Manitoba model: Winnipeg is what matters, who cares about the rest of the province, including Brandon.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, is a rather lengthy but informative look at Stephen Harper ... the man and his rise to power:
> 
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/nerd+came+from+nowhere+Stephen+Harper+knows+need+like+politician+elect/11287551/story.html




And, for those who found the _National Post_/_Ottawa Citizen_ article a little fawning, here is another, less charitable view of Prime Minister Harper, this time reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _New York Times_:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/opinion/sunday/the-closing-of-the-canadian-mind.html?_r=0


> The Closing of the Canadian Mind
> 
> By STEPHEN MARCHE
> 
> ...




This appears to be the Stephen Marche who penned this OPINION piece.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (15 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is an analysis of the "looooooong campaign" that suggests that Prime Minister harper is looking at this 92015) election and a potential next election is he only gets a minority:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-long-campaign-is-the-strategy/article25959325/



Exactly.  As I said two weeks ago:



			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> This is why we have a 78 day election.  The government refunds 50% of the spending by parties federally, and 60% locally, once the election is done.  That means that if the Conservatives spend the full $50M on this election (and I do not believe that the other two parties will be able to raise that much), they will have a war chest of $25M which is the maximum for a normal 37 day election - say in 6-12 months after a Conservative or NDP minority.
> 
> This is a cynical genius at work.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> This will eventually push Saskatchewan in a direction similar to what Manitoba has taken, It will be Regina and Saskatoon count, let the other folks take the hindmost. Just like the Manitoba model: Winnipeg is what matters, who cares about the rest of the province, including Brandon.



Wait a sec, I thought only Toronto could be the self-centred evil nexus of a province/country?  ???


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Aug 2015)

Hitler gets bad news about the Canadian election!

For a little more levity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_TNlWStsk4

I love these Hitler parodies ;D


----------



## Jed (15 Aug 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Wait a sec, I thought only Toronto could be the self-centred evil nexus of a province/country?  ???



I could have used that comparison as well,   and I got quite a chuckle out of the latest Hitler parody as well.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> I remain convinced that the Tories will want to keep reminding Ontarians about Justin Trudeau and Kathleen Wynne ...
> 
> 
> ...




And it appears, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, that some Liberals might be worried:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-unsure-if-wynne-a-boon-or-bane-for-trudeau-in-ontario/article25976807/


> Liberals unsure if Wynne a boon or a bane for Trudeau in Ontario
> 
> ADAM RADWANSKI
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




My _perception_ is that Premier Wynne doesn't really care too much about who wins Ottawa in Oct ~ her problem is with the _policy centre_ in Ottawa which will not change all that much.

_I suspect_ that Premier Wynne and M Trudeau are popular and unpopular in the same areas. In other words he help may be useful against the NDP but not against the CPC.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Aug 2015)

She should be trying to fix the mess McSquinty and herself have made of this province, not out campaigning for Shiny Pony on the provincial taxpayer's dime. Not that she's ever cared what she does with our money.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (15 Aug 2015)

Wynne is ticked off at Harper for not endorsing her very own slush fund.  I'm thinking that she is trying to cure the chronic deficit with her Ontario Pension Plan.  If it is like the CPP, the cash goes in the bank as revenue but the pension liability is not recorded as a liability.  The federal deficit would be more than double if the CPP liabilty were included.


----------



## McG (15 Aug 2015)

Looks like the trial is starting to provide talking points for the campaign trail.  As Mike Duffy's lawyer accuses the prime minister's former chief of staff of planning to deceive Canadians with a scheme to secretly use a Conservative Party fund to pay off inappropriate living expenses claimed by the senator, Mr Trudeau begins calling out the prime minister for not firing members of his staff who knew about the payment and negotiations leading-up to it.


----------



## observor 69 (15 Aug 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Wynne is ticked off at Harper for not endorsing her very own slush fund.  I'm thinking that she is trying to cure the chronic deficit with her Ontario Pension Plan.  If it is like the CPP, the cash goes in the bank as revenue but the pension liability is not recorded as a liability.  The federal deficit would be more than double if the CPP liabilty were included.



CPP Investment Board to Fraser Institute: you're wrong about public pension

 Check out this recent public rebuke from the board, internationally recognized as a leading example of sound pension plan management that operates independently of the CPP and reports to an independent board of directors:

 These statements betray a fundamental lack of understanding regarding the CPP. The authors are mistakenly judging CPP as a "closed-group" pension fund, such as employer-sponsored defined benefit plans. These plans face the risk that the business could disappear and therefore need to have sufficient funds to pay out all accrued obligations if the company and its pension plan closed.

This is not the case for CPP, which is considered an "open-group" fund. This recognizes the plan's ongoing ability to rely on future contributions from Canadians and fund returns to fund future liabilities. The Chief Actuary of Canada, who reviews the sustainability of the CPP every three years, explicitly states that the CPP's sustainability should be judged on an "open group" basis. To do otherwise one would have to assume that there is a risk that the entire workforce of Canada could suddenly cease employment and be unable to make CPP contributions.


The authors also state that the CPP is based on demographic assumptions from half a century ago that turned out to be false, and that "bold reforms" are required. In fact, however, reforms in 1997 succeeded in putting the CPP on sound financial footing.

 In his latest review released in December, the Chief Actuary of Canada reaffirmed the CPP is sustainable for at least 75 years.

http://www.pressprogress.ca/en/post/cpp-investment-board-fraser-institute-youre-wrong-about-public-pension


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Wynne is ticked off at Harper for not endorsing her very own slush fund.  I'm thinking that she is trying to cure the chronic deficit with her Ontario Pension Plan.  If it is like the CPP, the cash goes in the bank as revenue but the pension liability is not recorded as a liability.  The federal deficit would be more than double if the CPP liabilty were included.



Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Maclean’s_ is Premier Wynne explaining to Paul Wells, in her own words, how she plans to help defeat Prime Minister Harper in Ontario:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/kathleen-wynne-time-to-kick-harper-out/


> Kathleen Wynne: Time to kick Harper out
> *The Ontario premier on her feud with the PM over pensions and her campaign for Justin Trudeau*
> 
> Paul Wells
> ...




I'm not sure how well (or poorly) this can work. I'll repeat _my suspicion_ that Premier Wynne is strong where Justin Trudeau (or Thomas Mulcair) is already strong; she may help M Trudeau's candidate defeat a NDP candidate or she may just split the vote and let a Conservative "come up the middle." _I think_ Premier Wynne is less popular in the "blue belt" of suburbs around Toronto which is where Prime Minister Harper needs to win ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          ... her presence on the Liberal campaign team might even help Prime Minister Harper.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Aug 2015)

Kathleen Wynne is doing what many other failed leaders have done in the past: find an enemy to blame for the problems you created. In this case, Mr Harper.

I think that Ontarians will see through her come voting day.


----------



## observor 69 (15 Aug 2015)

I note that one of the largest "blue belt " communities, the city of Mississauga, is all Liberal provincially and presently  Eric Grenier has all Mississauga federal ridings voting Liberal.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And, for those who found the _National Post_/_Ottawa Citizen_ article a little fawning, here is another, less charitable view of Prime Minister Harper, this time reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _New York Times_:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/opinion/sunday/the-closing-of-the-canadian-mind.html?_r=0
> 
> This appears to be the Stephen Marche who penned this OPINION piece.




From the "things happen in threes" department, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is yet another overview of Prime Minister Harper, the man, this time by Bob Rae in the form of a review of John Ibbitson's forthcoming biography of the Prime Minister:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/books-and-media/book-reviews/review-john-ibbitsons-biography-of-stephen-harper-shows-a-man-prepared-to-go-to-great-lengths-to-hang-on-to-power/article25968043/?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=Referrer:+Social+Network+/+Media&utm_campaign=Shared+Web+Article+Links


> Review: John Ibbitson’s biography of Stephen Harper shows a man prepared to go to great lengths to hang on to power
> 
> BOB RAE
> Contributed to The Globe and Mail
> ...



So, that - the generally sympathetic piece by Tristin Hopper in the _Ottawa Citizen_, the wholly negative trashing in _The New York Times_ and this still negative view by Bob Rae in the _Globe and Mail_ - ought to be enough about the PM for one day.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Aug 2015)

I neglected to add this to my previous comment on the subject:

Let's say for the sake of argument that Trudeau carries the day. What promises does he owe Ms Wynne, and how do they impact the rest of Canada?

Those are questions voters in the ROC should be asking.

TANSTAAFL


----------



## PPCLI Guy (15 Aug 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> TANSTAAFL



The moon is indeed a harsh mistress.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Aug 2015)

>As Mike Duffy's lawyer accuses the prime minister's former chief of staff of planning to deceive Canadians with a scheme to secretly use a Conservative Party fund to pay off inappropriate living expenses claimed by the senator,

I get that it's an accusation, not a proven fact...but one thing at the link surprised me: are the Conservative Party's funds partly public funds, or did the lawyer misspeak?


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Aug 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The moon is indeed a harsh mistress.



I doubt if Wynne knows any miners, much less bar owners.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Aug 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >As Mike Duffy's lawyer accuses the prime minister's former chief of staff of planning to deceive Canadians with a scheme to secretly use a Conservative Party fund to pay off inappropriate living expenses claimed by the senator,
> 
> I get that it's an accusation, not a proven fact...but one thing at the link surprised me: are the Conservative Party's funds partly public funds, or did the lawyer misspeak?



Given the ridiculously generous tax treatment provided political donations and the fact that a large portion of electoral expenditures by the parties are reimbursed by the Crown, I believe the argument is that it's almost public money.

(One has to question how many blue-haired ladies would be happy to see the $5 they sent to support the Tories used to bail out an overweight, self-entitled buffoon - should the Dippers or Grits start using that sort of messaging, they may get some traction and encourage some Blue voters to stay home on October 19th)


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Aug 2015)

I'm not quite tempted to wish Wynne to get what she asks for.  Between transfer growth (see following paragraphs if you care; the current government has handed over a lot more money) and leaving tax points up for grabs, Harper has been a better friend to ON (all provinces, in fact) than Wynne deserves, and probably a better one than either a LPC or NDP federal government ever will be.  But with interest rates low, the price of oil low, and the CAD low relative to the USD, Wynne is fast running out of excuses for not turning ON around and needs distractions.  So, she picks fights.  All she knows how to do is campaign - not much statesmanship in her toolbox.  If the Conservatives lose to a NDP/LPC coalition, I hope the NDP go ahead with their proposed corporate income tax rate increase: the resulting tax avoidance will drop corporate tax revenues in all of the provinces, except they won't be enjoying the slight mitigation of the rate increase.  All they can do is eat the loss or increase taxes themselves.

Chretien's government (Paul Martin) balanced the federal budget at a time when GDP growth and (consequently) federal revenue growth were atypically healthy, and did it in part by cutting federal transfers to other levels of government.  The premiers - a lot of people, in fact - were pretty angry at the time.  Resulting popular myth: "Liberals slew the deficit".

The current Conservative government has very nearly rebalanced the budget despite a major recession and weak recovery (severe federal revenue drop followed by mediocre growth), and done it without cutting transfers.  Resulting popular myth: "Biggest spending government ever; inherited surplus and produced deficits".

Between revenue collapse, "stimulus", and maintaining transfers, all of those deficits had a cause and/or purpose.  Federal transfers to other levels of government grew about $14.5B from 94-95 to 05-06 (11 years).  Transfers grew about $19.5B from 05-06 to 13-14 (8 years).


----------



## PPCLI Guy (16 Aug 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Given the ridiculously generous tax treatment provided political donations and the fact that a large portion of electoral expenditures by the parties are reimbursed by the Crown, I believe the argument is that it's almost public money.
> 
> (One has to question how many blue-haired ladies would be happy to see the $5 they sent to support the Tories used to bail out an overweight, self-entitled buffoon - should the Dippers or Grits start using that sort of messaging, they may get some traction and encourage some Blue voters to stay home on October 19th)



 :goodpost:


----------



## McG (16 Aug 2015)

For those who want to see more defence topics in the campaigns we now have ballistic missile defence if necessary but not necessarily ballistic missile defence.


----------



## Altair (16 Aug 2015)

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com//news/canada/canadian-politics/ndp-would-lead-a-minority-government-if-elections-held-today-tories-slip-to-third-leger-poll

New poll puts conservatives in third place. Hopefully this is a trend that continues.



> The NDP would lead a minority government and Thomas Mulcair would be Canada’s prime minister if elections were to be held today, a new poll by Léger suggests.
> 
> Support for the NDP party nationwide is at 33 per cent, as compared to 28 per cent for the Liberal Party and 27 per cent for Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, the survey of 2,095 Canadians conducted Aug. 10 to Aug. 12 for the Journal de Montréal and Le Devoir found. Harper launched the federal elections on Aug. 2. Voters go to the polls Oct. 19.
> 
> The results represent a slight uptick for the NDP and the Liberals, whose ratings increased by one per cent and three per cent respectively, over poll results taken last month. The Conservatives, meanwhile, slumped five per cent. The Green Party garnered six per cent support, while the Bloc Québécois got five per cent support.



Maybe trudeau is receiving a bump from the debates.


----------



## CougarKing (16 Aug 2015)

Meanwhile, Washington is watching our election closely for key reasons pointed out below:

Bloomberg



> *Obama Keystone Decision Caught in Undertow of Canadian Election*
> Aug 12, 2015 2:00 AM PDT
> 
> Canada’s election in October has become yet another event shaping the seven-year saga of the Keystone XL pipeline, one that may lead the Obama administration to delay announcing a decision to approve or reject the $8 billion project.
> ...


----------



## Harrigan (16 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In the "figures don't lie, but liars can figure" department, this graphic ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed.  The poverty rate is declining and has been for some time, just like this rate:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2015001-eng.htm

I suppose which rate one would ignore/exaggerate would depend on which voters one is targeting.  Progressive parties tend to exaggerate poverty, conservative parties tend to exaggerate crime.  All of them seem to be successful. 

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (16 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> This will eventually push Saskatchewan in a direction similar to what Manitoba has taken, It will be Regina and Saskatoon count, let the other folks take the hindmost. Just like the Manitoba model: Winnipeg is what matters, who cares about the rest of the province, including Brandon.



Which is worse?  

Winnipeg accounts for 52% of the population of the province, and has 57% of the seats (though I suspect the population is closer to 57% as well if one adds the suburbs that are included in the "urban" Manitoba ridings).  In Saskatchewan, Regina and Saskatoon together account for 37% of the population, and 43% of the seats, but that includes the one remaining "rurban" riding - Regina-Qu'Appelle, so they really have 5.5 seats, which is more or less where they should be.

And at the moment, a strong case can be said that Saskatoon and Regina voters have "taken the hindmost" for a long time - they have voted majority NDP for a while and have zero MP's as the rural portion of the "rurban" ridings have outweighed the urban portions.  (Wascana is an outlier as that seems to be a personal vote for Goodale rather than a Party vote - Liberal vote in SK is putrid).

NDP have only themselves to blame though - it was their idea to gerrymander those 8 ridings in the first place! 

An interesting backgrounder:  http://www.punditsguide.ca/2013/02/how-to-spot-a-gerrymander-in-canadas-independent-redistricting-process/

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (16 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Maclean’s_ is Premier Wynne explaining to Paul Wells, in her own words, how she plans to help defeat Prime Minister Harper in Ontario:
> 
> http://www.macleans.ca/politics/kathleen-wynne-time-to-kick-harper-out/
> 
> ...



I suspect the Liberals would be overjoyed if the federal result in October looked like the map you show.  All those 905-belt areas (Mississauga, Brampton, S York Region etc) look Red by my eyes, and not even the "skin-of-the-teeth just-squeaked-in" pink colour.

Of course, that was then.  It is possible that support for Wynne may have dropped since the election in those areas.

Harrigan


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> David Akin says, in his blog that _"here we go! The game is on as of Sunday. Prime Minister Stephen Harper hits Rideau Hall Sunday morning at 10 ET..  The fixed election date — which Prime Minister Stephen Harper has ignored before — is October 19th. We’ll see tomorrow if he keeps to his word and commits to that day  – which is 78 days or 11 weeks away from this Sunday ... In any event, every political journalist in the country has some prediction at this point how this will all turn out. (Just ask one!)  So, here’s where I stand, based on my completely untested and likely incorrect Predictionator model : If the vote were held today, I’d bet a nickel we’d come back with a Conservative minority government, and a strengthened New Democrat Official Opposition and a strengthened Liberal Party that, for the first time since 2000, won more seats and found more voters than the previous election."_
> 
> And here is his latest prediction ...
> 
> ...




David Akin has a new _Predictinator_, two weeks into the campaign:

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          ... the Liberals have eaten into both the CPC's and NDP's leads over them.

In his post Mr Akin says:

     "We’re two weeks in to the 42nd general election. We’ve had one debate. We’ve seen the Conservatives launch a full-on leaders’ tour which is costing the three or four media organizations travelling with Harper about $13,000 a week —
      all of the privilege of asking him a question every day or two but being prohibited from speaking to any Conservative who shows up at a rally — and we’ve seen the Duffy trial ramp back up with testimony from Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff.

      Some national polls show the Liberals well back, one shows the Conservatives well back, but most show a three-way tie.

      The latest Predictionator factors in all that stuff and is spitting out the following “if we had an election today” seat count: A Conservative minority government."

The _Leger_ Poll, the _"one_ [that] _shows the Conservatives well back"_ is the one to which Altair referred, above.

But, I repeat: polls don't really count until after Labour Day when, traditionally, Canadians start to notice, again.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Aug 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This from the Green machine:More in the attached backgrounder.
> 
> 
> > Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada and MP (Saanich – Gulf Islands), today unveiled the Green Party’s plan to reverse damaging cuts to services and support for our veterans. She made the announcement in Nanaimo, and was joined by Afghanistan war veteran Capt. Trevor Greene and his family ....


Now, the Conservatives offer up a veteran plank for their platform (also attached if link doesn't work)....


> Today Minister of Veterans Affairs, Erin O’Toole, announced that a re-elected Harper Government will improve the extended Earnings Loss Benefit for Canadian Veterans with service-related injuries or disabilities.
> 
> Minister O’Toole announced that a re-elected Harper Government will enable Veterans receiving the extended Earnings Loss Benefit (ELB) to earn up to $10,000 in employment income without affecting their benefit payments. This policy improvement will further enhance the New Veterans Charter first introduced by a Liberal government, and will help injured or disabled Veterans.
> 
> ...


.... as well as announcing plans to expand the Junior Canadian Rangers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Aug 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Agreed.  The poverty rate is declining and has been for some time, just like this rate:
> 
> http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-630-x/11-630-x2015001-eng.htm
> 
> ...




_I know_, and it's frustrating, for me, because _I also know_ that both groups are blowing smoke up our asses for their own, partisan advantage. 

For example, I believe that the CPC should be spending more on "selling" this sort of data ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




               ... and less on _"Just Not Ready"_ and this.

But the _political pros_ are certain that negative, attack ads work better then informative truth, so ...


----------



## observor 69 (16 Aug 2015)

And one more poll:

Le NPD pourrait gagner 129 sièges sur 338

La projection des résultats du sondage Léger de samedi place Thomas Mulcair à la tête d’un gouvernement NPD minoritaire avec 129 députés, contre 103 sièges aux conservateurs et 102 aux libéraux.

http://www.journaldemontreal.com/2015/08/16/le-npd-pourrait-gagner-129-sieges-sur-338


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Aug 2015)

>Given the ridiculously generous tax treatment provided political donations and the fact that a large portion of electoral expenditures by the parties are reimbursed by the Crown, I believe the argument is that it's almost public money.

My suspicion as well, which means he was just pounding the table.  Public money ceases to be public money at the point of expenditure, whether its a claim on an entitlement, an expense, or for goods and services rendered.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, I repeat: polls don't really count until after Labour Day when, traditionally, Canadians start to notice, again.



Actually, polls don't count until October 19th; everything else is noise.


----------



## Jed (16 Aug 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Which is worse?
> 
> Winnipeg accounts for 52% of the population of the province, and has 57% of the seats (though I suspect the population is closer to 57% as well if one adds the suburbs that are included in the "urban" Manitoba ridings).  In Saskatchewan, Regina and Saskatoon together account for 37% of the population, and 43% of the seats, but that includes the one remaining "rurban" riding - Regina-Qu'Appelle, so they really have 5.5 seats, which is more or less where they should be.
> 
> ...




Putting the emphasis on the large centres of a province tends to strip the surrounding smaller cities and towns of their population and their vitality. It also tends to over populate the larger cities bringing on big city problems. 

'How are you going to keep them down on the farm after they've seen Paris?'


----------



## suffolkowner (17 Aug 2015)

Well I still think we're likely to get a conservative minority government. Maybe a NDP one? But since Mulcair is a closet conservative that might not be too bad. I continue to be unimpressed by Trudeau and am disgusted by Premier Wynne's behaviour.


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Aug 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Well I still think we're likely to get a conservative minority government. Maybe a NDP one? But since Mulcair is a closet conservative that might not be too bad. I continue to be unimpressed by Trudeau and am disgusted by Premier Wynne's behaviour.



I'm convinced that Mulcair would focus on the navy at the expense of the other forces (we'd probably get about 40 generation 4.5 jets - to make sure we'd never have enough to deploy again, using them only for home defence) but the navy and peacekeeping army forces would be well funded.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Aug 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm convinced that Mulcair would focus on the navy at the expense of the other forces (we'd probably get about 40 generation 4.5 jets - to make sure we'd never have enough to deploy again, using them only for home defence) but the navy and peacekeeping army forces would be well funded.



I don't know how you come to that conclusion. If you read the party positions on defence here: Defence Platforms, you'll see that only the Conservatives and Greens have clearly articulated plans. The other two parties, not so much.


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Aug 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I don't know how you come to that conclusion. If you read the party positions on defence here: Defence Platforms, you'll see that only the Conservatives and Greens have clearly articulated plans. The other two parties, not so much.



They've voiced their support for the navy, and promised to make it their defence priority.  At this point, they don't really need to say much more than that, as the Conservatives have done very little in 10 years for the RCN.


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Aug 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I don't know how you come to that conclusion. If you read the party positions on defence here: Defence Platforms, you'll see that only the Conservatives and Greens have clearly articulated plans. The other two parties, not so much.



From the link you provided:  

An NDP government would get military procurement back on track. We would implement an open and transparent bidding process to replace our aging CF-18 fleet, and we would ensure that Canada’s shipbuilding strategy serves the needs of our military.

We have already committed to enhancing our search and rescue capabilities to meet international standards in response times, and our capabilities in the North need to be enhanced.

It seems that the Navy and SAR would be their priority.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Aug 2015)

Because for the last 10 years we've been fighting a ground war on Afghanistan. Now that it's over, the CA will get a backseat to the RCN and RCAF retooling. Welcome to Canadian procurement cycles. We should have been planning new ships 20 years ago, that's not just a Conservative problem. The Peacekeeping "army force" you talk about is the Army. We don't have enough people to have a specialized force that just does peacekeeping. That's like saying the NDP will have the Navy focus on counter-piracy, you'd be pretty pissed as I'm sure that's just 5% of your job.


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Aug 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The Peacekeeping "army force" you talk about is the Army.



Of course it is...with totally different equipment priorities.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Aug 2015)

Yeah, we can cancel the C7 upgrade, mothball the tanks, and issue rape whistles to everyone so that when the shooting starts, we have the ability to call for help from a real army.


----------



## Harrigan (17 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> Putting the emphasis on the large centres of a province tends to strip the surrounding smaller cities and towns of their population and their vitality. It also tends to over populate the larger cities bringing on big city problems.
> 
> 'How are you going to keep them down on the farm after they've seen Paris?'



I am not quite sure where you are going with that.  Are you suggesting that citizens that live in cities should be under-represented in Parliament so that small towns and rural areas can keep their "vitality"???  (however dubious that link)

Harrigan


----------



## YZT580 (17 Aug 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> I am not quite sure where you are going with that.  Are you suggesting that citizens that live in cities should be under-represented in Parliament so that small towns and rural areas can keep their "vitality"???  (however dubious that link)
> 
> Harrigan



Not a bad idea for some issues.  Compare the red in the map of Ontario to the location of windfarms and you will discover there are no assets in Kathy's country.  Regardless of their opposition having rep by pop results in rural being forced to accept whatever the city folks desire: often to their detriment.  Perhaps a system of 2 to 1 votes on issues concerning rural would help, don't know.


----------



## Harrigan (17 Aug 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Not a bad idea for some issues.  Compare the red in the map of Ontario to the location of windfarms and you will discover there are no assets in Kathy's country.  Regardless of their opposition having rep by pop results in rural being forced to accept whatever the city folks desire: often to their detriment.  Perhaps a system of 2 to 1 votes on issues concerning rural would help, don't know.



Rural areas are not hard done by.  Look at the population in the rural ridings compared to urban ridings.  They have always been overrepresented at the federal level, as have many other "special interest" areas (PEI, the North, etc).  Over time this shifts with redistribution (as it should), because the voting strength has to follow the population trends - hence the increase in suburban ridings with the latest redistribution.

There are already way too many "outliers" which make a mockery of the one-person-one-vote axiom - a voter in PEI, for example, has 4 X the voting power as a voter in Calgary, or in Toronto, or Brampton.  

Harrigan


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Aug 2015)

Both Brian Gable and David Parkins, the _Globe and Mail_'s editorial cartoonists, think that the Duffy Trial is impacting on the CPC and NDP campaigns, although in opposite ways:








                                                       Brian Gable                                                                                   David Parkins: (Source:http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorial-cartoons-for-august-2015/article25744115/)


----------



## dapaterson (17 Aug 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> There are already way too many "outliers" which make a mockery of the one-person-one-vote axiom - a voter in PEI, for example, has 4 X the voting power as a voter in Calgary, or in Toronto, or Brampton.



Not entirely true.  The PEI riding of Kanata-Carleton has an estimated population of over 100,000.

Because, after all, Mike Duffy's principal residence is in PEI - just ask the Prime Minister - and therefore Kanata-Carleton, in the west end of Ottawa, is part of PEI.


----------



## Altair (17 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Both Brian Gable and David Parkins, the _Globe and Mail_'s editorial cartoonists, think that the Duffy Trial is impacting on the CPC and NDP campaigns, although in opposite ways:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Prime Minister Harper isn't dealing with this as well as he could have.

Just as when Nigel wright was found to be the guy who payed Duffy the 90 000 Mr harpers first reaction is to circle the wagons and defend the guy, when it's found out that there are emails that wright sent to others in the pmo the first response is to say....nobody read their emails?

Quick decisive sacking or suspension would have had a greater effect than denial, but I'm not complaining. This can only add fuel on the fire of change.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Aug 2015)

Part 1 of 2

I reprinted one (generally) positive, one (generally) negative and one exceptionally negative _surveys_ of Stephen Harper the man and the prime minister, so here, in the interests of being "fair and balanced" is an exceptionally positive review, albeit over two years old, from another US source. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Review_:

https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/341200/leader-west?pg=1


> Leader of the West
> by JAY NORDLINGER	March 11, 2013, Issue
> 
> _The progress of Stephen Harper, Canada’s Conservative prime minister_
> ...



End of Part 1


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Aug 2015)

Part 2 of 2



> The Harper style is very low-key. He ought to be hard to demonize. He is without drama, without flamboyance — without flair or charisma, some think. He is routinely compared to an accountant. Why that profession is perpetually lampooned is a little unclear. Harper’s father was an accountant, incidentally. To see the Harper style in action, go to YouTube and call up videos of the parliamentary Question Period. Opposition politicians are apt to hurl thunderbolts at him, with usual politician’s demagoguery. Harper is apt to answer softly, wearily, factually, blandly — and effectively.
> 
> He is said to have let his hair down in 2009, when he made a surprise appearance onstage at a gala concert — a concert featuring Yo-Yo Ma. Harper came out, sat down at the piano, and started to play and sing: “What would you think if I sang out of tune? Would you stand up and walk out on me?” This was a Beatles song. And he did not really sing out of tune. Repeatedly, he sang, “I get high with a little help from my friends,” which is odd for a national leader to sing. At any rate, he may have had his hair down, but he was still polite, self-contained, unassuming, and somewhat awkward. Also endearing, in this critic’s mind.
> 
> ...




None of those four articles should change anyone's vote, but each of the four _might_ casue a few of you to examine how you judge Prime Minister Harper, and why.

It _seems to me_ that these articles tell us that:

     1. Prime Minister Harper has some principles that animate him in government ~ specifically, he wants to _defang_ government, to _shrink_ it, to make it less _intrusive_ and less important to us, and
         he is a staunch, fierce supporter of Israel;

     2. He is, much more than being _principled_, a political pragmatist ~ he will tack left and right to appease the various elements of his base, all the while forcing the base to adapt itself to the _centrist_ reality of Canada; and

     3. He is fascinated by and skilled at the _tactics_ of politics in Canada, if, sadly in my opinion, uncaring about Canada's _strategic_ place in the world.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Aug 2015)

The PM only has himself to blame on the fallout of Duffy etc.  He chose and asked them to sit as Senators.  This is going to cost him with how he's handled the situation from start to finish.


----------



## Jed (17 Aug 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Rural areas are not hard done by.  Look at the population in the rural ridings compared to urban ridings.  They have always been overrepresented at the federal level, as have many other "special interest" areas (PEI, the North, etc).  Over time this shifts with redistribution (as it should), because the voting strength has to follow the population trends - hence the increase in suburban ridings with the latest redistribution.
> 
> There are already way too many "outliers" which make a mockery of the one-person-one-vote axiom - a voter in PEI, for example, has 4 X the voting power as a voter in Calgary, or in Toronto, or Brampton.
> 
> Harrigan



You are wrong in assuming the rural areas are not hard done by solely because of the Rep by Pop ratio.  Just watch the news and pay attention to the power base in any country.  The big fish always drive the agenda from the big centres. As I mentioned before, factors pull the population into the major centres.

In this information age where everyone can quickly communicate and work out in the sticks, there should be no need to centralize everything. Hopefully you will get better use of land resources if the population of Canada is better dispersed.

I guess we are getting way off topic. Sorry about that.


----------



## Altair (17 Aug 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The PM only has himself to blame on the fallout of Duffy etc.  He chose and asked them to sit as Senators.  This is going to cost him with how he's handled the situation from start to finish.


I don't blame him for choosing people.mike Duffy was a respected journalist and I honestly didn't see him being as crooked as he is.

But the way harper and his inner circle have handled this from start to finish has been amateur hour.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Aug 2015)

Some tidbits from the various info-machines .....

A golden oldie from the PM ....




.... and from an NDP dude:


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Maclean’s_ is Premier Wynne explaining to Paul Wells, in her own words, how she plans to help defeat Prime Minister Harper in Ontario:
> 
> http://www.macleans.ca/politics/kathleen-wynne-time-to-kick-harper-out/
> 
> I'm not sure how well (or poorly) this can work. I'll repeat _my suspicion_ that Premier Wynne is strong where Justin Trudeau (or Thomas Mulcair) is already strong; she may help M Trudeau's candidate defeat a NDP candidate or she may just split the vote and let a Conservative "come up the middle." _I think_ Premier Wynne is less popular in the "blue belt" of suburbs around Toronto which is where Prime Minister Harper needs to win ... her presence on the Liberal campaign team might even help Prime Minister Harper.




The bulk of Premier Wynne's "case" against Prime Minister Harper rests on the new Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, but this article in the _Ottawa Citizen_ says that "As voters in seat-rich Ontario take a closer look at the ORPP, a new Forum Research poll shows their support is softening and opposition is growing ... A survey conducted August 12 and 13, the two days after the ORPP details were released, shows 44 per cent of respondents approve of the ORPP, a slight drop from the last time Forum polled the issue in November 2014, when 52 per cent supported the plan. In May 2014, 48 per cent supported the pension scheme ... At the same time, outright disapproval is growing: 40 per cent of those surveyed last week disapproved of the ORPP, compared to 28 per cent in November. That’s even higher than the 32 per cent opposed in the middle of Ontario’s 2014 election campaign, in the May 2014 survey, when the ORPP was a major issue."


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Aug 2015)

I suspect the people who are to be selectively taxed to fund the ORPP are less enthusiastic than those who are not impacted.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Aug 2015)

And, according to a _Sun_ media story on canoe.com Premier Wynne has figured out that M Trudeau is in third place and she has turned her guns on Thomas Mulcair, saying that he "talks a good game about child care and the minimum wage but “the ideas are either incomplete or they’re unworkable or they’re impossible.”" _I think_ that in the regions of ON where Premier Wynne can be most effective (is most popular) her best bet is to persuade NDP voters to switch to the LPC ... the LPC and NDP will be the competitors there, with the CPC being in third place.


----------



## Harrigan (18 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> You are wrong in assuming the rural areas are not hard done by solely because of the Rep by Pop ratio.  Just watch the news and pay attention to the power base in any country.  The big fish always drive the agenda from the big centres. As I mentioned before, factors pull the population into the major centres.
> 
> In this information age where everyone can quickly communicate and work out in the sticks, there should be no need to centralize everything. Hopefully you will get better use of land resources if the population of Canada is better dispersed.
> 
> I guess we are getting way off topic. Sorry about that.



I don't disagree with the rural-urban dynamic - that has been going on since the Industrial Revolution.  

But that is not going to to be "fixed" (if, indeed, it even needs fixing) by artificially devaluing the vote of urban voters.  Nor, I would suggest, is the redistribution of ridings to be more in line with actual population going to cause villages and rural areas to disappear.  

There are many reasons why people leave rural areas and resettle in urban areas, and I highly suspect that a revised riding boundary is NOT one of them.  

Harrigan


----------



## Harrigan (18 Aug 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Not entirely true.  The PEI riding of Kanata-Carleton has an estimated population of over 100,000.
> 
> Because, after all, Mike Duffy's principal residence is in PEI - just ask the Prime Minister - and therefore Kanata-Carleton, in the west end of Ottawa, is part of PEI.



Ha Ha!  Touché!


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Aug 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> I don't disagree with the rural-urban dynamic - _that has been going on since the Industrial Revolution._
> 
> But that is not going to to be "fixed" (if, indeed, it even needs fixing) by artificially devaluing the vote of urban voters.  Nor, I would suggest, is the redistribution of ridings to be more in line with actual population going to cause villages and rural areas to disappear.
> 
> ...




I would argue that it's been going on a lot longer than that. English records, a few going back as far as the 6th and 7th centuries (but most from the 11th century and later), and similar records from some German principalities, _suggest_ (it's damned hard to prove anything with scattered bits of data) that people were leaving their farms (even, in a few cases if they owned them, freehold) to seek better lives in cities, market towns, mill towns and even at fords. The _Black Death_ (_circa_ 1350 to 1400) had great and long lasting social and economic consequences and appears to have sped up the migrations ~ more people died in towns than in rural areas (in England, anyway) and _urban_ labour rose in value to such a degree that even small farm owners were lured to the cities.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Aug 2015)

In today's Ottawa Citizen, William Watson compares the Prime Minister to Walter White from Breaking Bad.



> If a fundamentally good person like Walter White can end up selling crystal meth, maybe it's not so surprising that a fundamentally sensible economist like Stephen Harper can persuade himself to pitch a renovation tax credit.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Aug 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Actually, polls don't count until October 19th; everything else is noise.




John Ibbitson adds to the noise in this article, about the pre-Labour day polls showing, essentially, a tied race, in this artiucle which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ndp-conservatives-and-liberals-in-virtual-tie-nationally-poll-shows/article25997001/


> NDP, Conservatives and Liberals in virtual tie nationally, poll shows
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




So: CPC is strong in the Prairies and in Ontario (183 seats);
      LPC is strong in Atlantic Canada                 ( 32 seats) ; and
      NDP is strong in Quebec and BC                 (120 seats).
(The other three (of 338) seats are in the Territories.)


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Aug 2015)

> Brad Sallows:
> I suspect the people who are to be selectively taxed to fund the ORPP are less enthusiastic than those who are not impacted.



I think a better investment than the ORPP itself would be the Province funding financial planning sessions for Premier Wynne's described "people in their 20's, 30's and 40's who have a hard time saving."  It's one thing to help put some structure to self-employed or small business employed people's ability to establish more retirement income than just CPP, OAS and genuinely saved money...it's another thing for those who are being disciplined with their financial savings and who will bear the lion's share burden of funding, through increased/reallocated taxes, support people who do have the means, but through living for the moment make a life choice not to set themselves up for the future.  They are quite happy to game the system and receive Comrade Wynne's wealth redistribution from as history will like near witness, Ontario's middle class. 

G2G


----------



## a_majoor (18 Aug 2015)

The idea that Premier Wynn, who is the architect of her own misfortune, could split the vote in Ontario in favour of the CPC is pretty funny. I hope she runs with that...


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Aug 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The idea that Premier Wynn, who is the architect of her own misfortune, could split the vote in Ontario in favour of the CPC is pretty funny. I hope she runs with that...



"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." Napolean Bonaparte


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Aug 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I think a better investment than the ORPP itself would be the Province funding financial planning sessions for Premier Wynne's described "people in their 20's, 30's and 40's who have a hard time saving."  It's one thing to help put some structure to self-employed or small business employed people's ability to establish more retirement income than just CPP, OAS and genuinely saved money...it's another thing for those who are being disciplined with their financial savings and who will bear the lion's share burden of funding, through increased/reallocated taxes, support people who do have the means, but through living for the moment make a life choice not to set themselves up for the future.  They are quite happy to game the system and receive Comrade Wynne's wealth redistribution from as history will like near witness, Ontario's middle class.
> 
> G2G



Has Wynne ever said where the money will be held? Will it be a fund like CPP that the government can't touch? Or is she planning on having it accessible to the government so she can raid it to help pay down Ontario's debt?


----------



## a_majoor (18 Aug 2015)

This might go in various economic threads, but since the NDP has raised the issue, so to speak, this is a good place to post. No political parties that I have seen so far seem to be looking at the implications of how the economy is changing (the "gig" economy, sharing services like Uber, Air BnB, self driving cars  and enhanced small scale automation systems), and proposed "solutions" to economic porblems like enhancing minimum wages or CPP/ORPP impose extra costs which will be dealt with somehow...
(Before anyone goes on about how the NDP proposal is for federally regulated sectors, remember this is also a strongly worded "suggestion" to the rest of the economy, as well as entryism [If the NDP wins and impliments the proposal, they can certainly expand into other areas]) Be careful what you wish for:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/08/17/minimum-wage-spurs-restaurants-to-automate/



> *Minimum Wage Spurs Restaurants to Automate?*
> 
> The political successes of the $15 dollar minimum wage movement may be intensifying the interest restaurant chains have in automating their businesses. The Washington Post reports on the buzz about turning more restaurant work over to robots:
> 
> ...



And Instapundit sums it up well as usual:



> Remember, the campaign to raise the minimum wage isn’t being pushed for the benefit of the working class. It’s being pushed for the benefit of the political class.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Aug 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This might go in various economic threads, but since the NDP has raised the issue, so to speak, this is a good place to post. No political parties that I have seen so far seem to be looking at the implications of how the economy is changing (the "gig" economy, sharing services like Uber, Air BnB, self driving cars  and enhanced small scale automation systems), and proposed "solutions" to economic porblems like enhancing minimum wages or CPP/ORPP impose extra costs which will be dealt with somehow...
> (Before anyone goes on about how the NDP proposal is for federally regulated sectors, remember this is also a strongly worded "suggestion" to the rest of the economy, as well as entryism [If the NDP wins and impliments the proposal, they can certainly expand into other areas]) Be careful what you wish for:
> 
> http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/08/17/minimum-wage-spurs-restaurants-to-automate/
> ...



What's old is new again. How many remember these?


----------



## YZT580 (18 Aug 2015)

This has happened before and it has never been advantageous for the actual person in the position.  There used to be a thriving clothing industry in Toronto until it was forced to relocate off-shore because of a government attempt to regulate and improve the lot of the workers.  There was room at the time for compromise and balancing the two sides but the one size fits all approach taken by the government of the day ensured that all the workers would receive no pay at all.


----------



## Jed (18 Aug 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> This has happened before and it has never been advantageous for the actual person in the position.  There used to be a thriving clothing industry in Toronto until it was forced to relocate off-shore because of a government attempt to regulate and improve the lot of the workers.  There was room at the time for compromise and balancing the two sides but the one size fits all approach taken by the government of the day ensured that all the workers would receive no pay at all.



As I told my boy after he discovered there is no Santa Claus and he said with a tear in his eye, "I guess there isn't any Easter Bunny either?"  I replied ' You gotter, kid '   I know, I know, I am a heartless parent.  :-[


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Aug 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> This has happened before and it has never been advantageous for the actual person in the position.  There used to be a thriving clothing industry in Toronto until it was forced to relocate off-shore because of a government attempt to regulate and improve the lot of the workers.  There was room at the time for compromise and balancing the two sides but the one size fits all approach taken by the government of the day ensured that all the workers would receive no pay at all.



You mean closed the illegal sweat shops because they wouldn't make WSIB payments, apply modern health & safety standards and employment standards for their workforce. Most of the workers were indentured to 'Snakeheads' anyway and would have never been able to lead a normal life otherwise.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Aug 2015)

So instead, because of "globalization", they went to places where they can pay people for one hundred hours a week of work a sum that still leaves them in abject poverty, living in shantytowns made of whatever they find at the garbage dump and still having only one meal a day.

Yeah! Those type of owners were willing to negotiate, sure !!!


----------



## Altair (18 Aug 2015)

These are the same employers who tried to fill all the restaurant spots with TFWs anyways until they were told that they wouldn't be allowed to anymore.

What else is new?


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Aug 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Has Wynne ever said where the money will be held? Will it be a fund like CPP that the government can't touch? Or is she planning on having it accessible to the government so she can raid it to help pay down Ontario's debt?



Never heard her say, but I think the answer is: 

_ORPP funds will be held in an assigned operating account, the integrity of which will be respected and only in exceptional cases will any amount be drawn from the ORPP account and only then for purposes that are in the best interests of Ontarians.  Any such amount loaned from the ORPP account shall be paid back as the Government of Ontario deems appropraite._


----------



## YZT580 (18 Aug 2015)

Ah how the righteously indignant scream.  For those of us whose families depended upon those sweatshop earnings it resulted in immediate poverty and hunger unless the worker was able to nab a slot in one of the few that remained. i.e  Tip Top Taylors.  People speak of bettering the lot of the worker and improving his dignity but they never contribute to the cost of a loaf of bread and believe me, when you are hungry, half a loaf is better than none.


----------



## cavalryman (18 Aug 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Never heard her say, but I think the answer is:
> 
> _ORPP funds will be held in an assigned operating account, the integrity of which will be respected and only in exceptional cases will any amount be drawn from the ORPP account and only then for purposes that are in the best interests of Ontarians.  Any such amount loaned from the ORPP account shall be paid back as the Government of Ontario deems appropraite._


In other words, a slush fund to buy votes, not a proper pension fund as per the applicable pension benefits legislation.  I still can't understand the sheer gullibility of the Ontarian voter.  :facepalm:


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Aug 2015)

And here is yet more polling "noise," this time from _ABACUS Data_:







We have two months to go ... the trend-lines above are in (mostly) monthly blocks from Aug '14 to Aug '15. There is still room for even the Liberals and NDP to reverse positions: a 10 point shift in each case could happen.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Aug 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Ah how the righteously indignant scream.  For those of us whose families depended upon those sweatshop earnings it resulted in immediate poverty and hunger unless the worker was able to nab a slot in one of the few that remained. i.e  Tip Top Taylors.  People speak of bettering the lot of the worker and improving his dignity but they never contribute to the cost of a loaf of bread and believe me, when you are hungry, half a loaf is better than none.



In other words you'd prefer the same conditions that led to the 2013 Savar building collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Savar_building_collapse  and similar?

I'm not righteously indignant, I'm the Ontario government official that deals daily with employers that try scam the system, endanger workers and ensure workers are treated properly according to the laws of our land. I don't give a flying fig how things are done elsewhere. When you're in Ontario, you follow our laws.

You want dangerous, unsupervised sweat shops, where workers are forced to give substantial amounts of their pay to gangsters to stay employed, work in dangerous conditions, have children working instead of going to school? Go to the third world and ply your trade. Do it here and get caught, expect substantial fines and jail. 

Our country is civilized.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Aug 2015)

Each day the Duffy trial drags on, it seems to get uglier for the CPC.  I do wonder how much this will have an effect on voters come the 19th.  It seems as if the PM couldn't have called the election at a worse time, timing wise that is.


----------



## Scott (18 Aug 2015)

The outburst by their supporters today, directed at the media (deserved or not) was anything but shiny. This and some of their choices when it comes to staff have me rethinking. 

Again.

I know, it wasn't Harper's fault that the lunatics got loose today with microphones turned on, but anyone with a fucking pulse can see that this Duffy shit ain't going away. And rightfully so. Another PR ball kicked into your own goal.


----------



## jmt18325 (18 Aug 2015)

Calm down guys.  It's the 19th of October we're shooting for, not August.  We've got a world of campaign to go before then.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Aug 2015)

Scott said:
			
		

> The outburst by their supporters today, directed at the media (deserved or not) was anything but shiny. This and some of their choices when it comes to staff have me rethinking.



It is happening on other fronts with the other Partys as well.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberal-candidate-in-calgary-under-fire-after-screenshots-of-offensive-tweets-posted-several-years-ago-surface


----------



## cupper (18 Aug 2015)

I'm telling you guys, vote Republican. It's the only real choice.  ;D


----------



## Harrigan (18 Aug 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Calm down guys.  It's the 19th of October we're shooting for, not August.  We've got a world of campaign to go before then.



....Probably exactly what Paul Martin's team told him in Nov 2005 when the Gomery Commission Phase I Report was released, two months before election day."

Harrigan


----------



## George Wallace (18 Aug 2015)

So?  When is Mulcair and the NDP going to pay back all the money they owe?  They make Duffy look like an amateur with their financial mismanagement.  No one seems to care about their financial improprieties.  What gives?


----------



## jmt18325 (19 Aug 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> ....Probably exactly what Paul Martin's team told him in Nov 2005 when the Gomery Commission Phase I Report was released, two months before election day."



And if this were a scandal of that magnitude, it might be something.  Harper's problem is fatigue.


----------



## YZT580 (19 Aug 2015)

So the clothes you wear don't say made in China, Bangladesh etc. and the fish dinner you had last week wasn't caught by some slave from Thailand.  Where were the guts of your iphone manufactured?If you can honestly say that you purchase none of those products or vetted your electronics purchases then I can accept your arguments.    Otherwise it is just NIMBY.  Are you willing to pay $80 for a leisure shirt and $40 for a tee-shirt?  That is what a minimum wage shirt made in a Canadian class manufacturing facility would cost today.  If you are paying less or buying at Walmart then chances are you are contributing to the sweatshop world.  Besides you missed the point or perhaps I didn't express myself clearly.  In the 60's they clamped down on the garment industry in Toronto and most of the factories went union. (about 80%).  The union bargaining coupled with the minimum wage requirements forced owners to either fold up shop completely or move off-shore.  If there had been some protection of the market place through tariffs coupled with more reasonable union demands many of those factories would have remained and the sweatshops would have been reduced to a scattered few.  Those you could have closed down and the employees would have had a reasonable chance at getting another position.  But strikes, and out sourcing and no product protection priced many of the small businesses out of business and we went hungry.  It is the industry protection aspect that I was thinking of when I stated that there was room for negotiation.  Without it there was no work.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Aug 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> So the clothes you wear don't say made in China, Bangladesh etc. and the fish dinner you had last week wasn't caught by some slave from Thailand.  Where were the guts of your iphone manufactured?If you can honestly say that you purchase none of those products or vetted your electronics purchases then I can accept your arguments.    Otherwise it is just NIMBY.  Are you willing to pay $80 for a leisure shirt and $40 for a tee-shirt?  That is what a minimum wage shirt made in a Canadian class manufacturing facility would cost today.  If you are paying less or buying at Walmart then chances are you are contributing to the sweatshop world.  Besides you missed the point or perhaps I didn't express myself clearly.  In the 60's they clamped down on the garment industry in Toronto and most of the factories went union. (about 80%).  The union bargaining coupled with the minimum wage requirements forced owners to either fold up shop completely or move off-shore.  If there had been some protection of the market place through tariffs coupled with more reasonable union demands many of those factories would have remained and the sweatshops would have been reduced to a scattered few.  Those you could have closed down and the employees would have had a reasonable chance at getting another position.  But strikes, and out sourcing and no product protection priced many of the small businesses out of business and we went hungry.  It is the industry protection aspect that I was thinking of when I stated that there was room for negotiation.  Without it there was no work.



You need to take your agenda and propaganda to its own thread. It doesn't belong here.


----------



## Harrigan (19 Aug 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> And if this were a scandal of that magnitude, it might be something.  Harper's problem is fatigue.



In my opinion, fatigue is not the government's problem - it is credibility.  I don't imagine there are many Canadians who care that much about Mike Duffy or the $90,000.  But if this trial proves (and it hasn't yet) that the PMO (and the many cabinet ministers and MP's that followed) knowingly and deliberately provided false information to the Canadian public, it calls into question everything else this government has said, fairly or not.

(And before you spout out disagreement with that, remember the tarnish that the Gomery Commission revealed for the entire Liberal Party - again, fairly or not)

Nothing has been proven yet, but the evidence that has been submitted to this stage (the actual emails) does suggest such a deliberate plan.  If this does end up proven, the damage to the government's electoral prospects could be severe.  Much of their advertising relies on their professed credibility to tackle complex problems in the Canadian national interest.  But as we all learned in elementary school (usually the hard way), once one has lied, it takes a very long time to regain that trust (ask the Liberals), and nobody wants to be lied to.

Harrigan


----------



## Remius (19 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So?  When is Mulcair and the NDP going to pay back all the money they owe?  They make Duffy look like an amateur with their financial mismanagement.  No one seems to care about their financial improprieties.  What gives?



They aren't the incumbents.  That likely factors in.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Aug 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Nothing has been proven yet, but the evidence that has been submitted to this stage (the actual emails) does suggest such a deliberate plan.  If this does end up proven, the damage to the government's electoral prospects could be severe.  Much of their advertising relies on their professed credibility to tackle complex problems in the Canadian national interest.  But as we all learned in elementary school (usually the hard way), once one has lied, it takes a very long time to regain that trust (ask the Liberals), and nobody wants to be lied to.
> 
> Harrigan
> [/quote ]
> As the old sayings go "where there's smoke there's fire"  and "throw enough mud and some will Stick" apply equally here.  Maybe nothing has been proved in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion, I believe the magistrate is putting his black cloth on his wig before passing sentence.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Aug 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> They aren't the incumbents.  That likely factors in.



Meanwhile, Mulcair is calling for more RCMP investigations and charges be laid in reference to the Duffy Trial, Nigel Wright and the mention of Ray Novak possibly being involved.  Does the Canadian Public not see the hypocrisy here?


----------



## Remius (19 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, Mulcair is calling for more RCMP investigations and charges be laid in reference to the Duffy Trial, Nigel Wright and the mention of Ray Novak possibly being involved.  Does the Canadian Public not see the hypocrisy here?



I doubt it.  Remember that Stephen Harper is the big bad wolf here.  If the Ontario election is any indication, the Public won't care very much about that.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And it appears, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, that some Liberals might be worried:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-unsure-if-wynne-a-boon-or-bane-for-trudeau-in-ontario/article25976807/
> 
> ...




But Jane Taber, writing in the _Globe and Mail_, disagrees. She thinks Premier Wynne is taking a big risk. She says, in the last paragraph of the article:

          "Ms. Wynne told supporters she would be “all in” for this election in favour of Mr.Trudeau and his team. But as Donald Savoie, Canada Research Chair in public administration and governance at
           the Université de Moncton, observes: “If Trudeau wins, there will be an IOU. If he doesn’t, there will be no IOU and politicians do have long memories. Of that I am certain.”"

As it stands, two months away from the election, proper, the greatest likelihood is that either Prime Minister Harper or M Mulcair will form a government, likely a minority. Neither will be inclined to do Premier Wynne any favours. _*But*_ whoever wins may well need some Liberal support to stay in power and the Liberal Party's leader, if it is still M Trudeau, might extract some concessions for Ontario as a price for that support.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> As it stands, two months away from the election, proper, the greatest likelihood is that either Prime Minister Harper or M Mulcair will form a government, likely a minority. Neither will be inclined to do Premier Wynne any favours. _*But*_ whoever wins may well need some Liberal support to stay in power and the Liberal Party's leader, if it is still M Trudeau, might extract some concessions for Ontario as a price for that support.




*But*, I do not, even for a _µ_second, discount the fact that M Trudeau can turn things around, that he can do a 10+% jump in national support and end up, on 20 Oct 15 as prime Minister Trudeau. In this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, Michael Den Tandt explains how he is strengthening his position and will make gains ... if he doesn't implode:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Michael+Tandt+Justin+Trudeau+puts+Liberals+position+emerge+from/11299448/story.html


> Justin Trudeau puts Liberals in position to emerge from election with more influence
> 
> MICHAEL DEN TANDT
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott (19 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It is happening on other fronts with the other Partys as well.
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberal-candidate-in-calgary-under-fire-after-screenshots-of-offensive-tweets-posted-several-years-ago-surface



And? There are things I've said "several years ago" that I've either changed my mind on, or just regret for their stupidity. I am referring to the disgusting reactions YESTERDAY by a supporter who is, apparently, closer to the PM than just some wag who decided to mouth off.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Aug 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Each day the Duffy trial drags on, it seems to get uglier for the CPC.  I do wonder how much this will have an effect on voters come the 19th.  It seems as if the PM couldn't have called the election at a worse time, timing wise that is.




The Duffy trial will go into recess at the end of the week (or the end of next week?) and it will not resume until after the election. 

Bear in mind this nugget of political wisdom:

                                                  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




                                                                                ... we have almost nine "long times" until election day.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Aug 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Has Wynne ever said where the money will be held? Will it be a fund like CPP that the government can't touch? Or is she planning on having it accessible to the government so she can raid it to help pay down Ontario's debt?




If I was in the CPC's campaign team I would advocate more of this:

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




                    ... and less _personal _attacks on Messers Mulcair and Trudeau. _I think_ the _personal_ attacks on M Trudeau worked; they were good and cheap but they are now stale and, likely unproductive.

I think the "We can't afford him" attacks on M Mulcair can work _*IF*_ they are accompanied by specific attacks on his financial promises.

As many commentators have mentioned, the CPC has a credible fiscal record and some (politically) decent (if economically suspect) proposals, too. Canadians fear deficits and debts: as the old (1940s) song says, the CPC needs to _accentuate the positive_ in the CPC record and highlight the negatives in the LPC and NDP promises. There is a time for negative, _personal_ attack ads: before the campaign, proper, when the "Just Not Ready" ads did their work, and near the end, in the last week or so. In _my opinion_ attack ads are good, they work, but it is the record/promises that should be attacked in mid-campaign, not the person. It is possible, as the image above does, to mix _personal_ attacks - in this case associating M Trudeau with Premier Wynne and overspending/debt - with good, solid, attacks on policies and promises.


----------



## Lumber (19 Aug 2015)

Every political advertisment I've heard so far is just spend spend spend. They all promise to spend money on this, or money on that; but, none of them says where they are going to get that money! Where is money for all these new programs coming from? What programs are they cancelling to make room for them?

I suppose under the Liberals, we'll just legalize pot and pay for everything with tax revenues.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (19 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I suppose under the Liberals, we'll just legalize pot and pay for everything with tax revenues.



You mean the drug dealers are going to give up their profits?  Probably just like the Indians give up their profits on cigarettes.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (19 Aug 2015)

An interesting National Post column.


http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/colby-cosh-if-theres-a-scandal-in-the-duffy-affair-why-cant-i-spot-it


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Aug 2015)

Billion Dollar new sports facility for Calgary to replace/complement McMahon and the Saddledome and add a Fieldhouse.

Middle of an election.  In Calgary.  During a recession (particularly bad locally).

No Federal money.  (And that is a good thing - the entire project is locally funded - not even any Provincial money).


----------



## dapaterson (19 Aug 2015)

Wait for it - the site is contaminated, and there will be a call for hundreds of milions from all levels of government for the cleanup.


----------



## Lumber (19 Aug 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Wait for it - the site is contaminated, and there will be a call for hundreds of milions from all levels of government for the cleanup.



Most as a promise from one Federal party in particular?


----------



## dapaterson (19 Aug 2015)

In the "Idea whose time has come" department, the Rhino party has committed to privatizing the CAF, but nationalizing Tim Hortons.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rhino-party-tim-hortons-1.3195952


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Aug 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In the "Idea whose time has come" department, the Rhino party has committed to privatizing the CAF, but nationalizing Tim Hortons.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rhino-party-tim-hortons-1.3195952



That does it.  I'm now voting Rhino.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (19 Aug 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> No Federal money.  (And that is a good thing - the entire project is locally funded - not even any Provincial money).



That $ 240 million Community Revitalization Levy - property tax that the city/province could use for other projects.  The local and provincial property tax on new projects in the neighborhood go to fund the project as if it were found money.  To use Edmonton as an example.  Instead of school tax going to underfunded schools, it goes to a billionaire to pay for a place for his millionaire employees to play a kid's game.  Instead of property tax fixing collapsing infrastructure it goes for the same billionaire thing.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Aug 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> That $ 240 million Community Revitalization Levy - property tax that the city/province could use for other projects.  The local and provincial property tax on new projects in the neighborhood go to fund the project as if it were found money.  To use Edmonton as an example.  Instead of school tax going to underfunded schools, it goes to a billionaire to pay for a place for his millionaire employees to play a kid's game.  Instead of property tax fixing collapsing infrastructure it goes for the same billionaire thing.



Not the Province - unless you are planning on using Calgary Taxpayers dollars for rural benefit.

Given the number of out of towners that go to Flames and Stampeders games I am not sure where the dividing line goes.  When Mike from Canmore comes to town Calgary benefits from his beer dollars.

As to the area itself, it is the area just behind the Mewata Armouries.  The area currently includes a science museum, a bus terminal and turnaround, Mewata stadium and a whole bunch of parking lots known as car dealerships.  

It is not immediately clear how much, if any, remediation will need to be done on the site.  That will be influenced by whatever construction is required at or below grade.  Not every site needs to be rendered free of contamination.  Sometimes all that is required is that the site be secured (in the Naval sense).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (19 Aug 2015)

Just saw the CTV newscast daily tid-bit on the Duffy trial.

In the "compulsory" scene where the camera follows Duffy walking to the court house, you can see across the street and in plain view, a garbage truck with their company motto painted on it: "Think Green - Think Clean"

Ms. May and her Party could not buy publicity like that  ;D


----------



## Rocky Mountains (19 Aug 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Not the Province - unless you are planning on using Calgary Taxpayers dollars for rural benefit.



The provincial education tax on new assessments and inflationary assessment increases within the zone certainly does go to the billionaire instead of the kids.

Here's a City of Edmonton website.

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/projects_redevelopment/community-revitalization-levy-faq.aspx#26745


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Aug 2015)

If the Duffy trial were to turn up anything incendiary, I would expect it to occupy most of CBC's bandwidth for a week.  Absence of sensational reporting is evidence of absence of significant wrongdoing.

Regarding that and most other small beer items trumpeted as major shortcomings: people who dislike A and like B are going to rationalize their dislike of A and like of B however they can; most will not come within a full degree of equatorial longitude of anything resembling a well-informed opinion.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Duffy trial will go into recess at the end of the week (or the end of next week?) and it will not resume until after the election.
> 
> Bear in mind this nugget of political wisdom:
> 
> ...



I thought the bloody corpse was going to be dragged through the streets until the burial.  As they'll be shutting down the circus early, then yes, I agree there'll be many a slip twixt the cup and the lip on all sides before the 19th.  The sheep may just find something else to baaaa at by then.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Conservative "ground war" is going strong in the _ethnic_ suburbs, especially around Vancouver and Toronto. Defence Minister Jason Kenney is wallpapering the Internet with this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And it, the CPC's campaign in the _ethnic_ suburbs, is still going strong:





Chris Alexander ~ a potential CPC leadership candidate in the not too distant future





The Prime Minister doing "gip and grin" with the locals at a Hindu temple in Toronto

It _appears, to me_, to be a fairly focused campaign: aimed at East and South Asians (Chinese-Canadians, Philippine-Canadians (the fastest growing immigrant group, _I think_) and Indo-Canadians) but it _seems_, largely, to ignore Arab-Canadians, Caribbean-Canadians and so on. _I think_ that may be a function of where those groups live (middle class suburbs (which the CPC must win) vs urban areas) and _their_ perceptions of the CPC.


----------



## Kilo_302 (20 Aug 2015)

This, coupled with the NDP's firing of two candidates who dared to say that Israel has broken international law demonstrates that the NDP is no longer a left wing party, at least as far as leadership goes. The political spectrum of debate in Canada is now razor thin to the point that it raises real questions about the state of democracy here.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-defends-praise-for-margaret-thatcher-s-winds-of-liberty-and-liberalism-1.3196265



> NDP Leader Tom Mulcair was forced Wednesday to defend flattering comments he made over a decade ago about the conservative policies of former U.K. prime minister Margaret Thatcher, a day after his 2001 remarks were the water-cooler talk in Quebec.
> 
> As a member of the National Assembly in Quebec under the Liberal government of Jean Charest, Mulcair credited the success of England's economy under Thatcher's Conservative Party to the "winds of liberty and liberalism" that "swept across the markets in England."


----------



## Rocky Mountains (20 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> demonstrates that the NDP is no longer a left wing party,



You really want to believe that.  It is a party with literature that reads like the Communist Manifesto that currently declares itself to be nothing less than a socialist party.  However it is led by an opportunist with no principles who says whatever he thinks he needs to say to get elected.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Aug 2015)

Couldn't agree more. We are clearly only steps away from becoming another North Korea and one party rule breaking out on Parliament Hill....

(Yes, that was sarcasm)


----------



## dapaterson (20 Aug 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> However it is led by an opportunist with no principles who says whatever he thinks he needs to say to get elected.



That pretty much describes every politcal party leader this country has ever had.  (Or at least those that have had a realistic opprotunity to form a government).


----------



## Lumber (20 Aug 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Rocky Mountains said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That pretty much describes almost every political party leader anywhere, ever.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> This, coupled with the NDP's firing of two candidates who _dared to say that Israel has broken international law demonstrates that the NDP is no longer a left wing party_, at least as far as leadership goes. The political spectrum of debate in Canada is now razor thin to the point that it raises real questions about the state of democracy here.
> 
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-defends-praise-for-margaret-thatcher-s-winds-of-liberty-and-liberalism-1.3196265




So are you suggesting that the _test_ for the left is to be anti-Israel?

Let's agree that Prime Minister Harper (and his cabinet and his caucus and the CPC candidates) and many (most?) CPC members are pro-Israel, sometimes to the point of blindness. the _left_ is anti-Harper so I guess being anti-Israel fits.

Let's also agree that the "Jewish vote" in Canada, while not huge, is active and important and, despite many Jews' reservations about some of the CPC base's _social_ views, appears to be supporting Stephen Harper and the CPC. So, is being anti-Jewish also a 'test' for those on the _left_?

I'm happy to agree that Justin Trudeau is, actively courting the Arab-Canadian vote ~ at least more actively than are either Prime Minister Harper or M Mulcair. Does that make them less pro-Israel? 

But, traditionally, until the 1990s, both Jews, as a group, and Israel, as a nation, were considered to be, broadly, _left_ or _progressive_. The changes occurred when the Arabs, after the political-military fiascos of the 1960s and '70s, hired some top flight New York PR/lobbying firms to create a new, anti-Israel _narrative_, sometimes called "soft warfare" which was, actually aided by 9/11 when many Western political leaders went out of their way to "understand" Arab _grievances_ (many (most?) of which involve the very existence of Israel, even of Jews). There are legitimate Arab grievances, _I hope_ no one denies that; but there are deep, serious problems with the Arab _view_ of Israel's right to exist ~ _I suspect_ many on the _left_ choose to ignore those problems. The biggest problem, in the West, is that Israel wins too often. It is, really, that simple: Israel's long, steady string of victories offends our sense of "fair play," of _balance_. Why, we ask, must the Arabs always loose? The answer must be that the _system_, the "game" is unfair, it's rigged; it cannot be because many Arab leaders are corrupt and fail to provide their military with the tools needed. It cannot be because many Arab governments don't really want to have powerful, effective militaries, because they (the soldiers) might overthrow the government. It cannot be because Arab armies are poorly disciplined, poorly trained, poorly led and so on. Can't be, can it? The _system_ must be rigged. But the "soft war" campaign was aimed, very specifically, at the US (and, to a lesser degree) the European _left_. At the time both US Democrats and Republicans were, reliably, pro-Israel; if anything the Democrats were more pro-Israel (actually just less _isolationist_) than was the GOP. But the big PR firms understood the changes being felt in American society at large and concluded that the _left_ would be easier to "move" towards and anti-Israel position than the _centre_ or _right_. So, we now have a situation where the most traditionally _progressive_ of Americans, the Jews, have been booted out of the _left/progressive_ 'movement' because they're Jews and they, and their affection and support for Israel, have become touchstones for the Republicans and the _right_ (parts of the _religious right_ already had its own reasons for supporting Israel). _In my opinion_: the _left_ was wooed and won by a slick PR campaign, nothing else.

But you, Kilo_302, are my _left_ barometer here on Army.ca and I can now conclude that being _left_ and "democratic" means wishing for Hezbollah to defeat Israel and drive the Jews into the sea.


----------



## Kilo_302 (20 Aug 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> You really want to believe that.  It is a party with literature that reads like the Communist Manifesto that currently declares itself to be nothing less than a socialist party.  However it is led by an opportunist with no principles who says whatever he thinks he needs to say to get elected.



You missed the part where I said "as far as the leadership goes." It can declare itself whatever it wants, but it's policy that matters. Similar to shifts with the Labour Party in the UK, there is no real left wing party in Canada outside of the Communist Party of course. An NDP government would be as neo-liberal as the Liberals or Conservatives.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> So are you suggesting that the _test_ for the left is to be anti-Israel?
> 
> Let's agree that Prime Minister Harper (and his cabinet and his caucus and the CPC candidates) and many (most?) CPC members are pro-Israel, sometimes to the point of blindness. the _left_ is anti-Harper so I guess being anti-Israel fits.
> 
> ...



You're putting words in my mouth, and those of the prospective MPs in question. If someone agrees that Israel has committed war crimes under the current definitions of international law, it does not necessarily follow that they wish for Hezbollah to "drive the Jews into the sea." That's inflammatory and extremely simplistic, however that's also the common strategy to shut down the discussion. 

You are insinuating that I have politicized the Israel/Palestine question by associating the "left" and "democracy" with position favourable to Palestine. It was in fact the "right" broadly, in North America that has made such definitions. Mulcair has effectively said that discussion (to put it generously) has no bearing and no place in the NDP when it comes to this issue. The implications for debate in Canada are clear: Our "left-wing" party will not accept views on Israel outside of "unconditional support" thus allowing the "right" to decide the narrative. Surely you can see this is problematic for the democratic process.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> ...Surely you can see this is problematic for the democratic process.



Not at all, because on 19 October, each citizen eligible to vote may do so, and if they believe M. Mulcair no longer represents the views of the NDP, then they can either indirectly resolve the issue by voting locally for someone who more closely represents their own views, or more directly, by moving to the riding of Outremont, may vote for someone other than M. Mulcair.  That's the great part of a democracy...see how easy that was to have one's voice heard?


----------



## George Wallace (20 Aug 2015)

And the "Lawn ornaments" are now coming out.


----------



## Rifleman62 (20 Aug 2015)

This could go here or media bias. You would think that the so called media could ask Mr. Harper an intelligent question vice the endless $90 K Duffygate. 

Looks like Duffyy's lawyer has his own agenda.

http://epaper.nationalpost.com/epaper/viewer.aspx?noredirect=true

National Post - Christie Blatchford Comment from Ottawa - 19 Aug 15
    

*Trial has become irredeemably political*

Wright said he and Novak exchanged messages ‘probably two weeks ago’

Where to begin but with the bombshell, at long last arriving at the Mike Duffy trial to set Parliament Hill and the campaign buses ablaze and potentially place Prime Minister Stephen Harper in the soup.

What emerged at the trial late Tuesday was the revelation that another key Harper aide, Ray Novak, then working as Harper’s principal secretary and now on the election trail with the PM as his chief of staff, was allegedly in the room when then-chief of s t aff Nigel Wright announced that he was going to pay Duffy’s illgotten expenses out of his own pocket.

This was on March 22, 2013, just three days before Wright’s bank draft for $90,000 arrived at the office of Duffy’s then-lawyer, Janice Payne. Wright was calling Payne to finalize the arrangements.

According to emails filed at trial, three people from the Prime Minister’s Office — Wright, Novak and Ben Perrin, then Harper’s special adviser and legal counsel — were all to be on the call with Payne.

But Tuesday, with Duffy’s tireless lawyer, Don Bayne, cross-examining Wright for a fourth consecutive day, it emerged that in his Feb. 20, 2014 statement to the RCMP, Perrin said he’d arrived a few minutes early to Wright’s office that day to give him the heads-up that the call was going to be “really difficult.”

Duffy and Payne, according to Perrin, were once again resisting agreeing to the deal-in-the-works, with the senator for Prince Edward Island still imagining he might be able to convince the world that he’d done nothing wrong in claiming extra expenses for living in his long-time Kanata house, and that his actual “primary residence” was his cottage in P.E.I.

“He (Wright) said, ‘ He will be repaying because it’s coming out of my pocket,’ ” Perrin told the RCMP.

“And I believe Ray Novak was in the room at the time. Ray heard this,” Perrin said, “and I remember looking at Ray to see his reaction.”

Novak, who isn’t expected to testify as a witness here, has publicly maintained he didn’t know Wright was paying for Duffy until much later and that he wasn’t actually on the call; given his closeness with the PM, it added a level of support to Harper’s claim that he also didn’t know, and that once he did, Wright was gone from the PMO.

Wright, for his part, told Bayne that “Ray was not on the call, though he may have dropped into the office.”

“Perrin will suggest that he was,” Bayne said.

“That’s just not true,” Wright replied firmly, adding that he’d wanted Novak on it, but it didn’t happen that way.

Now, worthy of note (so guaranteed to be overlooked) is that while Bayne read aloud from Perrin’s RCMP statement, he didn’t ask Wright a single question about it, except how much he knew or didn’t about the mood of the Duffy-Payne contingent at the time.

Indeed, the propriety of putting to one witness the statement of another — let alone then failing to ask the witness any questions about it — is only arguably relevant to the issue of Duffy’s guilt or innocence.

This has been the norm throughout Wright’s cross examination, in that the former chief of staff has been shown and questioned about dozens of emails he wasn’t copied on or said he’d never seen before. 



This isn’t to suggest that Bayne’s grilling didn’t yield some nuggets.

One was Wright admitting that he’d exchanged BlackBerry messages “probably about two weeks ago” with Novak.

Again, however, Bayne didn’t ask what the two had discussed; it’s reasonable the two are friends, and that this was a personal message.

Another, which was Bayne’s focus for much of the day, were the attempts of the PMO to try, in the lawyer’s words, “secretly, conspiratorially” to “fix” the outcome of an independent audit commissioned by the Senate and being done by Deloitte.

There’s little doubt that Wright and others in the PMO were, in their desperate efforts to contain the Duffy scandal, trying at the least to have Duffy dropped from the audit; Wright defends that as reasonable, because once Duffy publicly said he was going to repay his expenses and “may have made a mistake” in claiming he actually lived in P.E.I., the audit was moot.

Whether it was bad as Bayne portrayed it — Wright “trying to interfere with an independent audit” and enlisting Senator Irving Gerstein to use his contacts at Deloitte to lean on the auditor doing the work — or as benign as Wright described it is difficult to know.

But the one sure thing that can be said of the PMO effort in this regard, whatever its purpose, is that it failed: The auditor stuck to his guns and Gerstein was effectively told to back off.

What is astonishing is how irredeemably political this trial — a criminal trial, after all, revolving around one man’s guilt or innocence — has been from the get-go.

Even in its earliest days, Bayne was noticeably ragging the puck and questioning relatively minor witnesses for days, almost as if he hoped to drag the whole business out.

Then, when it became apparent more time would be needed, he was keen to get it going this fall, when, by chance, everyone knew the election was coming. Prosecutors Jason Neubauer and Mark Holmes, who are also handling the fraud case against Senator Mac Harb, said in open court they each have murder trials scheduled.

Miraculously, in late May, Harb’s lawyer, Sean May, appeared at the Ottawa courthouse with an application to have Harb’s trial date cancelled.

The case of the disgraced former Liberal senator, facing fraud and breach of trust charges of his own, had been slated to start Aug. 10.

Its postponement, agreed to by the prosecutors, meant these August weeks opened up time and space for the Duffy case to resume.

It’s surely just a happy coincidence, but one pales at the dark conspiracies Don Bayne would hatch if the likes of Nigel Wright ever claimed it was just a perfect storm of accident and happenstance.


----------



## Lumber (20 Aug 2015)

It's amazing how little I care about this.


----------



## Acorn (20 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> This, coupled with the NDP's firing of two candidates who dared to say that Israel has broken international law demonstrates that the NDP is no longer a left wing party, at least as far as leadership goes. The political spectrum of debate in Canada is now razor thin to the point that it raises real questions about the state of democracy here.
> 
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-defends-praise-for-margaret-thatcher-s-winds-of-liberty-and-liberalism-1.3196265



That revelation about his admiration of Thatcher puts Angry Tom up a few notches in my opinion, but I don't think he has the weight to steer the NDP very far to the right. It'll cause some damage, perhaps, but organized labour doesn't have any other wagon to hitch to, so I doubt it'll have the desired impact.

Might even have an unintended consequence of shifting a few more blue Liberals to orange, and giving the undecided like me an idea that the NDP might be a viable option (did I just say that? I'll go wash my mouth out with whisky now).


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Aug 2015)

Judging from the email addresses the ladies on the site must have been very busy...... female names appear to be vastly outnumbered by male names


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Aug 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Judging from the email addresses the ladies on the site must have been very busy...... female names appear to be vastly outnumbered by male names



Not likely: http://www.wired.com/2015/08/happened-hackers-posted-stolen-ashley-madison-data/



> “Avid Life Media has failed to take down Ashley Madison and Established Men,” Impact Team wrote in a statement accompanying the online dump Tuesday. “We have explained the fraud, deceit, and stupidity of ALM and their members. Now everyone gets to see their data…. Keep in mind the site is a scam with thousands of fake female profiles. See ashley madison fake profile lawsuit; 90-95% of actual users are male. Chances are your man signed up on the world’s biggest affair site, but never had one. He just tried to. If that distinction matters.”


----------



## Kat Stevens (20 Aug 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Judging from the email addresses the ladies on the site must have been very busy...... female names appear to be vastly outnumbered by male names



Not surprising, women are it's target demographic.


----------



## Lumber (20 Aug 2015)

Ok I think we need a different thread for these, but here's one more:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/20/us/josh-duggar-ashley-madison/index.html

As more of these come to light, I expect this whole ordeal to become a lot more entertaining.

Hmmm... I just realized I'm more interested in seeing how this plays out then the Duffy affair. Is there something wrong with me?

Mods for your action.  :highjack:


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Aug 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Actually, polls don't count until October 19th; everything else is noise.




But the polling firms are worried, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/survey-says-the-future-of-polling-is-hard-topredict/article26042112/


> Margin of error
> *Gauging voter intentions has never been easy, but after several spectacular recent flops, Canada’s pollsters are trying to return the industry to its once credible predictor of public opinion, reports Eric Andrew-Gee*
> 
> ERIC ANDREW-GEE
> ...




I will be very happy to be corrected by someone who has actually studied (rather than just read about and observed) _mass communications_, but, _in my opinion_:

     _Polling works_, at least it does in its original (pure) for of market research. Corporations can, and do, find out what you want by asking you a (relatively) few and often deceptively simple questions; but

     _Advertizing works, too_, and those same corporations can, and do, change your preferences through well crafted advertizing campaigns that often use market research data, sometimes just
     by carefully "mining" the same market research data they used to determine your preferences, but looking deeper into your _preferences_ and finding out what your deeper _desires_ might be;

     _Good polling is expensive_, as the article points out, and the _public_ polls are "free" to you so the firms that do or commissions them (media outlets) try to do polling "on the cheap" which _might_ backfire; and

     _Some polling firms are in a conflict of interest_ because they poll for special interests or for the parties, themselves, and they do public polling, too.

_I think_ all those factors come together to make public polling more and more difficult to get right.

     First, _I believe_ that parties often (usually?) have pretty good, fairly reliable polling data that tells them something akin to the real "truth."

     Second, I think that the parties then use that good information to craft ad campaigns that are designed to make you and I change our minds as we get closer and closer to voting day, thereby confounding the public polls.

     Third, _I suspect_ that we are, generally, disengaged from _policy politics_ and more attuned to _promises politics_: we tend to focus on the new, shiny, loud promises, not the lengthy, complex, quiet proposals.


----------



## MARS (21 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Third, _I suspect_ that we are, generally, disengaged from _policy politics_ and more attuned to _promises politics_: we tend to focus on the new, shiny, loud promises, not the lengthy, complex, quiet proposals.



I agree, but am not at all surprised.  After all, Kim Campbell was absolutely correct when she stated that "an election is no time to discuss serious issues".


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Aug 2015)

First good Election joke out here:

"Gilles Duceppe walks into a restaurant, so the Maitre D greets him: Good afternoon Mr. Duceppe. Party of two?"   ;D


----------



## CougarKing (21 Aug 2015)

In spite of what is said below, the NDP has never had a coherent defence platform. Furthermore they have candidates like Andrew Seagram, who once compared Canadian Soldiers to Palestinian suicide bombers.  :facepalm:

Globe and Mail



> *Why defence matters in this election*
> GEORGE PETROLEKAS
> Contributed to The Globe and Mail
> Published Wednesday, Aug. 19, 2015 3:06PM EDT
> ...




NDP candidate Andrew Seagram quote from Toronto Sun column:



> Andrew Seagram, who is running for Team Mulcair in Guelph, says “Idolizing our soldiers as heroes” is “as dangerous as proselytizing a suicide bomber.” Neither is “a hero or a martyr.” Oh, and he likens Christians to the “mentally ill,” too.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Aug 2015)

Do the Liberals or the NDP have a guy like Jason Kenney, someone whose own seat is pretty secure who can be sent everywhere, especially into every ethnic nook and cranny, to curry favour and votes?


















He's like the bloody _Energizer bunny_ ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Aug 2015)

>to curry favour and votes

Serendipity strikes.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Aug 2015)

For some reason, the National Post has taken down a column written by Margaret Atwood which satirized people's obsession with the hair of the various leaders.  Fortunaetly, Google can be relied on to cache such things.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3ANNY9M7J2kGIJ%3Anews.nationalpost.com%2Ffull-comment%2Fmargaret-atwood-stephen-harpers-bad-hair-days+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Hair is in the election-season air, but is it crucial to the question of your vote?

...

Let’s try this hair quiz:

Of the three national male leaders, which one travels with a personal grooming assistant – lavishly paid for in whole or in part by you, gentle taxpayer – so that none of his hairs will ever be out of place, supposing they are indeed his and not a wig, as some have supposed? (Hint: Initials are S.H.)

Which leader, on the other hand, doesn’t need such an assistant because his hair is “nice” enough already? (Hint: initials are J.T.)

And which one wouldn’t know what a personal grooming assistant was if he fell over one? (Hint: Initials are T.M.)

Yes! You got it right! Smart you!

Next: Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for the micromanagement of Harper’s hair? Is his hair in the public interest? Is it crucial infrastructure? A matter of national security? Or is the pampering just a matter of narcissistic vanity?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Aug 2015)

There was a time I had a smidgen of respect for Atwood. Now it's gone. The only reason she continues to get awards for her pulp fiction prose, is because she's a CBC\ liberal shill. I don't believe anyone outside that faction has even finished one of her intolerable tomes.


----------



## cavalryman (21 Aug 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There was a time I had a smidgen of respect for Atwood. Now it's gone. The only reason she continues to get awards for her pulp fiction prose, is because she's a CBC\ liberal shill. I don't believe anyone outside that faction has even finished one of her intolerable tomes.


The continued adulation of Atwood's prose is pretty much all you need to know about what's wrong with the field of Canadian literature in general.  There are any number of good Canadian authors who can't get the time of day in their own country, yet they get mucho sales and respect in other parts of the Anglosphere.  BTW - I can't remember who first came up with the meme, but Mags does look like PET in drag once you let yourself think of it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Aug 2015)

Or the Chicken Lady from KITH https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T38OcxS30g


----------



## Altair (21 Aug 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There was a time I had a smidgen of respect for Atwood. Now it's gone. The only reason she continues to get awards for her pulp fiction prose, is because she's a CBC\ liberal shill. I don't believe anyone outside that faction has even finished one of her intolerable tomes.


 The conservatives were the ones who made hair a election issue.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Aug 2015)

Canada sure has a leg up on the US when it comes to finding important issues - hair styling, whether or not Duffy received a private loan offer - to talk about.  Southwards, all they have is whether or not some candidates have been leaking vital national information by using private computers for public business and trading the well-being the populations of entire countries (Libya, Syria, Iraq) in order to burnish credentials ("We always wanted to have a war record for you") for a presidential run.  The progressive / left down there would also probably like to talk about important issues like hair - they are trying so earnestly to move the conversation away from trivial matters to weighty ones.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> The conservatives were the ones who made hair a election issue.



Seriously, you do know it's not about the hair, right? Someone with the vast political knowledge you have, should be able to discern that from a mile off.


----------



## X Royal (22 Aug 2015)




----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Aug 2015)

"'E say 'e knows f* nothing...I say 'e knows f* all!"


----------



## Jed (22 Aug 2015)

Has anyone seen the article by Christie Blatchford that ponders on who is paying Duffy's hi speed lawyer bill?

The hypocrisy of a complicit Media / non governing parties that blow this relatively minor matter into a conflagration at the expense of the governance of the country, meanwhile ignoring serious issues is appalling.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> Has anyone seen _the article by Christie Blatchford_ that ponders on who is paying Duffy's hi speed lawyer bill?
> 
> The hypocrisy of a complicit Media / non governing parties that blow this relatively minor matter into a conflagration at the expense of the governance of the country, meanwhile ignoring serious issues is appalling.




Here is a link to the article in which Ms Blatchford suggests that Don Bayne is doing this _pro bono_, essentially for free, because he believes there is an important principle at stake ... just as Nigel Wright says he believed that it was _right_ for him to give Mike Duffy the money to pay back the public purse.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> Has anyone seen the article by Christie Blatchford that ponders on who is paying Duffy's hi speed lawyer bill?
> 
> The hypocrisy of a complicit Media / non governing parties that blow this relatively minor matter into a conflagration at the expense of the governance of the country, *meanwhile ignoring serious issues* is appalling.



Important issues like the PM attempting to appoint someone unqualified to the Supreme Court?  Appointing residents of Ontario to the Senate, yet claiming that they were residents of PEI and Saskatchewan?

Indeed, if you want to talk about the PM's apparent contempt for the constitution please do so.


----------



## Jed (22 Aug 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Important issues like the PM attempting to appoint someone unqualified to the Supreme Court?  Appointing residents of Ontario to the Senate, yet claiming that they were residents of PEI and Saskatchewan?
> 
> Indeed, if you want to talk about the PM's apparent contempt for the constitution please do so.



Or other important issues on how the incompetence of the Ontario and Quebec provincial governments are helping to take down the rest of Canada's economy?


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Aug 2015)

Ain't Duffy just one lucky basstard.  He has many influential/wealthy people who want to give him goods and services to get his ass out of a jam?


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> Or other important issues on how _the incompetence of the Ontario and Quebec provincial governments_ are helping to take down the rest of Canada's economy?




But, surely, that's peripheral issue, is it not? I didn't vote for Premier Wynne's government, but it's my job, as an Ontario elector, to try to vote her and her party out of office in the next election. Prime Minister Harper is doing about as much as he can by not helping her to make things worse. To the degree that she inserts herself into the campaign in support of M Trudeau she makes herself, and her polices, legitimate targets, but she's still a sideshow.

Prime Minister Harper has a record, and it includes some pretty poor Senate appointments that may cause many Canadians to ask themselves if he has the good judgment they want in a prime minister. Now, there are also, now, and have been until recently some pretty gawd-awful Liberal senators, too, which may make some of us ask if a Liberal PM would be any better. M Mulcair has promised to try to abolish the Senate but the _Supremes_ have made that hard ... he has, as far as I know, dodged the issue of appointments. But, perhaps his judgment will be better than that of e.g. Prime Minister Harper or Prime Minister Chrétien or any other politician ... perhaps. Like it or not, Prime Minister Harper must wear Messers Brazeau and Duffy and Ms Wallin; he appointed them and I can think of few better arguments for an elected Senate because _I am absolutely certain_ that _"ordinary Canadians"_, as the NDP used to call us, can  make better decisions at the ballot box than any PMO/party machine can ... but Prime Minister Harper seems incapable of making that case because he cannot admit that he might be wrong.

Many Conservatives, especially those of a _classical, 19th century liberal_ bent (true Conservatives, in other words, not johnny-come-lately right wingers) will, likely still vote for their CPC candidate, because the alternatives are extremely unpalatable, but many will do so while holding their noses.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Aug 2015)

>Important issues like the PM attempting to appoint someone unqualified to the Supreme Court?

Our legal system exists because not all answers are known until they are tried in a court.  It's easy to assert something (eg. "qualified"/"unqualified") after the issue is tried.  Beforehand, everything is just an opinion - even if it is voiced by a person who might try the question.


----------



## Acorn (22 Aug 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Important issues like the PM attempting to appoint someone unqualified to the Supreme Court?
> 
> Our legal system exists because not all answers are known until they are tried in a court.  It's easy to assert something (eg. "qualified"/"unqualified") after the issue is tried.  Beforehand, everything is just an opinion - even if it is voiced by a person who might try the question.



But the PM seems to have opinions that could easily fail the sniff test if he was willing to listen, and had advisors who're willing to challenge him on it. Instead he's exhibiting characteristics I'm trying to teach out of my 8 year old son: bending reality to justify his desires.

Nadon is one example, and Duffy another (Perrin even claims to have advised that the $4000 property stipulation alone didn't constitute residency), but Harper wanted it, so away he went. And then he blames "activist judges" when his desires are thwarted. The costitution and Charter are facts on the ground, if he wants to rewrite them he needs to have the parts to open the tupperware container that's been sitting at the back of the fridge since 1982, and accept the stink that'll come out.

Harper doesn't have the guts, because his *only* principle is to remain in power. Any other principles are very Groucho Marx.

Duffy was certainly a minor issue, until the PMO made it a major one. Not the press, or the opposition, the conduct of the PMO made what could have been trivial into the poster case for how messed up things have become. Personally, I think there are several issues the PM needs to be called on before this, but this certainly reflects on the character of the PM and his advisors.


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Aug 2015)

It's interesting to know that in Duffy the 90K was paid back to taxpayers and people are up in arms over how.

Meanwhile, the NDP has not paid back the 2.7M and nobody seems to be asking why.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (22 Aug 2015)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Harper doesn't have the guts, because his *only* principle is to remain in power. Any other principles are very Groucho Marx.
> 
> Duffy was certainly a minor issue, until the PMO made it a major one. Not the press, or the opposition, the conduct of the PMO made what could have been trivial into the poster case for how messed up things have become. Personally, I think there are several issues the PM needs to be called on before this, but this certainly reflects on the character of the PM and his advisors.



For the win


----------



## McG (22 Aug 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It's interesting to know that in Duffy the 90K was paid back to taxpayers and people are up in arms over how.
> 
> Meanwhile, the NDP has not paid back the 2.7M and nobody seems to be asking why.


It seems that this is more about who appears to be lying and less about the dollar value.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Aug 2015)

>Harper doesn't have the guts, because his only principle is to remain in power. Any other principles are very Groucho Marx.

Acquiring and remaining in power is the prerequisite to giving effect to principles.  What we observe is a sign, not a cause.  Harper doesn't tilt at windmills; he pushes at boundaries.  He is an incrementalist - this has been remarked upon repeatedly over the past decade.

I'm quite pleased that some of the issues he has taken to courts have been bounced back with more classically liberal interpretations.  Also remarked upon repeatedly is that he appears to be willing to take a weak case to court so that the hand that makes the decision is not his own, and so that the decision has more durability than a simple political one in Parliament.

Nothing that can be used to stir up sh!t for Harper ever has or will have any prospect of being a minor issue.  Others, too, are interest[ed] in acquiring power, and continue to tie themselves in knots sounding off against things of which they would normally approve just because Harper is the executor.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Aug 2015)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Personally, I think there are several issues the PM needs to be called on before this, but this certainly reflects on the character of the PM and his advisors.


And if that's the case ....





And if there was nothing wrong with a Chief of Staff giving/loaning $ to a Senator to pay back problematic claims, why all the effort to keep it 1)  from the public, and 2)  from the PM's ears?


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Aug 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And if there was nothing wrong with a Chief of Staff giving/loaning $ to a Senator to pay back problematic claims, why all the effort to keep it 1)  from the public, and 2)  from the PM's ears?



We'll find out if there was anything wrong with it at the end of the trial. As long as there weren't any conditions attached to the payment, IE. A friend helped another friend do the right thing because he was broke (a broke senator? Come on).

Sadly though, the whole point of this trial is to try to pin something on the PM. I don't think Harper would be stupid enough to try to get one of his people to pay off a senator's bad expenses. Perhaps though, Nigel Wright thought that Harper would approve of him handling the situation. We'll never really know until the trial is over.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Aug 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We'll find out if there was anything wrong with it at the end of the trial.


That's true.  Still, even though one is assumed innocent until proven guilty, a team hiding something from the boss sorta-kinda makes one wonder why the team figures the boss shouldn't know about it in the first place - or why life is simpler if the public thinks one thing when another is true.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Aug 2015)

Part 1 of 2



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have repeatedly said that winning government is a very long, very steep uphill climb for Justin Trudeau's Liberals, but in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, John Ibbitson makes the same case for Stephen Harper's Conservatives and he rests his case on real CPC fear of Thomas Mulcair and the NDP in Alberta:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/harpers-fight-for-alberta-betrays-a-worried-conservative-party/article25970726/
> (My emphasis added.)




In that _Globe and Mail_ article John Ibbitson said, "Victory, then, rests at a minimum on holding the rural Ontario base, [size=14pt]_the swath of suburban seats around Toronto_, and all or almost all the seats in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the B.C. Interior."[/size]

In this somewhat lengthy, but _I think_ very informative article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, John Ibbitson looks at one of the new, suburban ridings around Toronto:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/battleground-mississauga-centre-a-diverse-suburban-jewel-every-partycovets/article26053447/


> BATTLEGROUND: MISSISSAUGA CENTRE
> 
> 
> 
> ...



End of Part 1


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Aug 2015)

Part 2 of 2



> But as Mississauga just gets bigger and bigger, so does its political clout.
> 
> A mix of values
> 
> ...


----------



## Harrigan (23 Aug 2015)

I know the prevailing logic within the CPC is that the sooner the Duffy trial goes away (end of next week, apparently), the better it is.  But I am not so sure that the best outcome for the government isn't for the prosecution to drop the charges now, or to have the Duffy trial end with an acquittal now.  That obviously seems counter-intuitive, but...

1.  Duffy being acquitted would allow the government to continue to rail against "activist courts", the "perversion of the justice system", and even throw in more criticism of the Senate.  Certainly Duffy is not a figure that many would have sympathy with, and an acquittal would focus attention on that instead of them.

2.  As this article points out,

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-spratt-the-publics-interest-in-the-mike-duffy-affair

there are very real questions being asked, now that some of the testimony is in the books, as to why Duffy is on the only one on trial here.  Only the most blinkered of partisans would not agree that there was a coverup - the email chains and the testimony make that very clear - and if one government official tries to bribe another government official (and it was accepted), surely both have committed some sort of offense (though this is a layman's interpretation - I am no lawyer).  For those who claim that this is a non-scandal about something that was in the public's best interest, then is it not a fair question to ask why the PMO was so determined to cover it up and mislead the public?

It seems to me that the longer the trial goes without that  (and many other) questions being answered, the longer it will dog the CPC, and their refusal to "accept the premise of the question" strains credibility amongst us simple folk and only helps to confirm what may be a small thought creeping into voters heads - what are they hiding?  If Duffy were to be acquitted, then likewise the suspicion of the others involved would fade, and the CPC could credibly claim they are not hiding anything, as no crime was committed.

At the moment though, they invite suspicion with their MO - campaigning like Arthur Meighen!  

Harrigan


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Aug 2015)

>And if there was nothing wrong with a Chief of Staff giving/loaning $ to a Senator to pay back problematic claims, why all the effort to keep it 1)  from the public, and 2)  from the PM's ears?

>For those who claim that this is a non-scandal about something that was in the public's best interest, then is it not a fair question to ask why the PMO was so determined to cover it up and mislead the public?

Because they knew "[n]othing that can be used to stir up sh!t for Harper ever has or will have any prospect of being a minor issue."  And they were right: here we are, more than two years later, with people still hoping to make Watergate out of it - basically, hoping for a finding of "bribery" related to 3 of the charges, because most of the charges (28) against Duffy are purely about his personal interpretation of expenses.


----------



## GAP (23 Aug 2015)

I just hope Duffy does not get off scott free.....he's slime


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Aug 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> I just hope Duffy does not get off scott free.....he's slime



Me too, I hope none of those who've been fiddling with expenses get away with it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Aug 2015)

You know, Mike Duffy wasn't "slime" at all when he was appointed. He, and Pamela Wallin, were respectable and respected Canadians: popular journalists, often sought out as speakers by many groups, and, in Ms Wallin's case, a diplomat (Prime Minister Chrétien made her Consul General of Canada in New York, where she served for four years (2002-06)). Politicians had something of a "love affair" with journalists: Jean Chrétien appointed (recommended, actually, if you want to be Constitutionally correct) journalist Adrienne Clarkson to be our Governor General (and she was, _in my opinion_, a very good one) and Paul Martin followed through by selecting Michaëlle Jean, another journalist, to succeed Mme Clarkson at Rideau Hall (and _I think_ she, too, did a very good job). Why pick journalists? They are, above all, and almost by definition, good communicators. We, broadly and generally "like" them; most Canadians liked all of Mmes Clarkson, Jean and Wallin and Mr Duffy ~ it we hadn't, if they had not been "likeable" people, they would not have succeeded in the media. There are worse reasons to select GGs and Senators.

Mike Duffy served the CPC well. he was a constant presence in CPC propaganda marketing: he had his own "Internet channel," telling Conservatives (and others) what a great job Prime Minister Harper's government was doing on every file under the sun and, of course, soliciting donations. He was, still is, a very good communicator, and his years of experience at "selling" a story (and himself) show.

_I think _the fault is, of course, partially, in Mr Duffy's nature ... but I also think it is is in the nature of the Senate. The Senate has long been seen as a place where partisan _hacks_, _flacks_ and _bagmen_ were sent to rest and enjoy the rewards that only a grateful prime minister could hand out to the party faithful and the backroom boys. Remember, the "choice" that then Opposition Leader Brian Mulroney used to brand then Prime Minister John Turner as a _dithering weakling_ was over a (long) list of quite odious Senate appointments that Pierre Trudeau left for him (Turner) to make. Those appointments smelled as much as any that Prime Ministers Mulroney, Chrétien and Harper would ever make. The Senate has been in quite urgent need of reform since, just for the sake of argument, 1965 ... at least. Senate appointments made a bad idea ~ an unelected legislative chambre in a modern democracy ~ that much worse. 

I'm not sure just _what_ Mr Duffy did that is so much more wrong than what many other _honourable_ senators and MPs have done in the past ~ but he did it in public and he embarrassed the boss. I'm _guessing_ that the RCMP was _offended_ (just as Nigel Wright was) by what they saw/read/heard and _I suppose_ that the Crown Prosecutors must have agreed that at least some of those charges could be taken to a successful conclusion. But _I'm also guessing_ that many senators and MPs, more than just the thirty or so mentioned in earlier media reports, have done as bad or worse and just haven't been named.

I believe that Mike Duffy, and others, might be the catalyst we, Canadians, need to demand Senate reform.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2015)

> A rotten borough was a parliamentary constituencies that had declined in size but still had the right to elect members of the House of Commons. Plympton Earle had been a prosperous market town in the Middle Ages but by the 19th century it had declined to the level of a country village.
> Rotten Borough - Spartacus Educational
> spartacus-educational.com/PRrotten.htm



Canada seems replete with "rotten boroughs" - especially east of the Rideau Canal and especially in the Senate.

Somebody really ought to do something about that.   Now if only all those inconsequential little boroughs would vote themselves out of existence.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Aug 2015)

From those I have spoken to in the media, Mr Duffy's alleged expense account shenanigans came as no surprise.

And again, much of this returns to the judgement of the man who recommended him for appointment to the Senate; a man who ignored advice that Mr Duffy was not a resident of PEI and instead advanced his own interpretation of the rules.  Who did the same with Ms Wallin, ignoring her Toronto residency.  And who attempted to have an individual unqualified due to a lack of membership in the Quebec Bar to the Supreme Court.

While several past PMs have asserted (or attempted to assert) near-presidential powers, the current incumbent seems almost imperial in his reach; "l'etat, c'est Steve".


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2015)

Regardless of "slings and arrows" I will still be voting the Harper ticket because:

I don't find any high degree of competence in Trudeau or his base of support.

While I believe Mulcair to be competent I don't find him particularly principled and his base, while principled (and whose principles are completely at odds with my own) I do not find to be competent.


----------



## McG (23 Aug 2015)

Did the PCO conclude Wynne right and Harper wrong on the subject of retirement pensions?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/document-raises-questions-about-harper-retirement-policies-1.3198157


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2015)

List of OECD members  -  How many of them can afford ANY public pensions?  I note that the list includes Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain as well as France (and perhaps one should add the US).



> AUSTRALIA
> 7 June 1971
> AUSTRIA
> 29 September 1961
> ...


----------



## Rocky Mountains (23 Aug 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Important issues like the PM attempting to appoint someone unqualified to the Supreme Court?  Appointing residents of Ontario to the Senate, yet claiming that they were residents of PEI and Saskatchewan?



First - Duffy owned a home in PEI and Wallin owned a home in Saskatchewan.  The Consitution Act 1867 says "shall be resident in the Province for which he is appointed."  Common law says that a person can have more than one residence.  Certain statutes define residence for different purposes but they are irrelevant to this purpose.

The Supreme Court decision on Supreme Court eligibility is not all that straight forward.  The Supreme Court was created by the Supreme Court Act and is not mentioned in the Constitution other than in the Constutution Act 1982 which says amendments to "the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada" requires unanimous consent of the provinces.  The composition of the Supreme Court surely means that Quebec has 3 members or more members of the 9.  Does "composition" apply to every other judge"s qualification?  That's the argument.

The general qualification for a any judge read "5. Any person may be appointed a judge who is or has been a judge of a superior court of a province or a barrister or advocate of at least ten years standing at the bar of a province."

The qualification of 3 judges from Quebec read "6. At least three of the judges shall be appointed from among the judges of the Court of Appeal or of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec or from among the advocates of that Province."

Harper amended the Supreme Court Act to essentially make qualifications for all provinces similar as follows "6.1 For greater certainty, for the purpose of section 6, a judge is from among the advocates of the Province of Quebec if, at any time, they were an advocate of at least 10 years standing at the bar of that Province."

I am unsure whether changing the qualifications of Quebec judges to the same as the rest of Canada changes the "composition" of the Supreme Court.  Harper had lots of good legal advice that said it did not.  If Nadon had been a fourth judge appointed from Quebec, it appears he would have qualified under the general rules.


----------



## McG (23 Aug 2015)

This is not good news for the PM: The majority of Canadians do not believe Stephen Harper is telling the truth about the Mike Duffy Senate expenses scandal, a new poll has found.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/08/22/poll-most-canadians-dont-believe-harper-on-duffy-scandal.html


----------



## a_majoor (23 Aug 2015)

Frankly, I don't give a toss about the Duffy trial anymore. If anything was going to leap out at us, it would have a long time ago. The fact that multiple other senators are being investigated or one (Marc Harb) is charged with $230,000 of fraudulent expenses but this is somehow considered "not" newsworthy points more to a problem in the media in terms of bias and "narrative" than anything else (breathlessly mentioning that Liberal senators are also under investigation but not naming any at the _very end_ of a CBC news piece pretty much sets the stage, and of course how much of these other investigations have been reported anywhere, much less with the breathless intensity of the Duffy trial or its lead up?)

As a citizen, father and service member, I am much more concerned with what the various parties are promising/offering. What promises will help me and my family? Which promises will help my daughter, who will be entering the workplace soon, or my son when he is ready to graduate high school four years hence?

What are the various parities doing to secure Canada's "National Interest" in open markets and free(er) trade to preserve our wealth and standards of living? How do they intend to enforce a peaceful commercial environment? What tools do we have or will we be getting to do so?

The parties which have the answers which seem reasonable, practical and executable are certainly the ones which will get my detailed attention (and of course the ones which also are closest to my own philosophical principles and values will also be more deserving of my support).


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Aug 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> This is not good news for the PM: The majority of Canadians do not believe Stephen Harper is telling the truth about the Mike Duffy Senate expenses scandal, a new poll has found.
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/08/22/poll-most-canadians-dont-believe-harper-on-duffy-scandal.html



56% equals ERC's core Liberals + core NDP that have always believed Harper eats kittens
22% equals ERC's core Tories that will never believe that Harper expels noxious odours
22% equals the battle ground.

All Harper needs is 35 to 40%.

With the NDP holding Quebec and Vancouver (and maybe Trawna), and Harper holding the Prairies Trudeau and keep the Maritimes.

Will 905 vote Harper, Trudeau or Mulcair?  I'd bet that Harper can pick up the 13 to 17% that he needs there before Trudeau or Mulcair actually gain enough support to convert votes into ridings.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Aug 2015)

The numbers are fun, the _strategies_ and _tactics_ are fascinating, but: there is some good news and some bad news.

The good news is that we have a pretty robust, open, generally fair democracy. We all, well most of who are qualified, get to vote ... if we choose. And the party that the greatest number of us select is very likely to form a government. It is very likely that 60%+ of us are going to wish, on 20 Oct 15, that someone else was forming the government, but _c'est la vie_, as they say. There's more good news: none of Prime Minister Harper, Opposition Leader Mulcair or M Trudeau are bad men; none are going to turn into a right wing despot or a left wing nut. Most of the couple of thousand Canadians who will stand for office are similar to the leaders, not _*bad*_, not really _*good*_, perhaps, but, by and large, acceptable.

Now the bad news: none of Prime Minister Harper, Opposition Leader Mulcair or M Trudeau are particularly _good_ leaders for a country that must tack its way into strong _strategic_ (international), domestic/social and economic headwinds. It's not going to be smooth sailing and I doubt that any of the three current party leaders is really who any of us wants.

I will not welcome an NDP government, if that's who we all choose. But I doubt it will do real, serious, long term harm to our country, despite my mistrust of the economic and fiscal motivations of M Mulcair's back-bench and _base_.

I am not really afraid of a government led by M Trudeau, if that's the party we select. Despite my reservations about his _'bottom'_, he can put together a pretty solid front bench. I doubt his government will do much real damage either.

I rather hope Prime Minister Harper's Conservatives are re-elected, despite my real, serious reservations about Prime Minister Harper as a _leader_. I believe the CPC has a good team and _I hope_ that Prime Minister Harper, who _I believe_ has been _tarnished_, perhaps irreparably damaged by his own words and deeds, will resign and make way for a new, better leader. But the CPC may have run  its course, for now; it may need a rest on the opposition benches benches while it reconsiders its aims and objectives for Canada. That is the normal and natural fate of all political parties. It is why our ramshackle, messy democracy is, always, better than even the best managed one-party state.

My  :2c:  because I think too many of us take all this too seriously ... Remember what Gloria Gaynor said: those political buggers will be back and we will survive, no matter which of 'em _leads_ our country.


----------



## Acorn (23 Aug 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >And if there was nothing wrong with a Chief of Staff giving/loaning $ to a Senator to pay back problematic claims, why all the effort to keep it 1)  from the public, and 2)  from the PM's ears?
> 
> >For those who claim that this is a non-scandal about something that was in the public's best interest, then is it not a fair question to ask why the PMO was so determined to cover it up and mislead the public?
> 
> Because they knew "[n]othing that can be used to stir up sh!t for Harper ever has or will have any prospect of being a minor issue."  And they were right: here we are, more than two years later, with people still hoping to make Watergate out of it - basically, hoping for a finding of "bribery" related to 3 of the charges, because most of the charges (28) against Duffy are purely about his personal interpretation of expenses.



Harper could have been up front about it and said "we're not impressed by this, but Duffy was my appointment so we are paying back his expenses and ejecting him from caucus" (and ragged Trudeau that Harb was merely ejected from caucus, but the Libs won't pay back the mistake). And if he really didn't know what his people were doing, that goes further to his judgement about who he appoints and how he leads.

Maybe I'm just angry because after so many years of Cretien I actually hoped Harper would be different. I suppose he is, but not the way I expected.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Aug 2015)

Harper is different.  Basically one complaint against him boils down to his poor judgement selecting senators.  What was known at the time the decision was made?

Another complaint boils down to his willingness to take issues before courts.  People who only see the issue the other way before it is decided hate him because there is a risk the decision might go his way.  Others join the bandwagon after the decision is rendered - the omniscient SOB should have known better.

More complaints - virtually all of the personality-related ones - are basically prejudice against introverted people, which is almost the last prejudice that can still be openly voiced.  One day, hopefully not too far in the future, it will be as unacceptable to call an introverted person a "cold fish" as it is to call a gay person a "fag".  Extroverts, and even mild introverts, will realize that it is as unfair to expect a deeply introverted person to conform to their social expectations as it is to expect a legless man to get out of his chair and walk.

He hasn't been accused of taking money.  He hasn't been accused of meddling in real estate deals in which he holds an interest.  His COS hasn't been accused of altering documents, and certainly hasn't been promoted to a party leadership position and offered up to voters.  Undoubtedly, nowhere in Canada has a CoS of any political or non-political organization ever kept his boss removed from a problematical situation.  For this despicable innovation we should all be sanctimoniously outraged.


----------



## Jed (23 Aug 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Harper is different.  Basically one complaint against him boils down to his poor judgement selecting senators.  What was known at the time the decision was made?
> 
> Another complaint boils down to his willingness to take issues before courts.  People who only see the issue the other way before it is decided hate him because there is a risk the decision might go his way.  Others join the bandwagon after the decision is rendered - the omniscient SOB should have known better.
> 
> ...



Ala Casablanca, " Frankly Rick, I am shocked, shocked I tell you , that you allow gambling in this establishment." As the Commandant picks up his winnings at the door. (a little paraphrasing here)


----------



## Rocky Mountains (23 Aug 2015)

I still don't understand how paying back Duffy's questionable expenses is in any way undesirable from any point of view.  The NDP haven't paid back the expense money they stole to pay NDP staffers and are totally unapologetic.    Have the Liberal Sponsorship scandal amounts been repaid?  I don't think so.  Making sure Duffy's expenses were repaid is a sign of responsibility and could only be a scandal in the eyes of the Canadian media.


----------



## McG (23 Aug 2015)

The question is not wether one should clean-up after their mistakes.  The question is, do we want a PM who would lie to the Canadian public to protect against party embarrassment.


----------



## Jed (23 Aug 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> The question is not whether one should clean-up after their mistakes.  The question is, do we want a PM who would lie to the Canadian public to protect against party embarrassment.



Do you really believe that?  Take a look to the south and see how the sheeple and the Mainstream Media have been willfully blind to Hilary's shenanigans for a loooong time.  Are we Canadians that much better of a people than the USA? I hardly think so.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> Do you really believe that?  Take a look to the south and see how the sheeple and the Mainstream Media have been willfully blind to Hilary's shenanigans for a loooong time.  Are we Canadians that much better of a people than the USA? I hardly think so.




Brian Gable, the editorial cartoonist in the _Globe and Mail_, thinks it's most likely a matter of perspective:






Source: the _Globe and Mail_


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Aug 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> I still don't understand how paying back Duffy's questionable expenses is in any way undesirable from any point of view .... Making sure Duffy's expenses were repaid is a sign of responsibility and could only be a scandal in the eyes of the Canadian media.


Interesting take, but again, if PMO folks tried to downplay the connection, and keep "the boss" in a plausibly deniable position, at the very least it _looks_ out of place.  I'm prepared to let the courts settle it, but optics is never zero, especially during elections.



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> The question is not wether one should clean-up after their mistakes.  The question is, do we want a PM who would lie to the Canadian public to protect against party embarrassment.


That.  Right.  There.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Aug 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> The question is not wether one should clean-up after their mistakes.  The question is, do we want a PM who would lie to the Canadian public to protect against party embarrassment.



I've seen nothing so far to suggest that the PM engaged in wanton subterfuge to lie to the public. Notwithstanding what Mulcair, Trudeau and the MSM say.


----------



## Harrigan (23 Aug 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> The question is not wether one should clean-up after their mistakes.  The question is, do we want a PM who would lie to the Canadian public to protect against party embarrassment.



Exactly.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (23 Aug 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I've seen nothing so far to suggest that the PM engaged in wanton subterfuge to lie to the public. Notwithstanding what Mulcair, Trudeau and the MSM say.



The question is whether or not Mr Harper knew that his COS had paid the amount, vice Duffy:

On 14 Aug, Mr Harper said this:



> "We are all told that Mr. Duffy had repaid his expenses. Mr. Duffy said that on national television, he had borrowed money from the bank, etc. That is what we all understood to be the truth."
> 
> "That is what the vast majority of — that's not what only the entire caucus thought and I thought, that is what the majority of our staff also believed was the case," Harper said.



The testimony of Mr Perrin that Mr Novak knew of the plan, compounded with Mr Tenyecke's earlier statement that it would be "inconceivable that Mr Novak would know of that and not tell Mr Harper" has called onto question whether or not Mr Harper was lying in the statement quoted above.

As Mr Harper himself said last week:



> You hold people responsible for their own actions; you certainly don't hold subordinates responsible for the actions of their superiors


----------



## Harrigan (23 Aug 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I've seen nothing so far to suggest that the PM engaged in wanton subterfuge to lie to the public. Notwithstanding what Mulcair, Trudeau and the MSM say.



It has nothing to do with what Mulcair, Trudeau, or the MSM say.

"Good to Go" 
*+* 
Novak being in the room for the conference call 
*+* 
"_I've known Ray (Novak) for 20 years.  It's unfathomable that Ray would be aware of a payment from Nigel to Mr.Duffy and not tell the prime minister_." (Kory Teneycke 19 Aug 2015)  
= 
exactly the suggestion that you don't see.  

It may yet play out exactly as many on this board hope, and Harper was kept in the dark throughout and really doesn't know anything - just as Andrew Coyne suggested (sarcastically) in his recent column.  But at this stage, it certainly_ looks _like he knew about it at the time.  

Again, in my opinion the best thing that could happen for the CPC would be for Duffy to be acquitted by the end of the week.  I doubt that will happen though.

Harrigan


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Aug 2015)

1. "Good to go" is how someone interprets the meaning of that phrase, and cannot possibly link the PM to anything. Someone thought it meant the PM was aware, doesn't mean he had a clue what was going on.

2. Novak in the room for a conference call: If he lied to the PM, I'll expect him sacked soon.

3. Your third point is complete conjecture. It ties nothing to the PM, only provides one person's opinion of a long-time acquaintance's character, who had absolutely nothing to do with the whole situation.

Whenever there's an actual link to the PM, that's not media conjecture and amateur sleuthing, I'll call for the PM's head. Don't you think if the RCMP was able to link anybody to this whole scheme in their investigation, they would have nabbed them too? Nigel Wright isn't even charged with anything, only Duffy. That to me says they have no evidence that anyone other than Duffy committed a crime. This whole thing smells of manufactured outrage by people with an agenda, hoping a scandal sticks.


----------



## Harrigan (24 Aug 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> 1. "Good to go" is how someone interprets the meaning of that phrase, and cannot possibly link the PM to anything. Someone thought it meant the PM was aware, doesn't mean he had a clue what was going on.
> 
> 2. Novak in the room for a conference call: If he lied to the PM, I'll expect him sacked soon.
> 
> ...



Yes, and I am sure you use the term "sweet" to refer to frustration too......   :

I absolutely agree with you that nothing is proven, and I don't claim otherwise.  What I am saying is that a lot of dots line up, and whether you want it to or not, most Canadians (based on the polls) don't believe the prime minister on this one.

Do you believe the Prime Minister Harper's Version of Events?

1.  http://www.pentictonherald.ca/poll_c9e0d462-49ed-11e5-a6e8-5f8da160f0fa.html
Yes - 11.1%, No - 77.8%, Don't Know - 11.1%

2.  https://www.straight.com/news/513666/poll-suggests-stephen-harper-has-credibility-issue-many-soft-conservative-voters
Yes - 7%, No - 91%, Don't Know - 2%

3.  http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/08/22/poll-most-canadians-dont-believe-harper-on-duffy-scandal.html
Yes - 22%, No - 56%, Don't Know - 22%

4. http://abacusdata.ca/duffy-wright-harper-does-it-matter/
Q. Do you think Prime Minister Stephen Harper has acted properly or improperly in terms of how he has dealt with this matter?
Properly - 15%, Improperly - 47%, Don't Know - 38%

5.  http://angusreid.org/duffy-trial-senate/
Q. Do you believe Prime Minister Stephen Harper's version of events 
Yes - 20%, No - 59%, Don't Know - 22% (I know that adds up to 101%, but that is what the data showed)
Amongst Conservative supporters - Yes - 60%, No - 12%, Don't Know - 28%

"You can’t govern effectively without trust. And there can be no trust without integrity and transparency.... We’re going to put an end to the culture of entitlement. And replace it with a culture centred on accountability."-- Stephen Harper (2006)

Personally, I have not completely made up my mind on this yet, though the information available so far  does tend to lean one way.  
There may yet be more information that will back up the CPC party line.   It is odd, though, that during an election campaign they wouldn't reveal whatever information they have that might change the _perception_ that is clearly out there at the moment.  What are they waiting for?

Harrigan


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Aug 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is a rather more balanced (than 'normal') view of Prime Minister Harper, but, as always, with almost all political analyses, I find things with which I agree and disagree:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/harper-hysteria-a-sign-of-closed-liberal-minds/article26055892/


> Harper hysteria a sign of closed liberal minds
> 
> KONRAD YAKABUSKI
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I agree that _"the Conservatives have made some questionable policy choices in the name of stroking their base,"_ but I disagree (same paragraph) that "Killing the long-form census was one [of them]." I am one of those _conservatives_ who believes, very firmly, that governments ought not to be in the social engineering business. I am with Henry David Thoreau who said (_Walden and Civil Disobedience_ 1849) _“That government is best which governs least.” _ The long form census was just one (small, actually) example of too much government intrusion into our daily lives. The census, _per se_, isn't a problem, it is the _outcomes_ that are enabled by the long form questions that I, broadly, oppose. Some of those outcomes are desirable, but I suggest we ~ the collective "we," Canada, society at large ~ would have got there anyway; other outcomes are undesirable.

I agree that "The truth is, Mr. Harper does not play to his base any more than the NDP’s Mr. Mulcair or the Liberals’ Mr. Trudeau play to theirs. But because elites in the media and academe have deemed Conservative supporters a less evolved species than the progressive subclass to which they themselves belong, they are beside themselves at the loss of their own influence." Most, but by no means all of the media represent the _Laurentian elites_ about which Darell Bricker and John Ibbitson wrote in _The Big Shift_. Not all journalists are, like e.g. Jeffrey Simpson, knowing, committed advocates of the _Laurentian consensus_, some (maybe even many) are simply products of their education and environment which was, until, say (just for argument's sake), 1990, the _national consensus_. (When, in the early 1990s, Preston Manning challenged that consensus he was, initially, resoundingly successful ~ displacing the Progressive Conservatives on (and extending the definition of) the acceptable political _right_ in Canada.)

I also agree that "What’s fairly clear is that a Mulcair PMO would not be expected to operate in a meaningfully different manner. The NDP Leader is as much a control freak and ruthless enforcer of caucus discipline. How else do you think he has kept his neophyte MPs in Quebec from embarrassing him too much? The worry with Mr. Trudeau is that his lack of experience would allow unelected political aides or bureaucrats to wield most of the power in a Trudeau PMO. But that doesn’t mean the PMO would be any less dominant in a Trudeau government."

See my comments, yesterday about sailing into strong policy headwinds. I think whoever leads our next government is going to be tightly constrained by "events, dear boy, events" rather than his (or even her) own wishes, ideas, policies and promises. It will be, I think, a time when we will be grateful for the soulless, grey, nearly invisible _Mandarins_ in drab business suits, scattered around the capital who really set policy, by adapting political promises and policies to the realities of the day.


Edit: spelling   :-[


----------



## Harrigan (24 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The census, _per se_, isn't a problem, it is the _outcomes_ that are enabled by the long form questions that I, broadly, oppose. Some of those outcomes are desirable, but I suggest we ~ the collective "we," Canada, society at large ~ would have got there anyway; other outcomes are undesirable.



You may be right, but as you say - it isn't the census itself that was the problem (if there ever _was_ a problem), it was the outcomes.  And now those outcomes are still being enabled, but with less information that before.  I fail to see how that can be in the national interest.

And before anyone goes on about the "huge intrusion" into Canadian lives that the long-form census apparently was, I would ask the simple question:  How can one decry the intrusiveness of the Long Form Census, but at the same time acquiesce to Bill C-51?

Harrigan


----------



## observor 69 (24 Aug 2015)

I kept looking for some mention of Harper's numerous missteps with the Supreme Court.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Aug 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> You may be right, but as you say - it isn't the census itself that was the problem (if there ever _was_ a problem), it was the outcomes.  And now those outcomes are still being enabled, but with less information that before.  I fail to see how that can be in the national interest.
> 
> And before anyone goes on about the "huge intrusion" into Canadian lives that the long-form census apparently was, I would ask the simple question:  _How can one decry the intrusiveness of the Long Form Census, but at the same time acquiesce to Bill C-51?_
> 
> Harrigan




That's a very good question and every mindless, automatic CPC supporter ought to be required to address it.

For myself: I oppose both, _on principle_. I agree that the long form census helped social engineering, some of it for the common good, but I believe that social engineering failed on the basic _utilitarian_ test of: the _greatest good for the greatest number_. I believe that most social programmes since, say (just for the sake of argument again) 1960, fail that test. I agree that C-51 makes life a bit easier for our security service, and I agree that they need some good, useful tools. But I also believe that C-51 is a blunt instrument ~ a hammer and prybar ~ when a scalpel is needed.


----------



## Altair (24 Aug 2015)

Trudeau promises to restore lifelong pensions to injured veterans

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/world/liberals-woo-disgruntled-veterans-with-promise-to-restore-lifetime-pensions-for-injured-ex-soldiers&pubdate=2015-08-24

Really surprised that's not getting more attention here considering it effects you guys the most.


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Aug 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I've seen nothing so far to suggest that the PM engaged in wanton subterfuge to lie to the public. Notwithstanding what Mulcair, Trudeau and the MSM say.




Then you need to watch this gem of a video that captures the moment Jim Flaherty reacts to Harper telling the HoC that Nigel Wright didn't tell Novak about Duffy's expenses.

https://www.facebook.com/drigcanada?fref=nf


----------



## George Wallace (24 Aug 2015)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Canada didn't get stolen by Prime Minister Stephen Harper
> BY IAN ROBINSON, CALGARY SUN
> FIRST POSTED: SUNDAY, AUGUST 23, 2015 04:00 AM MDT | UPDATED: SUNDAY, AUGUST 23, 2015 09:36 AM MDT
> 
> ...




More on LINK.


----------



## Altair (24 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
> 
> 
> More on LINK.


I actually don't mind harper on any of those issues.

The circumventing of democracy, the omnibus bills, the vilification of everyone who opposes him, the non answers in question period, the attack advertising that has taken political discourse to a new low, the nickel and diming the Canadian armed forces while saying that he is the only one that cares about it, those are things I want harper gone for. Just harper. Conservatives on a whole aren't too bad a party, and I would probably vote for someone like ambrose or Baird, definitely the late Flaherty. (I have the feeling harper would prefer pierre poilievre as his heir apparent)

But it's being lead by Steven Harper, and the best way for renewal in the conservative party is for them to lose.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (24 Aug 2015)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> I kept looking for some mention of Harper's numerous missteps with the Supreme Court.



Can anyone predict the outcome of Supreme Court decisions?  Much of the time Harper consulted retired Supreme Court judges, particularly in the Nadon case.  Is Harper supposed to quit governing in the face of an activist court.  He was elected, they weren't.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (24 Aug 2015)

NDP MP Pat Martin used donations from unions to pay off debt from defamation law suit

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/ndp-mp-pat-martin-used-donations-unions-pay-210359545.html

And the Quebec Liberal Party paid Mulcair's libel lawsuit.  How exactly are these cases different than Wright's payment of Duffy's debt.  Another question is, why do these commies have such a hard time keeping their mouths shut?


----------



## McG (24 Aug 2015)

They don't contain a potential lie about where those funds came from.


----------



## Remius (24 Aug 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> NDP MP Pat Martin used donations from unions to pay off debt from defamation law suit
> 
> https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/ndp-mp-pat-martin-used-donations-unions-pay-210359545.html
> 
> And the Quebec Liberal Party paid Mulcair's libel lawsuit.  How exactly are these cases different than Wright's payment of Duffy's debt.  Another question is, why do these commies have such a hard time keeping their mouths shut?



Not sure but I suspect that in both cases, libel cases against both men, the libel was brought against them as individuals and not MPs.  Pat Martin was sued as was Thomas Mulcair, as individual citizens not as MPs.   Who pays for their defence is irrelevant.  It is a civil case. 

If Mike Duffy was being sued as Mike Duffy and not Senator Duffy I suspect that Nigel Wright helping him out would be all perfectly fine.  But the Duffy case is not a libel case.  It's a Bribery and Breach of trust where his position as a Senator is a significant factor.   This also being a criminal case as opposed to a civil one.

Again, I don't know.  I'm not a legal expert nor pretend to be one.  My guess is as good as yours.

 :dunno:


----------



## a_majoor (24 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Trudeau promises to restore lifelong pensions to injured veterans
> 
> http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/news/world/liberals-woo-disgruntled-veterans-with-promise-to-restore-lifetime-pensions-for-injured-ex-soldiers&pubdate=2015-08-24
> 
> Really surprised that's not getting more attention here considering it effects you guys the most.



Let's just say that based on his record to date, there is no evidence that there would be any follow through either if elected or in the "kingmaker" position in a minority government (i.e. support _this_ bill ro we pull the plug). Of course at this point I would be equally dubious if any other party was to try to pander to military voters now.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Aug 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Let's just say that based on his record to date, there is no evidence that there would be any follow through either if elected or in the "kingmaker" position in a minority government (i.e. support _this_ bill ro we pull the plug). Of course at this point I would be equally dubious if any other party was to try to pander to military voters now.



Well, the Conservatives have promised to increase the size of the Reserve Force to 30,000; the same promise they made in 2008.  Lack of follow-through appears not to be restricted to certain colours on the spectrum...


----------



## George Wallace (24 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I actually don't mind harper on any of those issues.
> 
> The circumventing of democracy, the omnibus bills, the vilification of everyone who opposes him, the non answers in question period, the attack advertising that has taken political discourse to a new low, the nickel and diming the Canadian armed forces while saying that he is the only one that cares about it, those are things I want harper gone for. Just harper. Conservatives on a whole aren't too bad a party, and I would probably vote for someone like ambrose or Baird, definitely the late Flaherty. (I have the feeling harper would prefer pierre poilievre as his heir apparent)
> 
> But it's being lead by Steven Harper, and the best way for renewal in the conservative party is for them to lose.



"Nickel and diming" to keep the National Debt down is part and parcel of a responsible government.  Do we really have the silly notion that money grows on trees?  Don't overlook the fact that all Government Departments have also been trimming their fat.

Personality wise, perhaps it is time for a new leader of the Conservative Party.  Perhaps not.  

The questions Canadians should "HONESTLY" ask themselves, having all the facts, is do you want to have a government that is fiscally responsible, or one that will throw money at bad projects in the hope that no one will notice?  Which Party really has the honest answers to your questions, that satisfy you enough to vote for them?  A protest vote, just because you don't like a person without any other reason is absurd.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Aug 2015)

An interesting commitment from the Tories ....


> Today Prime Minister Stephen Harper reaffirmed his proven approach to supporting Canadian communities by keeping taxes low and encouraging civic engagement in our communities.
> 
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper unveiled a new measure to support service clubs in Canada in recognition of the valuable contributions these clubs provide, and to encourage greater participation. Under the new measure, service club membership fees can be included in an individual’s claim under the annual Charitable Donations Tax Credit.
> 
> ...


----------



## Occam (24 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> "Nickel and diming" to keep the National Debt down is part and parcel of a responsible government.  Do we really have the silly notion that money grows on trees?  Don't overlook the fact that all Government Departments have also been trimming their fat.



Does that nickel and diming include taking such measures as eliminating benefits such as extended HHTs, pet boarding during HHTs, pet boarding/transportation expenses at origin/destination, utility disconnect/connect fees at origin/destination, interest on home relocation loan, etc. from the CFIRP, when those benefits continue to be available in the NJC Relocation Directive for public servants (which the CFIRP is supposed to closely follow)?  Not to mention having a Home Equity Assistance policy for >$15K losses that TBS has never paid out on because, apparently, we had no depressed real estate markets anywhere in Canada for years...

Seems the CF was an easy target; nothing like a union to represent them, and members who can't speak out to the press to publicize the unfairness.  For those who think I'm advocating for a union, I'm not, so perish that thought - but who is looking out for the best interests of CF members when they're getting nickel and dimed?


----------



## Rifleman62 (24 Aug 2015)

> Quote from: Altair on Today at 09:07:55
> 
> Trudeau promises to restore lifelong pensions to injured veterans
> 
> ...



Ah, the other shoe has to drop. To fund this promise Trudeau will slash DND's budget to the bone and restrict all deployments to peacekeeping situations where the two sides do not have any lethal force. Accidents happen, but reducing exposure to death and wounds will negate any claims to VAC.

Anyhow, it was a Liberal Bill in the first place in case the media forgot. Is he promising to fix poor Liberal legislation??


----------



## Altair (24 Aug 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Ah, the other shoe has to drop. To fund this promise Trudeau will slash DND's budget to the bone and restrict all deployments to peacekeeping situations where the two sides do not have any lethal force. Accidents happen, but reducing exposure to death and wounds will negate any claims to VAC.
> 
> Anyhow, it was a Liberal Bill in the first place in case the media forgot. Is he promising to fix poor Liberal legislation??


Sure. It was a horrible policy brought in by the liberals. They are promising to fix it. Why is that an issue?

The conservatives not only supported the issue at the time, they owned it. They had 9 years to change it. They simply said that the liberals introduced it and left it at that. 

By the way, Paul martin isn't Justin Trudeau.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (24 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> By the way, Paul Martin isn't Justin Trudeau.



Isn't that the truth.  Paul Martin was one of the best finance ministers ever.  Trudeau - the best substitute drama teacher ever to lead a 3rd place political party.

Anyone who is looking for military friendly policies from the Liberals or NDP is delusional.  The rhetoric has changed to win the election but under Trudeau and Chretien, the military was slashed.  The NDP has never been anything other than pacifist.  While the Conservatives haven't been all that much better they have tended to maintain what they inherited.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Aug 2015)

Raiding EI and other plans, to balance your budgets, is not being one of the "Best Finance Ministers ever".


----------



## Rocky Mountains (24 Aug 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Raiding EI and other plans, to balance your budgets, is not being one of the "Best Finance Ministers ever".



He didn't talk about balancing the budget.  He balanced the budget.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Aug 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Ah, the other shoe has to drop. To fund this promise Trudeau *will* slash DND's budget to the bone and restrict all deployments to peacekeeping situations where the two sides do not have any lethal force.


Any evidence this is the _only_ place the cash can come from?  I'm not a big fan of le Dauphin, but I haven't seen anything pointing to "mo' $ for vets = less $ for military" - yet, anyway.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Raiding EI and other plans, to balance your budgets, is not being one of the "Best Finance Ministers ever".


 :nod:


----------



## Altair (24 Aug 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Isn't that the truth.  Paul Martin was one of the best finance ministers ever.  Trudeau - the best substitute drama teacher ever to lead a 3rd place political party.
> 
> Anyone who is looking for military friendly policies from the Liberals or NDP is delusional.  The rhetoric has changed to win the election but under Trudeau and Chretien, the military was slashed.  The NDP has never been anything other than pacifist.  While the Conservatives haven't been all that much better they have tended to maintain what they inherited.


Paul martin dumped the costs onto the province's,  raided EI, and gutted the military to achieve those balanced budgets and surpluses,  but that was not my point. 

My point was that a previous liberal goverment brought in a stupid policy and that the current liberal leadership is looking to fix it. Sure you can go over the sins of previous goverments to judge the current, but I think that's foolish considering that it's different people proposing different things.

With your logic, I should never vote for harper or any other conservative leader because a conservative leader burdened the CAF with the LSVW.


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Aug 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Raiding EI and other plans, to balance your budgets, is not being one of the "Best Finance Ministers ever".



This is precisely what our current government just did to balance the last budget.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (24 Aug 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Let's just say that based on his record to date, there is no evidence that there would be any follow through either if elected or in the "kingmaker" position in a minority government (i.e. support _this_ bill ro we pull the plug). Of course at this point I would be equally dubious if any other party was to try to pander to military voters now.



His record to date?  We live in a dictatorial democracy.  What opportunities has he had?


----------



## Altair (24 Aug 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> This is precisely what our current government just did to balance the last budget.


Joe Oliver is no Jim Flaherty.


----------



## Acorn (24 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Joe Oliver is no Jim Flaherty.



Or Paul Martin. And I think Flaherty, RIP, would have made a better leader than Martin or Harper, but that's probably because he wasn't gagging for the job.

Maybe that's what it boils down to: anyone who really wants the job probably doesn't deserve it.


----------



## Acorn (24 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I actually don't mind harper on any of those issues.
> 
> The circumventing of democracy, the omnibus bills, the vilification of everyone who opposes him, the non answers in question period, the attack advertising that has taken political discourse to a new low, the nickel and diming the Canadian armed forces while saying that he is the only one that cares about it, those are things I want harper gone for. Just harper. Conservatives on a whole aren't too bad a party, and I would probably vote for someone like ambrose or Baird, definitely the late Flaherty. (I have the feeling harper would prefer pierre poilievre as his heir apparent)
> 
> But it's being lead by Steven Harper, and the best way for renewal in the conservative party is for them to lose.



 :bravo:

I don't think he's damaged the party as much as Mulroney damaged the PCs, but I'd rather he not get the chance to do any more. If he won't take his walk in the snow voluntarily, the electorate needs to ask him to leave. 

As already mentioned by ERC, I don't think any of the current crop of leaders is "bad." I also don't think a four year interregnum of NDP or Liberal rule will ruin the country, and perhaps the backlash will focus the conservative mind a little.


----------



## Altair (24 Aug 2015)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Or Paul Martin. And I think Flaherty, RIP, would have made a better leader than Martin or Harper, but that's probably because he wasn't gagging for the job.
> 
> Maybe that's what it boils down to: anyone who really wants the job probably doesn't deserve it.


Anyone who doesn't really want the job doesn't get it.

It's so much work and hassel to get to be party leader that only those who want it the most even have a sniff at getting it.


----------



## YZT580 (24 Aug 2015)

I don't expect Harper will stay around even if he does get to form the next government.  My 2 cents says he will wait until after his first budget in order to carry the flack, if any, from cuts etc. and then ask for a leadership convention.  That way, he would go out a winner in about 18 months. That will give the new leader sufficient time to stamp his own image on the party and demonstrate that he/she is different from Harper.  If he loses, he won't get the choice of asking for a convention.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (24 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> . . . . .  A protest vote, just because you don't like a person without any other reason is absurd.



I would disagree.  While it may not be the way you decide your ballot choice, for some it may be a perfectly valid reason.  And if questioned further most who "don't like" a particular candidate or leader have probably reached that conclusion because of the candidate's performance, policies or priorities.  Even if they formed their impression based on an unfavourable interaction with the candidate or his staff that is understandable.  To be honest, I don't like Stephen Harper (based on my last noted reason - unfavourable interaction).  I will admit that he has yet to overcome that bad first impression and it's approaching twenty years since the idiot who ran his constituency office responded to my request for assistance in sorting out a problem getting my first military pension cheque with "oh, military . . . we don't get involved with you guys because your votes don't matter in this riding".  (If you hire idiots and give them authority to speak in your name, you are responsible.)  By the way, I contacted the office of the MP in a neighbouring riding and I had my pension sorted out within one week.  Thus, I had a lot of time for Preston Manning despite my generally unfavourable opinion of the Reform Party.

The first time I voted (over a dozen federal elections ago) I voted Progressive Conservative.  There was probably some of your "absurd" reasoning in that decision.  I suppose you could say that I came from a Conservative (the party, large "C", not necessarily small "c" thinking) household.  Probably the big indicator was the patriarch of the family (my Grandfather) "hated" Joey Smallwood (a Liberal).  PET (though not associated with that most cardinal of sins - the joining of Nfld to Canada) was painted with the same brush simply because he was a Liberal (okay, he was also a flake).  In a majority of the subsequent federal elections (and a few by-elections) I generally voted along similar party lines with often (especially when I was still serving) a primary reasoning that they would be "better" for the military.  I now consider that thinking to be "absurd" because I've come to believe that regardless of the party in power they will only allocate resources to the military if it is necessary to accomplish an immediate unavoidable requirement (e.g. Afghanistan) - the rest of the time, the military, as a political commitment, (though necessary) will only be given the minimum to function or a bit extra if needed to avoid political embarrassment.

However, on only one occasion has my actual personal dislike of a person formed the sole reasoning for not voting for them.  Back in the 1980s, on going to the military polling place, I was surprised to discover that my riding had changed (the boundary shifted by one street past where I had declared my ordinary residence when I joined) and the candidate running for the party for which I would have normally voted had a familiar name.  I was able to excuse myself from the polling place and immediately contacted my brother back on The Rock.  When I asked him if the candidate was who I thought it was, he confirmed it and commented "guess he's not getting your vote - you never did like him, did you".  However, my personal objections to the very existence of that individual were inconsequential in keeping him from being elected.

In later years, while I've maintained a similar political view and voted accordingly, there has been occasion when the candidate of the party who I would have normally considered did not meet my expectations - I do consider the individual who I actually vote for as well as the party platform.  In the case of the upcoming federal election, I haven't made up my mind yet, but the incumbent "empty suit" in my riding   (Mr. Harper is no longer my MP) is not high on my list of possibilities.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Aug 2015)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I would disagree.  While it may not be the way you decide your ballot choice, for some it may be a perfectly valid reason.  And if questioned further most who "don't like" a particular candidate or leader have probably reached that conclusion because of the candidate's performance, policies or priorities.  Even if they formed their impression based on an unfavourable interaction with the candidate or his staff that is understandable.  To be honest, I don't like Stephen Harper (based on my last noted reason - unfavourable interaction).  I



Once again, I can point to Alberta and Ontario as examples of what a "Protest Vote" result in.  

I don't think it is wise to mark you ballot on whom the PM is going to be.  That does you no good.  Vote for the best person in your Riding, whom is going to do the most for your Riding, not their leader.  None of the leaders are any glowing examples of moral or ethical character, and it has been decades since we have seen any of our 'leaders' who have been anywhere close to resembling a 'Statesman'.  

You gave the example of having to go to another Riding to get results.  Well.  Vote for the best person in your Riding that will give you results.  Voting in a village fool from one of the other Parties, just because you don't like the leader of the ruling party is absurd.   You have improved nothing in your Riding.

I have seen the unethical parachuting of Liberal candidates into several Ridings, mine include, and that is offensive to me.  Sorry, Justin, but that move lost at least one vote for your candidate.


----------



## Altair (24 Aug 2015)

Considering that most of the power today is concentrated in the PMO, it's better to vote for the guy who will be in that office.

The backbench MPs today are glorified yes men IMHO.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Considering that most of the power today is concentrated in the PMO, it's better to vote for the guy who will be in that office.
> 
> The backbench MPs today are glorified yes men IMHO.




 ???

PMO are not elected officials


----------



## Altair (24 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> PMO are not elected officials


naturally. But the Prime Minister chooses who will be in the PMO, so I want my vote to reflect who is going to be Prime Minister.

The powerless MP means very little to me.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> naturally. But the Prime Minister chooses who will be in the PMO, so I want my vote to reflect who is going to be Prime Minister.
> 
> The powerless MP means very little to me.



Then vote for  a MP who will do your Riding some good, not the village idiot, just because you don't like the leader of the other Party.  No wonder we get what we get for our governments.  Voters who vote for the village idiots who happen to be members of the Party with the leader who spews the best BS lines and has charisma, have put us into this state of affairs.


----------



## Altair (24 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Then vote for  a MP who will do your Riding some good, not the village idiot, just because you don't like the leader of the other Party.  No wonder we get what we get for our governments.  Voters who vote for the village idiots who happen to be members of the Party with the leader who spews the best BS lines and has charisma, have put us into this state of affairs.


 Not many MPs can go against the leader without paying the price. 

Most toe the party line. And most don't do all that much for their local ridings. When I look for someone to help me locally, I'll look for a mayor or provincial MLA nine times out of ten.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Not many MPs can go against the leader without paying the price.
> 
> Most toe the party line. And most don't do all that much for their local ridings. When I look for someone to help me locally, I'll look for a mayor or provincial MLA nine times out of ten.



That's your choice.  I'm just saying "don't vote for the village idiot, because you prefer their Party leader".


----------



## McG (24 Aug 2015)

One can always vote for independents.  If successfully elected, the independent MP is beholden to the constituents and not to any party leader.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Aug 2015)

Whatever your important issues are, the pre-eminent issue is always financial management.

All of the big-ticket changes since the last recession have been things ordinarily the leftish and centre-leftish people would approve: intervention (eg. IMPP) to stabilize markets and institutions during the crisis, tax cuts and increased spending to offset the recession and kick-start recovery, continuation of the Health Accord, maintenance of transfers to other levels of government and individuals.

The alternative to "nickel-and-diming" was - and is - larger deficits.  All expenses have to be paid, either with revenues or borrowed money.  Borrowing increases the cost of servicing debt and thus gradually squeezes out spending; the 2013-14 cost was ~$28B - roughly 10 times more than what some are looking for to fund daycare.  Tax increases generally reduce employment.

The Conservative government chose to chiefly squeeze spending which would in the US context be "discretionary" (government operations) rather than "mandatory" (eg. social transfers).  Presumably the LPC or NDP - or both working together - would choose differently.  They might choose to spend more (tax or borrow more), or simply shift some money around - some programs lose, some gain.  We can all make our own guesses which programs are more likely to be losers, irrespective of what is said in order to get elected.

Interest rates are about as low as they can be; the dollar is about as low as we can reasonably tolerate; Canadian economic growth is uninspiring and we are on the edge of recession; our tax system is at risk of becoming too progressive and our rates in all categories don't really leave much room for tax cuts to supercharge economic growth; AB is not strong; ON is not strong; the US economy is not strong; the Chinese economy is faltering; Europe is still f'ed up; most of the market liberalization (eg. free trade) low fruit has been picked.  There are no magic beans to be planted this time around if we become trapped by systemic operating deficits and the cost of servicing debt.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Aug 2015)

Problem Brad, is that the majority of the electorate don't consider those things.  

[Edit to add]  Stability is just not flashy enough for them at Election time.


----------



## McG (24 Aug 2015)

AN alternative to "nickel-and-diming" is larger deficits; it is not the only alternative.  

Instead of "nickel-and-diming" or "shaving the ice cube" there is the option to cut programs or activities complete (ie. specific targeted cuts).  There is the option to not introduce frivolous and extraneous new expenses (like boutique tax exemptions or cosmetic tinkering with military uniforms).


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Aug 2015)

Well, isn't THIS an interesting tack from an unnamed NDP insiders ....


> Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, should we go by oversimplified stereotypes, are the party that never saw a war it didn’t like. The New Democrats by contrast have a long-lasting pacifist image. They were the types back in time with the well-meaning salutes. Two digits in the air, a disarmingly dorky look and sotto voce, “Peace brother.” Probably made your day.
> 
> Given the stark divergence it would be rather strange to expect the New Democrats to propose higher military spending than the Conservatives. But don’t be dumbfounded if it happens.
> 
> ...


We'll see ....


----------



## Harrigan (25 Aug 2015)

I agree, we need to wait and see.

However, I can picture the NDP justifying a modest increase in the defence budget to its base if it was associated with a change in alignment of the force structure to be more domestic-oriented vice expeditionary.  That would seem to be more in line with their foreign policy desires - though that is just my speculation.
When one considers that each of the "triad" of major domestic areas (NORAD, SAR, Maritime/Arctic ISR) requires new platforms yesterday (CF-18 replacement, FWSAR, CSC), that alone would result in an increased budget.

How does it get paid for?  That's what we wait to hear.  

But I hope that whatever is determined, the two electorally-sensitive sacred cows - personnel numbers and infrastructure (bases) - are no longer sacred.  If we can't afford our current numbers and bases, then something needs to give because we need replacements for the CF-18s, FWSAR, and the fleet.

Harrigan

P.S. As an aside, does anyone know if Andrew Leslie has indicated any preferences on personnel numbers or infrastructure reductions?


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Aug 2015)

David Akin (Sun News), commenting on this story, "Liberal candidate admits he broke spending laws to win nomination," says ~ and I agree:

          "Wait a minute: Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro goes to jail for essentially the same thing. CPC MP Peter Penashue resigns his seat on accusation his team did essentially the same thing.
           But a Liberal candidate breaks election finance laws and everything is fine cuz he promises not to cheat again?"

The story says, "Sven Spengemann admits he personally paid for some campaign expenses, which legally should have been paid only by his financial agent ... Under the terms of the compliance agreement, published in the Canada Gazette, Spengemann has agreed to solicit legal contributions to cover his excess donation and to pay that money to the receiver general."

I'm sorry, but ...


----------



## Remius (25 Aug 2015)

As strange as it sounds, I've said this in other threads: reserve restructuring has a better chance of happening under the NDP.  They'll increase the reserves, cut or amalgamate the regular force infantry battalions (something like two from three per), realign some capital projects, focus on supporting humanitarian aid and Dom ops.  Less bullets, more bodies and only keep SF as anything with any real teeth. 

While an increase might sound good, think about how they plan to increase spending rather than how much they plan to spend...we might not like the end result.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Aug 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> How does it get paid for?  That's what we wait to hear.


If stereotype is anything to go by ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> David Akin (Sun News), commenting on this story, "Liberal candidate admits he broke spending laws to win nomination," says ~ and I agree:
> 
> "Wait a minute: Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro goes to jail for essentially the same thing. CPC MP Peter Penashue resigns his seat on accusation his team did essentially the same thing.
> But a Liberal candidate breaks election finance laws and everything is fine cuz he promises not to cheat again?"
> ...




Further: it wasn't just overspending, for which Dean Mal Mastro was sent to jail, in chains (for spending a lot more of his own money and for trying to cover it up, too); former Liberal MP Paul Szabo (who was supporting another candidate in the Liberal nomination race)  said that Mr Spengemann cheated in the process of signing up new members, too, but that's OK with his Party, just as his overspending is OK with Commissioner of Canada Elections Yves Côté, because he's ... what? A nice guy? Cooperative? Not a Conservative? 

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



          Sven Spengemann with Justin Trudeau (from Mr Spengemann's own _Twitter_ account.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Aug 2015)

Del Mastro and Penashue overspent in the election, not in the nomination process; I expect that is the fundamental difference between the cases.  Or, in other words, lie to yourselves within the party and get a slap on the wrist; lie to the broad public and face more severe sanctions.   (I note that Penashue is considering running again in October).

There's also a differnce of scale: Mr Spengemann's transgression is about $2000; Mr Del Mastro's was over $20000, and Mr Penashue repaid over $45000 to the Receiver General.

Regardless, it does nothing for Mr Spengemann's credibility.


David Akin, on the other hand, is displaying a partisan tilt in his column if he igores the differnece between an internal to the party process (nomination) and a public process (election).


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Aug 2015)

Did Spengemann break LPC laws or Canadian laws?

Difference of scale: like Harper wanting Duffy to repay $90K vs Mulcair not wanting the NDP to repay $2.75M.

As election day nears and spending commitments (eg. 1.2% of GDP for DND*) start to creep upwards, there are some questions enterprising reporters might ask of Trudeau and Mulcair:

1) By how much will you increase the GST, and (for answers other than "never") when?

2) Do you commit to restoring the Paul Martin Health Accord funding growth formula for the Canada Health Transfer (6% / year)?  If not, do you commit to matching the CPC formula (GDP growth rate, with 3% floor)?  If not, then what?

3) Extra question for Mulcair: if you are not going to restore the Health Accord growth rate, when do you propose to tell your candidates and affiliates to stop criticizing the CPC for not doing something you also will not do? [The NDP has committed to restore the 6% growth rate.  I couldn't find it specifically on their "issues" page, but did find it reported in some issues summaries elsewhere.]

*Reality check: the Conservatives promised a lot and delivered little in the '80s.  When money is tight, promises for DND are empty.  The only major difference will be the nature of operations.  NDP/LPC will probably mean rejoining the UN team of military mall cops.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Aug 2015)

There is a long list of what the NDP refuse to repay, and it exceeds CDN $ 3Mil.   The long list of NDP candidates who have funds to repay makes me wonder about their ethics.  In a way, I find that more offensive than the Duffy affair.


----------



## Remius (25 Aug 2015)

Here is an interesting analysis of the polls from Eric Grenier as the economy starts to take center stage.

 http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-economy-leaders-aug25-1.3201735


----------



## Harrigan (25 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There is a long list of what the NDP refuse to repay, and it exceeds CDN $ 3Mil.   The long list of NDP candidates who have funds to repay makes me wonder about their ethics.  In a way, I find that more offensive than the Duffy affair.



I believe there are two cases you are referring to, and apparently both are under appeal to the Federal Court.  
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5667524-ndp-could-get-its-day-in-court-over-spending-allegations/

Harrigan


----------



## George Wallace (25 Aug 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> I believe there are two cases you are referring to, and apparently both are under appeal to the Federal Court.
> http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5667524-ndp-could-get-its-day-in-court-over-spending-allegations/
> 
> Harrigan




Totaling 91 individuals, altogether.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Aug 2015)

Occam said:
			
		

> Oh my...is that from the PAffO handbook? ;-)
> 
> On the contrary, I don't believe I've made any attempt to hide the fact that I support both organizations, so your accusatory tone is somewhat puzzling.
> 
> ...





			
				Crantor said:
			
		

> Here is an interesting analysis of the polls from Eric Grenier as the economy starts to take center stage.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-economy-leaders-aug25-1.3201735




The "someone" who thinks the ABC campaign will be ineffective is me.

I'm reminded of Henry Kissinger's quip about the reason academic debates are so bitter is because the stakes are so low ...

I don't know if the current goings on in world markets are a _flash crash_; a needed and forecasted (two weeks ago) _market correction__ or the warning signs of another great depression, but I suspect that they (including today's sharp gains) will focus politicians' and, more importantly, voters' minds on economics.

First see my earlier comments about sailing into a fiscal headwind, and Brad Sallows' comments about the state of the economy and then ask yourself: is anyone going to extend benefits (which some (many?) Canadians already consider sufficient, if not actually generous) for one small group of Canadians? I really don't give a flying you know what about what M Trudeau promises; Liberals, like Conservatives, promise whatever and deliver whatever else. My favourite was M Trudeau's papa who campaigned hard against Mr Stanfield's proposals for wage and price controls and then, as soon as he was elected, introduced them. If, and it's a *BIG IF*, right now, we slide back into recession then I expect that Stephen Harper, if he is reelected - another BIG IF, will forget all about the sanctity of balanced budgets, and M Mulcair, if he's elected, supported by M Trudeau or not, will forget about most of his spending promises, too.

I'm going to repeat what I said earlier, some veterans, those serving before 2006, got screwed. Some of them were actually in combat when the very generous wound pension scheme under which they enrolled was changed. That was immoral, to be charitable. But it's done and it was done with all party support, and, despite nonsense like ABC, most (what: 97.5%? 98? even 99% ?) of Canadians don't care).

I would sympathize with ABC if its spokesman was a Canadian soldier who enrolled in, say, the 1990s and who was grievously wounded in Afghanistan: (s)he could make a compelling case from a wheelchair. Why aren't they out there? Do they, perhaps, consider ABC to be "clowns," as the other thread's original title suggested? Or would they be ashamed to be associated with the ABC's public face? I don't know and, frankly, I don't care, because, like those academic disputes, I think the states are incredibly low . I sympathize with those veterans who enrolled before 2006 and did get screwed by the New Veterans' Charter, and I wish that a government, of whatever political stripe, would amend the legislation to "grandfather" them: allow them to use the old, very generous rules. But:

                                                
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




_


----------



## Altair (25 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The "someone" who thinks the ABC campaign will be ineffective is me.
> 
> I'm reminded of Henry Kissinger's quip about the reason academic debates are so bitter is because the stakes are so low ...
> 
> ...


_Instead of a grandfather clause, how about a return to the old system that some vets are fighting in court to have returned?

Like the plan the liberals plan on doing._


----------



## George Wallace (25 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Instead of a grandfather clause, how about a return to the old system that some vets are fighting in court to have returned?
> 
> Like the plan the liberals plan on doing.



So, you believe that the Liberals will undo what they created.  Hmmmm?  Interesting.  In the end, it will always boil down to money.


----------



## Altair (25 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So, you believe that the Liberals will undo what they created.  Hmmmm?  Interesting.  In the end, it will always boil down to money.


The JustinTrudeau liberals are two leaders and 9 years removed from  the Paul Martin liberals. I don't believe Justin trudeau owes anything to the paul martin liberals and I think the only thing they really have in common is that can both say they were the leaders of the federal liberal party. 

Holding trudeau responsible for the NVC would be like holding harper responsible for the purchase of the LSVW.


http://thechronicleherald.ca/federal-election-2015/1307044-federal-liberals-offer-goodie-basket-to-veterans



> On Monday, Trudeau promised to re-establish a lifetime pension as an option for injured veterans. It would happen during the 2015-16 fiscal year.
> 
> The Liberal platform also promises to reopen nine Veterans Affairs Canada offices that were closed by the Harper government, including one in Sydney, and hire 400 new front-line staff.
> 
> ...


4 years of post secondary would be nice. Very nice. I've gone to many discussion groups on how to attract people to the military and said just that. Give people something tangible for their service that they can use at the end of their service and they will be far more likely to join.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> The JustinTrudeau liberals are two leaders and 9 years removed from  the Paul Martin liberals. I don't believe Justin trudeau owes anything to the paul martin liberals and I think the only thing they really have in common is that can both say they were the leaders of the federal liberal party.
> 
> Holding trudeau responsible for the NVC would be like holding harper responsible for the purchase of the LSVW.



I am sure that the Leopard hasn't changed its' spots.  

But I will stick by my comment, that in the end, it will all boil down to money; money that may or may not be there.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Aug 2015)

Standing on the mound of dirt beside the hole you dug is not occupying the moral high ground.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (25 Aug 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> As strange as it sounds, I've said this in other threads: reserve restructuring has a better chance of happening under the NDP.  They'll increase the reserves, cut or amalgamate the regular force infantry battalions (something like two from three per), realign some capital projects, focus on supporting humanitarian aid and Dom ops.  Less bullets, more bodies and only keep SF as anything with any real teeth.



The NDP are deep down  pacifist.  There is pretty close to 100 % chance the defence budget will be sacrificed so there will be heavily subsidized daycare and that's the way their supporters want it.  Incidentally most provinces already heavily subsidize daycare so it will essentially be simply a transfer of expenditure from the provinces to the feds.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (25 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Holding trudeau responsible for the NVC would be like holding harper responsible for the purchase of the LSVW.



But the Conservative Party only started in 2003.  The Progressive Conservative Party was a very junior partner.  The LSVW was from 1993.  The only way to judge future action by the Liberals is to look at the past.  Liberal Party election promises haven't had a great history of coming true.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Instead of a grandfather clause, how about a return to the old system that some vets are fighting in court to have returned?
> 
> Like the plan the liberals plan on doing.




It will be hideously expensive, which is why *it will not happen*.

I repeat, no one with the brains the gods gave to green peppers should believe M Trudeau's promises; nor Prime Minister Harper's, nor M Mulciar's. When _whoever_ arrives in the _Langevin Block_ and gets the briefs from the Clerk of the Privy Council and the team from the Finance Department the waste baskets in the PMO and all cabinet ministers' offices will be overflowing with torn up promises.


----------



## Occam (25 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The "someone" who thinks the ABC campaign will be ineffective is me.



You were one who said that, but by no means the only one and I didn't have anyone in particular in mind when I wrote that.  FWIW, I respect your opinion more because of the manner in which you present it.



> I would sympathize with ABC if its spokesman was a Canadian soldier who enrolled in, say, the 1990s and who was grievously wounded in Afghanistan: (s)he could make a compelling case from a wheelchair. Why aren't they out there? Do they, perhaps, consider ABC to be "clowns," as the other thread's original title suggested? Or would they be ashamed to be associated with the ABC's public face? I don't know and, frankly, I don't care, because, like those academic disputes, I think the states are incredibly low . I sympathize with those veterans who enrolled before 2006 and did get screwed by the New Veterans' Charter, and I _wish_ that a government, of whatever political stripe, would amend the legislation to "grandfather" them: allow them to use the old, very generous rules.



There are some members of the ABC campaign who are in that demographic; I personally don't know if they've been asked to be spokespersons.

I would agree that the public GAFF on military matters is probably around the the figures you've estimated.  I'd like to think their opinion on veterans is somewhat more favourable.  That's certainly the impression I get when reading the "comments" sections to articles dealing with veterans in newspapers/websites of all political leanings, as well as support at Remembrance Day ceremonies, etc.  I'm not naive enough to think veterans are at the forefront of the public's mind, but I don't think we're dead last either.


----------



## Altair (25 Aug 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> But the Conservative Party only started in 2003.  The Progressive Conservative Party was a very junior partner.  The LSVW was from 1993.  The only way to judge future action by the Liberals is to look at the past.  Liberal Party election promises haven't had a great history of coming true.


 How far in the past do we go? 10 years? 20? 50? 100?

I judge current party leaders and their promises in the present, as compared to other party leaders and their promises in the present. I don't believe the sins of previous leaders of any party should reflect on the current leaders. Same way I wont judge the person who replaces harper for the sins of harpers government. Granted, if the change is just the leader and not the team, I take that into account as well (Wynne) but i don't believe that to be the case with JT liberals. There has been two leaders, and 9 years from the time Paul Martin thought it would be a great idea to give the shaft to the veterans.


----------



## Altair (25 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It will be hideously expensive, which is why *it will not happen*.
> 
> I repeat, no one with the brains the gods gave to green peppers should believe M Trudeau's promises; nor Prime Minister Harper's, nor M Mulciar's. When _whoever_ arrives in the _Langevin Block_ and gets the briefs from the Clerk of the Privy Council and the team from the Finance Department the waste baskets in the PMO and all cabinet ministers' offices will be overflowing with torn up promises.


Well, if it helps, Justin Trudeau has said he will lay out how he plans to pay for the increased spending on veterans in the future. So we can chew on this now and then praise or criticize how affordable it would be in the future.

That said, and I'm horribly biased, when it comes to veterans, especially those wounded in combat, it shouldn't be a matter of how much it costs the treasury, it should be how much the treasury owes these brave men and women who have given life and limb for Canada.


----------



## Remius (25 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> How far in the past do we go? 10 years? 20? 50? 100?



As far back as needed to prove one's point.


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> How far in the past do we go? 10 years? 20? 50? 100?
> 
> I judge current party leaders and their promises in the present, as compared to other party leaders and their promises in the present. I don't believe the sins of previous leaders of any party should reflect on the current leaders. Same way I wont judge the person who replaces harper for the sins of harpers government. Granted, if the change is just the leader and not the team, I take that into account as well (Wynne) but i don't believe that to be the case with JT liberals. There has been two leaders, and 9 years from the time Paul Martin thought it would be a great idea to give the shaft to the veterans.



Well, I for one, don't like, believe or trust the words of *any* of the players in this election.  Not one of them.


----------



## Altair (25 Aug 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well, I for one, don't like, believe or trust the words of *any* of the players in this election.  Not one of them.


Going to make going to the polls a little hard.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Aug 2015)

_*<Yawn>*_ It's a tie, according to CTV News/_Nanos_:

     "Major parties locked in virtual tie: Nanos poll
      ...
      Here are the latest numbers, with the percentage-point change from the previous week in brackets:

     _ Nanos Weekly Ballot Tracking released Aug. 25, 2015_

          Conservatives: 30.1 per cent (-1.7)
          Liberals: 29.9 per cent (+1.2)
          NDP: 29.1 per cent (+0.1)"

Wake me after Labour Day, please.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (25 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> it shouldn't be a matter of how much it costs the treasury, it should be how much the treasury owes these brave men and women who have given life and limb for Canada.



Yes it should.  Would it be fair to say that the injustices are few and far between?  Whenever I see one of the stories that is supposed to tug at my heartstrings, it involves some non-standard treatment that the medical establishment is apparently too stupid to see the benefit in.  I remember seeing another heartbreaker on television about a older lady who spent  over 20 years in the Forces and only got a $100 per month pension and couldn't get her PTSD recognized.  I was confused on that one but concluded she must have been a reservist who in all liklihood never left Canada.  While there is no doubt some injustice to veterans, there is a lot of good theatre on television.


----------



## Remius (25 Aug 2015)

I heard Mr. Fury on the radio and thought I would post his latest op ed.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/08/22/real-conservatism-this-campaign-dont-count-on-it

This touches on the conundrum that faces true conservatives.  Partisans will just follow like the sheep of any of any other party, but I think that many true conservatives are feeling disaffected by the CPC.  Stephen Harper has distinguished himself as more centrist that some conservatives don't feel they have any real alternatives.  Some will vote libertarians and I suspect some might actually vote liberal but my gut feeling is that many more will either spoil their ballot or just stay home come election day.

I think that agree with him, that CPC are somewhat light on their policies this time around.


----------



## Teager (25 Aug 2015)

If your having trouble trusting the top 3 candidates why not give Earl Grey the cat from the Tuxedo Party a shot. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/25/cat-running-for-prime-minister_n_8038240.html


----------



## Altair (25 Aug 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Yes it should.  Would it be fair to say that the injustices are few and far between?  Whenever I see one of the stories that is supposed to tug at my heartstrings, it involves some non-standard treatment that the medical establishment is apparently too stupid to see the benefit in.  I remember seeing another heartbreaker on television about a older lady who spent  over 20 years in the Forces and only got a $100 per month pension and couldn't get her PTSD recognized.  I was confused on that one but concluded she must have been a reservist who in all liklihood never left Canada.  While there is no doubt some injustice to veterans, there is a lot of good theatre on television.


There is some injustice ls to veterans,  including the NVC. A body part or disability shouldn't be a one time payment.

Vets who have legitimate injuries due to deployment should be taken care of by the goverment who decided to deploy them.

It shouldn't be a matter of its too expensive to properly take care of veterans.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Well, if it helps, _Justin Trudeau has said he will lay out how he plans to pay for the increased spending on veterans in the future_. So we can chew on this now and then praise or criticize how affordable it would be in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Aug 2015)

And speaking of _horsesh!t_, in this video clip, M Mulcair says he will not run a deficit ... I'm not sure that the Conservatives can keep the 2015 budget in the black and (see my remarks above about the nature of the _immediate_ financial turmoil) and all three party leaders need to calm down and consider what they can, _responsibly_, promise. Balancing the budget is not a realistic, responsible promise ~ not, anyway, until the global financial situation is a lot clearer. And dragging Paul Martin out of retirement to give a stump speech is not the right answer, either.


----------



## Altair (25 Aug 2015)

He said later in the campaign.

That said, it's election campaign time. Political promises everywhere for everyone by everyone.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And speaking of _horsesh!t_, in this video clip, M Mulcair says he will not run a deficit ... I'm not sure that the Conservatives can keep the 2015 budget in the black and (see my remarks above about the nature of the _immediate_ financial turmoil) and all three party leaders need to calm down and consider what they can, _responsibly_, promise. Balancing the budget is not a realistic, responsible promise ~ not, anyway, until the global financial situation is a lot clearer. And dragging Paul Martin out of retirement to give a stump speech is not the right answer, either.



That is the one question each and every one of us (and the rest of the voters) should be asking every minute of every day: How do you plan to pay for this Mr (insert candidate/party leader here)/Ms May?

If they start handwaving or tapdancing, then it is a fair bet that this promise will never see the light of day in the floor of Parliament (anyone remember the Liberal's "National Daycare Program", first introduced with much flourish in 1993 and a regular plank in EVERY Liberal campaign until they were finally trounced in 2011. I'm waiting for the breathless announcement of the Liberal daycare plan (Oh wait: the Canada Child Benefit. Just blow off some of the dust so you don't see the "ca 1993" lable on the back...))

If a platform plank actually comes with numbers and some real funding plan, then it is much more likely to become a bill in parliament. Even if they say "we will cut National Defense by 30%" or "we will raid the CPP fund to pay for this" , at least you can now evaluate the proposal on two parameters: is the program itself realistic, and can it actually be funded this way? You are also free to agree or disagree with either or bith parameters.

This may not be a perfect way to decide, but it certainly allows you to narrow down the "least worst choice" when you reach the ballot box.


----------



## Remius (25 Aug 2015)

that didn't work so well for Tim Hudak...


----------



## Privateer (25 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And speaking of _horsesh!t_, in this video clip, M Mulcair says he will not run a deficit ... I'm not sure that the Conservatives can keep the 2015 budget in the black and (see my remarks above about the nature of the _immediate_ financial turmoil) and all three party leaders need to calm down and consider what they can, _responsibly_, promise. Balancing the budget is not a realistic, responsible promise ~ not, anyway, until the global financial situation is a lot clearer.



Although, in fairness, what Mr. Mulcair said is that the 2015/16 budget will be what the current government makes it - ie., it could very well be a deficit - but that he does not foresee having to incur a deficit in the next year to fund his campaign platform.  You can believe that or not, but he did not say that he would balance the 2015/16 budget.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Aug 2015)

It would be unreasonable to hold Mulcair responsible for balancing the 15/16 budget with half the FY out the door before the election.

If they could depend on a linear return on a corporate income tax hike, the NDP platform might stay in the black.  Based on what happened to the CIT take on the way down, that's not a safe assumption.  I don't think they would actually wind up with a net loss of CIT revenue (but it is possible).  I expect a NDP, LPC, or NDP/LPC government to raise the GST within 2 years of taking office if they refuse to run deficits.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (25 Aug 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I expect a NDP, LPC, or NDP/LPC government to raise the GST within 2 years of taking office if they refuse to run deficits.



And I would say hurrah!  Good policy, vice the venal politics that caused the cut on the first place


----------



## Infanteer (25 Aug 2015)

I'd echo that.  I would gladly see a raise in consumption taxes (one of the most effective forms) as opposed to the increasingly complicated income taxation policies that one has to navigate through.  The simpler the tax system, the better.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Aug 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The simpler the tax system, the better.



And the lower the cost to administer, whether by individuals or government.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Aug 2015)

All parties promises are absolutely worthless unless they give that promise in a speech and then tell us how they are going to make it happen in the same breath.

All parties will offer up anything they think the electorate will swallow, but they never say how. Once in power, the typical answer, which is absolute bullshit, is they never realized the books were in such bad shape. Then they walk away from their promises that got them elected. The books are open and they all know what's in them.

If the MSM was worth a pinch of shit, they would be asking "How are you going to do that?" instead of 'What are your (empty) promises to special interest groups?"

The other thing that I'm getting tired of is the MSM sandbagging the PM, with the useless, immaterial, nonsensical questions about that fat f**k Duffey, instead of giving him the same latitude to campaign, as the rest of the runners, to get his message out.

Simply, they are trying him in the media, instead of waiting for the courts to do their job. Something we all abhor here and have forum rules for. However, some here relish the thought and unfairness of it. Absolutely hypocritical on their part.


----------



## Altair (25 Aug 2015)

All promises are worthless, but the only thing we get during election campaigns to choose from the parties are...campaign promises.

And attack ads of course. Now if promises are worthless the only thing I get to use to choose from the parties is the attack ads?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> All promises are worthless, but the only thing we get during election campaigns to choose from the parties are...campaign promises.
> 
> And attack ads of course. Now if promises are worthless the only thing I get to use to choose from the parties is the attack ads?



Talking heads and charisma. That's what you have. Voting on promises, or attack ads, is a wasted vote. All you really have, to decide who you want, is a party's past record.


----------



## Altair (25 Aug 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Talking heads and charisma. That's what you have. Voting on promises, or attack ads, is a wasted vote. All you really have, to decide who you want, is a party's past record.


the liberals are 9 years removed from goverment and the Federal NDP, Greens, communist party,ect have never held office.


----------



## Jed (25 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> All promises are worthless, but the only thing we get during election campaigns to choose from the parties are...campaign promises.
> 
> And attack ads of course. Now if promises are worthless the only thing I get to use to choose from the parties is the attack ads?



So Altair, don't you agree that the Media has concocted the biggest Attack Ad ever, with the never ending trial by the press of the Duffy sideshow?  Kind of makes the ' Just not Ready' and nice hair look lame.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Aug 2015)

A GST increase is good revenue policy, provided economic growth is not sluggish and certainly not during a recession or near recession.  Under those conditions, tax increases are contraindicated.

It also matters to what purpose the revenue is directed.  Paying off some of the accumulated deficit (debt) should be at the head of the line to generate fiscal freedom of manoeuvre for the next recession.

Part of the reason Harper cut the GST (and other taxes) in the first place was because too much of the surpluses was being used to create and extend new spending - basically, pork to buy votes, since there were no landmark programs being developed - and not enough to knock down the debt.  The reasoning was straightforward: if the surpluses weren't to be used to reduce taxpayers' future obligations, return the money to the taxpayers.  The Chretien/Martin Liberals only reduced the debt by $20B during their 13 years n office ($487B at the end of 93/94, peak was $563B at the end of 96/97, down to $467B at the end of 05/06).   We hit a new peak of $612B at end of 13/14 (last date on my copy of the fiscal reference tables).

We need to do a much better job of reducing debt between recessionary run-ups.  Much, much better.  Bi-partisan concensus existed to eliminate the deficit at one time.  It would be great if the three major parties could agree on some sort of collective target and shelve their respective desires to increase spending / decrease taxes.


----------



## Good2Golf (26 Aug 2015)

The Ant and the Grasshopper.




			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ...We need to do a much better job of reducing debt between recessionary run-ups.  Much, much better.  Bi-partisan concensus existed to eliminate the deficit at one time.  It would be great if the three major parties could agree on some sort of collective target and shelve their respective desires to increase spending / decrease taxes.


----------



## Altair (26 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> So Altair, don't you agree that the Media has concocted the biggest Attack Ad ever, with the never ending trial by the press of the Duffy sideshow?  Kind of makes the ' Just not Ready' and nice hair look lame.


That record would probably go to the gomery commission.

As for the Duffy Trial,  sure. But that was a self inflicted wound, a unforced error. I personally don't care one way or another besides wanting to do something about the Senate. But if your opponent hands you a gift like that, what is one suppose to do? Not use it?


----------



## Jed (26 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> That record would probably go to the gomery commission.
> 
> As for the Duffy Trial,  sure. But that was a self inflicted wound, a unforced error. I personally don't care one way or another besides wanting to do something about the Senate. But if your opponent hands you a gift like that, what is one suppose to do? Not use it?



The opponent is the Green / Liberal / NDP parties. It should not be the complicit Media Party with their tight control on the ultimate PSYOPS weapons capability. At least in a fair world anyway. But as my old man used to tell me  " This world isn't fair kid."


----------



## Altair (26 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> The opponent is the Green / Liberal / NDP parties. It should not be the complicit Media Party with their tight control on the ultimate PSYOPS weapons capability. At least in a fair world anyway. But as my old man used to tell me  " This world isn't fair kid."


The media is a equal opportunity hitter though.

The gomery commission was prime time television and the quebec Qing of the liberal party still hasn't fully recovered from it.

While it's true that there is a bit of media bias, the media usually turns its guns on whoever is in power at the time. Just happens to be the conservatives for the last 9 years.


----------



## Harrigan (26 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> So Altair, don't you agree that the Media has concocted the biggest Attack Ad ever, with the never ending trial by the press of the Duffy sideshow?  Kind of makes the ' Just not Ready' and nice hair look lame.



Perhaps if the government would provide credible answers to the questions, they might stop asking them.  But they don't.  As many polls have shown, Canadians don't believe the party line that there is 'nothing to see here'.  If they want to stop the questions, they need to provide the answers.  Wishing it away or crying that 'it's not fair' doesn't cut it.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The Chretien/Martin Liberals only reduced the debt by $20B during their 13 years n office ($487B at the end of 93/94, peak was $563B at the end of 96/97, down to $467B at the end of 05/06).   We hit a new peak of $612B at end of 13/14 (last date on my copy of the fiscal reference tables).



So the Liberals only reduced the debt by $20B in their 13 years, but we should reward a party that has increased it by $145B in the last 9 years?  If, as recceguy suggests, we should only be considering a party's past record, who do you think is going to win that comparison?

Harrigan


----------



## Jed (26 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> The media is a equal opportunity hitter though.
> 
> The gomery commission was prime time television and the quebec Qing of the liberal party still hasn't fully recovered from it.
> 
> While it's true that there is a bit of media bias, the media usually turns its guns on whoever is in power at the time. Just happens to be the conservatives for the last 9 years.



I wouldn't be choked if it was a bit of media bias, I see it as a full on deceptive assault, and in the CBC's case, job protection.  And that is 9 years with most of those years hampered with minorities and piss poor opposition parties. And those 9 years gave us pretty good governance considering.

Don't get me wrong, I am definitely not a Stephen Harper supporter, I wish he would have taken a long walk in the snow.  However, his party is far and away much better than the other alternatives, especially when we have to deal with the upcoming economic concerns.  Of course this is just my opinion based on observing all of these politicians and their respective parties over the last 40 to 50 years.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Aug 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Perhaps if the government would provide credible answers to the questions, they might stop asking them.  But they don't.  As many polls have shown, Canadians don't believe the party line that there is 'nothing to see here'.  If they want to stop the questions, they need to provide the answers.  Wishing it away or crying that 'it's not fair' doesn't cut it.
> 
> _So the Liberals only reduced the debt by $20B in their 13 years, but we should reward a party that has increased it by $145B in the last 9 years?_  If, as recceguy suggests, we should only be considering a party's past record, who do you think is going to win that comparison?
> 
> Harrigan




I'm actually getting a bit tired of "fun with numbers."  :brickwall:  Look at the financial cycles (they were, essentially, the same for Canada, albeit somewhat less extreme in both ups and downs):

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





          Prime Minister Chrétien came to power at the bottom of the cycle which bedevilled Prime Minister Mulroney in his second term and he (Chrétien) rode it (one of the biggest _expansions_ in history) all the way to the end, when he handed over to Martin and Martin lost to Harper.

Many people, including many reputable economists, believe that Chrétien/Martin could have and should have done _*better*_ (everyone acknowledges that they did _*well*_) by cutting more and more and more off the national debt while the economy was expanding. Prime Minister Harper, in a minority situation, inherited a (too) large national debt and then faced the 2008 financial crisis and the _Great Recession_ and then, on top of all that, the opposition Liberals and NDP demanded high _stimulus_ spending, which created deficits and even higher debt, in return for parliamentary confidence. 

Context matters:


----------



## Harrigan (26 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm actually getting a bit tired of "fun with numbers."  :brickwall:  Look at the financial cycles (they were, essentially, the same for Canada, albeit somewhat less extreme in both ups and downs):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again the claim that everything bad is the fault of 'something else'.

I am not an economist, but based on the graph you are showing, I note a few things:
1.  The business cycle at the beginning and end of the Chretien/Martin years is more or less the same
2.  The business cycle at the beginning and end of the Harper years is more or less the same
3.  The business cycle is defined as capturing fluctuations in real GDP
4.  The financial cycle is defined as including housing prices, which have not been decreasing across most of Canada during the Harper years
5.  This graph also doesn't show the last two years, when presumably the US figures would show an increase, and yet Canada is entering a recession

I know that not all of these issues are Harper's fault, but the CPC is claiming that they would obviously be better than any of the opposition parties on the economy.  The only way that claim would make any sense at all is if one compares against hypothetical "....the NDP or Liberals would do X if they had been in..." comparisons - in other words, a strawman argument.

In my opinion, the CPC has been OK on the economy, with one glaring exception....the GST cut.  If the govt had taken that 2% and resisted the urge to spend it on more boutique tax credits or some other such foolishness, how much less of a debt hole would the country have been in?  According to the National Post, each percentage of GST equates to $7B in revenues.  Granted, that figure is not fixed, but if we use that for planning purposes, that is $63B for the 9 years of the cut to 6%, and another $28B for the 4 years of the cut to 5%.  That means $91B that 'could' have gone to the debt, reducing the increase over the term to only $54B.  That would be a pretty good result considering the recession, and the CPC would have good reason to tout their economic prowess.  

But alas, that too is a strawman argument, because the govt didn't keep the GST at the same level, and that choice resulted in an national debt increase of $145B (and the associated interest payments) instead of $54B.  

So feel free to blame everyone else for the increase in the debt (as many posters on here do), but two/thirds of that is directly related to a policy choice the govt made, and they can't blame anyone else for that.   (correction: they can, but not with any credibility)

(Of note - I also blame the opposition parties for not voting against it in 2006, though at the time the folly of the decision was not obvious.  By 2011, though, when the recession had been obvious for some time the decision (by the now majority govt) to lower it even more is simply incomprehensible.


----------



## Lumber (26 Aug 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> But alas, that too is a strawman argument, because the govt didn't keep the GST at the same level, and that choice resulted in an national debt increase of $145B (and the associated interest payments) instead of $54B.



I always think of this when I think about how narrowminded the average person can be. A 2% decrease in the GST doesn't significantly affect anyone... except for the government. But it makes a great campaign promise!

Just my  :2c:!


----------



## Lumber (26 Aug 2015)

Nevermind, I need the  :2c: back.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Aug 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Again the claim that everything bad is the fault of 'something else'.
> 
> _I am not an economist_, but based on the graph you are showing, I note a few things:




Fine, but John Maynard Keynes, the _guru_ of many macroeconomic analysts, really set things out pretty simply:

     1. The economy goes in cycles: up and down; 

     2. The "downs" produce considerable social hardship which governments can (and should, in his opinion) help to alleviate ~ not prevent or "cure," just alleviate, somewhat;

     3. The "ups" produce excess revenues, all other things ~ like taxes ~ being equal; and

     4. All debts must be repaid when due.

_Keynesian economics_ suggests, therefore, that when the economy is on a downward trajectory (depression or recession) governments should spend to create jobs (put money in consumers' pockets) and stimulate "demand," which will, in the normal course of events stimulate "supply" which will create even more jobs and so on. _BUT_, and this is the part with which too many politicians and almost all laymen never bother, when the economy swings back "up" again governments need to switch off their stimulus spending and use their revenue to lower debt back to acceptable levels. (There's a HUGE range of "acceptable" amongst economists: many (most?) says 20% to about 35% is OK, some say 50% is still fine, a few (very few?) allow that even 75% is OK when coming out of a recession.)

That second part of _Keynesian economics_ is the problem.

First: social spending (transfers to individuals) is very, very hard (nearly impossible, politically) to "turn off," so, therefore, _social spending_ ought never to be a part of stimulus spending. This is a message that, _it appears to me_, is lost to 99% of NDP_ers_, 85% of Liberals and 50% of Conservatives. But it is a critical message: you can only spend, on soocial programnme, that which you can afford almost forever, in good times and bad.

Second: the programmes which can, sensibly, qualify for stimulus will, of necessity, leave out the poorest of the poor and those most in need. The programmes which do qualify, in general, are "public works" (buildings, roads, bridges, airports, etc, _public blunders and wonders_ is what we used to call the work of the old (1950s and 60s) Department of Public Works) and the acceptable projects ~ those that can be switched "on" and then "off," again, are generally construction and maintenance. Not even all "public works" are really acceptable, to many economists, if, as Canadians tend to do, we stretch the definition to include e.g. hockey arenas. Thus, there are limits to what a sensible _stimulus_ programme ought to include and the tighter those limits the fewer people the government "helps."

But ~ there are always "buts," aren't there?  :nod: ~ Canadians have come to _expect_, a holdover from the 1970s, _I think_, that they are _entitled_ to and that governments can provide something akin to a cradle to grave guaranteed annual income. Canadians expectations, more than economic theory, drive politics.

So, in the sustained "up" period (about 1994 to 2007) many economists ~ not all, to be sure ~ believe that Prime Minister Chrétien ought to have, aggressively, paid down debt and, essentially, capped social spending. In fact he did the opposite ~ as most politicians of all parties usually do. Those same economists believe that, in 2008-2011, Prime Minister Harper spent too much on _stimulus_ and adopted, in fairness to him, under pressure from the LPC and NDP, too broad a definition of "acceptable" projects. Now, there are some perfectly good economists Jim Stanford, of _Unifor_, for example, who would disagree vehemently with what I said above ... there's an old joke about leaving two economists in a room and getting three opinions when they come out:






Edit: typos


----------



## Remius (26 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Nevermind, I need the  *2*  *% * back.



FTFY


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I always think of this when I think about how narrowminded the average person can be._ A 2% decrease in the GST doesn't significantly affect anyone... except for the government._ But it makes a great campaign promise!
> 
> Just my  :2c:!




"Except for the government" ... _and future governments_. 

Canadians still hate the HST/GST ~ partially, _I think_, because it is highly visible: you see something for $9.95 ~ "Oh," you think to yourself, "ten bucks," but when you get to the cashier it is, of course, $11.25 and you inwardly curse Brian Mulroney.

The purposes in cutting the HST/GST were:

     1. Immediate political advantage; and, more importantly

     2. To constrain all future governments; to make it harder to spend on, unstated but especially, new, lavish social programmes.

It may well be that a future NDP (or even Liberal) government will add 1 or 2 or even 3% back on to the HST/GST, but some (many?) political pundits are betting that they will pay a real price at the polls for doing so.


----------



## Harrigan (26 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Fine, but John Maynard Keynes, the _guru_ of many macroeconomic analysts really set things out pretty simply:
> 
> 1. The economy goes in cycles: ups and down;
> 
> ...



I don't disagree with this post, (and note that the GST is not mentioned in it at all.)  But the argument the CPC uses against the opposition parties is that the CPC is so much better  than them on the economy, and there really isn't any evidence to back that up.


----------



## Harrigan (26 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> "Except for the government" ... _and future governments_.
> 
> Canadians still hate the HST/GST ~ partially, _I think_, because it is highly visible: you see something for $9.95 ~ "Oh," you think to yourself, "ten bucks," but when you get to the cashier it is, of course, $11.25 and you inwardly curse Brian Mulroney.
> 
> ...



Ay, there's the rub.   "Constraining all future governments" doesn't just apply to monies that one might want to spend on 'new, lavish social programmes'.  It applies to all monies, those used for softening the blow of recessions, for purchasing overdue military equipment, for policing, for infrastructure, for research and development, and for disaster relief operations.  If "The Big One" were to hit on October 20th and we had a disaster on the scale of the Japanese Tsunami or Nepalese Earthquake, would the country go broke?  (Is hope a COA?)

So, the fundamental question that one needs to ask ones self concerning the CPC economic policy - is it in the national interest, or in the CPC Party  interest?


----------



## Lumber (26 Aug 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> So, the fundamental question that one needs to ask ones self concerning the CPC economic policy - is it in the national interest, or in the CPC Party  interest?



Are the two mutually exclusive? What is the definition of the "national" interest. If the CPC presents an economic platform that appeals to the most Canadians, and they get elected as a result, have they not presented a "national" policy? Is the "national" interest what the majority (or, lets be honest here, a plurality) of Canadians want, or is the "national" interest what an objective observer would say is the "best for Canada"?

You can apply this quesiton just about any problem/issue. People will say "the Politicians are only doing this/that in order to get elected." Well... yes; duh! But if they get elected by giving people what they want, isn't that what they are there for? (i'm excluding the cases where politicians just lie and don't deliver on their promises).


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Aug 2015)

Harrigan said:
			
		

> Ay, there's the rub.   "Constraining all future governments" doesn't just apply to monies that one might want to spend on 'new, lavish social programmes'.  It applies to all monies, those used for softening the blow of recessions, for purchasing overdue military equipment, for policing, for infrastructure, for research and development, and for disaster relief operations.  If "The Big One" were to hit on October 20th and we had a disaster on the scale of the Japanese Tsunami or Nepalese Earthquake, would the country go broke?  (Is hope a COA?)
> 
> So, the fundamental question that one needs to ask ones self concerning the CPC economic policy - _is it in the national interest, or in the CPC Party  interest?_




That is a purely philosophical question ~ I say that because Canada has good enough credit (better than most countries, including the USA, thanks to King, St Laurent, Pearson, Diefenbaker, Mulroney, Chrétien and Harper (and John Turner and Paul Martin, too, as finance ministers)) so, should there be a HUGE disaster we would have no problem borrowing whatever is necessary to finance a recovery. "Hope" doesn't have to be a COA; seven of Canada's last 12 prime ministers left a good enough fiscal legacy to allow us ready access to credit. 

Some economists and other observers will say it, constraining governments' abilities to spend, is very much in the national interest because politicians cannot be trusted to act in that manner. Others will say that it is wrong headed because we need to move, steadily, towards a Marxist model: social equality or equality of outcomes ~ _from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs_. Me? I'm an old fashioned _utilitarian_ (Betham and Mill) ~ _the greatest good for the greatest number_ ~ so I tend to say that smaller, less intrusive and less _active_ government is better for most of us most of the time.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Aug 2015)

OK, here, in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisoions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is the sixty-four dollar question:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/why-is-fiscal-policy-being-ignored/article26097770/


> Why is fiscal policy being ignored?
> 
> KEVIN LYNCH
> Contributed to The Globe and Mail
> ...




Let's take Mr Lynch's points, one by one:

     Growth in the Canadian economy screeched to a halt [and] the longer term drivers of Canadian growth – increases in productivity and the labour force – are slowing and, with them, our future economic prospects.
     So, how well are we deploying the mix of monetary, fiscal and structural policies in a co-ordinated fashion to deal with these twin growth challenges?

     He answers by noting that while the _Bank of Canada_ has adjusted monetary policy, the Government of Canada's fiscal policies have been stagnant.

     Why is fiscal policy sitting on the sidelines? Sure, we ran up federal government debt hugely during the financial crisis, but so did most other nations, and our deficit-to-GDP and net debt-to-GDP ratios both remain below all other G7 countries.
     Lowering the net debt-to-GDP ratio, which is a reasonable policy objective given its rise as a result of fiscal actions during the financial crisis, does not require a balanced budget, only that debt grows less quickly than nominal GDP.
     And this underscores the nexus between fiscal stability and economic growth –it is much harder to sustain fiscal balance in an economy where trend growth is slowing, and vice versa.

     Fiscal policy is "sitting on the sidelines" because the Conservatives, responding to public _fears_ and hopes has become a "one trick pony:" balance the budget ... period.

     Where does this take us?

     Mr Lynch answers his own question: "Simply put, it is time to engage fiscal policy to provide demand support to the economy in a way that also raises our competitiveness, to complement this with structural policies to improve both productivity
     and labour force growth, and to rely less on unsustainably low interest rates." Then he goes on to suggest that: One obvious fiscal measure that would meet these criteria would be a longer term program of strategic infrastructure
     investment by the federal government, with transparent criteria to distinguish economically strategic investments from politically opportune spending. Borrowing at low interest rates makes such investments attractive now;
     longer term, a dedicated revenue source could be considered. Since provinces share the same concerns about slowing growth and weakening productivity, there would be tremendous scope for alignment and partnerships. And opportunities
     might also exist with our large pension funds who are continually seeking suitable long term assets to invest in.

     Such strategic infrastructure investments would likely include transportation systems, ports, public transit, and basic research to name a few core areas that would raise both private sector productivity and improve national competitiveness.
     And the more these investments were complemented by structural policies, the greater the impact on our longer term growth and living standards."

This is very much the same as what people like Don Drummond have recommended: borrow now ~ long term bonds, even if it means running a deficit, while interest rates are at historic lows (while money is cheap), to finance equally long term and necessary infrttsructure maintenance, renewal and creation. "Necessary" infrastructure includes, as Mr Lynch says, transportation systems, ports, public transit, and basic research. It does not include new hockey arenas or football field or academic research into cross dressing in 16th century France.

We all need to ask our candidates that simple question: _Why is fiscal policy being ignored?_ I will ask my CPC candidate, Damian Konstantinakos and I will also ask the likely winner, Paul Dewar of the NDP.* I would recommend that you do the same, and if their answer differs markedly from Mr Lynch's then you should vote for someone else.

_____
* I will not be overly disappointed when Mr Dewar wins Ottawa Centre for the NDP. Although he and I disagree on many policy issues, I like him, as a person, and I find him to be an excellent constituency MP and a very good foreign affairs critic. He's smart (intelligent, too), committed, thoughtful, hard working and, in general, a nice guy with whom to share a pint.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> We all need to ask our candidates that simple question: _Why is fiscal policy being ignored?_ I will ask my CPC candidate, Damian Konstantinakos and I will also ask the likely winner, Paul Dewar of the NDP.* I would recommend that you do the same, and if their answer differs markedly from Mr Lynch's then you should vote for someone else.
> 
> _____
> * I will not be overly disappointed when Mr Dewar wins Ottawa Centre for the NDP. Although he and I disagree on many policy issues, I like him, as a person, and I find him to be an excellent constituency MP and a very good foreign affairs critic. He's smart (intelligent, too), committed, thoughtful, hard working and, in general, a nice guy with whom to share a pint.




And here, in  a _Canadian Press_ story posted on _National Newswatch_ is why parties are refusing to deal with fiscal policy: they are ALL _afraid_ of the deficit monster, and they all have been since, in response, largely, to a _Wall Street Journal_ quip (1995) about the _northern peso_, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien made the deficit public enemy #1 and vowed to slay the deficit dragon, etc, etc, etc, _ad infinitum_. The problem that faced Prime Minister Chrétien was that his predecessor, Prime Minister Mulroney, had, already, balanced the operating budget, but Canada still needed to run deficits because we had to borrow billions, tens of billions, every year to pay the interest on the debts that Prime Minister Trudeau ran up on social programmes with which Prime Minister Mulroney was afraid to tamper, as were and are his successors. Prime Minister Chrétien planted in Canadians' minds the notion that balanced budgets are the only good budgets. Most Canadians believe that because it squares with what their own, personal and household finances tell them: overspending and borrowing will get you into trouble. But we, most of us, recognize that some borrowing (our mortgages, for example) can be good, too, if we borrow to buy an asset (our house) that appreciates in value more than the cost of borrowing. It should be possible for politicians to explain long term borrowing to maintain and build equally long term, necessary, beneficial infrastructure. It might be except that Prime Minister Harper has staked out the "moral high ground" of a balanced budget and none of the leaders, including Harper, himself, want to debate debts, now. 

As Kim Campbell said, just before Jean Chrétien, Gilles Duceppe and Preston Manning destroyed the old Progressive Party in the 1993 election, discussing a complete overhaul of Canada's social policies in all their complexities could not be done in just 47 days; this statement was reduced to her having stated that an election is no time to discuss important issues. She might well have been right, but the lesson politicians learned was that she failed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Aug 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an entertaining article advocating _strategic_ voting:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/how-a-few-spoiler-seats-could-topple-the-tories/article26115657/


> How a few ‘spoiler’ seats could topple the Conservatives
> 
> HENRY MINTZBERG
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




Once again, I was, momentarily, tempted to stick this in the On the lighter side [of politics] thread, but Prof Mintzberg is very serious (and I suspect he takes himself very seriously, too) as illustrated by his plaintiff cry that he wants his country back and he asks the LPC and NDP to put country (his view of the country, anyway) ahead of party ...  :rofl:  The Liberal Party of Canada? He wants the LPC to put anything ahead of the party's constant search for power? Really?  :facepalm:


----------



## Kilo_302 (26 Aug 2015)

I'm no fan of Andrew Coyne, but I think he nails it here:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-if-the-duffy-affair-was-no-big-deal-why-all-the-effort-to-hide-it



> That both men would rely on such improbabilities to remove themselves from the affair — Wright at least has not claimed to have written the cheque while sleepwalking — would seem at odds with the line taken by the government’s defenders, in the media and online: namely, that this is all a lot of hoo-haw over nothing. And indeed you could make that case. The sum involved, $90,000, is not large, in a government that spends upwards of $250 billion annually. The efforts of Wright and others were directed at putting money back into the treasury, not taking it out. Other parties have been guilty of much worse. All very true.
> 
> But if there’s no scandal here, then why is everyone connected with the government acting as if there is? That would include, among others, Stephen Harper. The line he has maintained since a week after the story first broke — that is, after a week of praising Wright as a dedicated public servant — is not that this is all a big yawn, or even an honest error, but a shocking breach of trust. Not only did he not know, he has hotly insisted throughout, but he would have put a stop to it if he had. At times he has even claimed that Wright “deceived” him.
> 
> If the matter of Duffy’s expenses were no big deal — at worst, a case of an errant senator, and besides, the rules were unclear — it would seem hard to explain why a dozen or more senior officials in the Prime Minister’s Office and the Senate spent three months fussing and fretting over it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Aug 2015)

Maybe, just maybe, M Trudeau is going to address fiscal policy, if insideHALTON.com has it right.

The article says, "The Liberal leader's infrastructure policy, to be unveiled Thursday in Oakville, Ont., is expected to include significant new funding for:

— Public transit and transportation;

— Affordable housing;

— Helping communities adapt to climate change, which has been blamed for billions in damage from flooding, wildfires and hailstorms.

Trudeau's infrastructure announcement goes hand in hand with his refusal to commit to immediately balancing the federal budget, should he win the Oct. 19 election.

And it's a big part of Trudeau's attempt to position the Liberals as the only party willing to run short-term deficits to goose the stagnant economy."


Of his three _priorities_, if that is what they are, I support borrowing, massively, for public transit and for transportation infrastructure (roads and bridges) maintenance. I am OK with public housing .... but I think we do it all wrong in Canada (and in America, Australia, Britain, France and Hong Kong, too). I suspect that "helping communities adapt to climate change" will just be a Liberal slush fund to reward cities that support M Trudeau and to push wind farms in Ontario.

But, good on him ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Aug 2015)

>By 2011, though, when the recession had been obvious for some time the decision (by the now majority govt) to lower it even more is simply incomprehensible.

"It" - the GST cut - was done in two steps: 01 Jul 2006, and 01 Jan 2008.  The corporate income tax was lowered 01 Jan 2012.  Is the latter what you mean?  If so, note that it has been a success: we're getting nearly the same revenue we were before.  Economists write about Mulcair's proposed CIT increase the same way they wrote about Harper's GST cut - good politics, bad economics.  Both parties receive "F" grades.

A point of GST is thought to be worth $6-7B.   It is also thought to be worth 50,000 jobs (sounds high to me and I wish I could find the reference again to verify it) - loss for increase, gain for decrease.  It is not as simple as GST-cut = Bad.  A reminder: the point of the argument was that a GST cut was the least desirable choice among cutting one of GST, personal income tax, or corporate income tax.  And since the 2008 cut fortuitously preceded the plunge into recession, it wasn't really necessary to cut more taxes (a mechanism of "stimulus") to promote spending and job growth.

For those who might have noticed, the opposition parties have been scrambling to identify where they will come up with the money to pay for their new program promises, with a strong disinclination to include "borrowing" on the list.  If we had a surplus they'd basically raid it.  The irony is that but for the March Madness spending of the previous government, the GST might still be 7%.  As ERC noted, politicians have demonstrated they can't be trusted to responsibly apply Keynesian policy except for the part that allows them to pose for ribbon-cutting ceremonies.

Miscellaneous notes:

Among the "national interests" served by CPC policy is that we can pay for what we need, and didn't offload costs onto "the backs" of other levels of government or individuals.  (If Chretien and Martin had waited a couple more years the budget would have "balanced itself" with revenue growth.)

I beat the "fun by numbers" donkey because I remember the debt clock on Georgia Street running like the downrange distance telemetry of a shuttle launch, and I don't have a DB pension.  Parties talking about restricting favourable retirement savings policies and pursuing policies that will generally slow returns on investment and economic growth hold my attention: my retirement funds will be weaker and the government's revenues will be weaker, and I will still be liable to pay taxes to make up shortfalls.

Regarding Coyne's editorial - "But if there’s no scandal here, then why is everyone connected with the government acting as if there is?".  The answer is that Stephen Harper is not Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama - he can't say "there's nothing here" and expect the bulk of the media to say, "Oh, of course".


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Aug 2015)

>I support borrowing, massively, for public transit

If you mean to include "rail", you should rethink it.  Rail transit in North America is almost without exception a money sink that cannibalizes (devours) other parts of a transit agency's budget: essentially, it's a vicious cycle in which the more rail is built, the greater become the operating subsidies which have to be made up by cutting other (inevitably, bus) service.

Build roads - including negotiating the obstacles - and buy buses.  Everyone can use a road; you can detour around an interruption; you can change routes.

It is very easy to misallocate capital in the guise of "infrastructure investment", even without touching circuses.


----------



## cupper (26 Aug 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I support borrowing, massively, for public transit
> 
> If you mean to include "rail", you should rethink it.  Rail transit in North America is almost without exception a money sink that cannibalizes (devours) other parts of a transit agency's budget: essentially, it's a vicious cycle in which the more rail is built, the greater become the operating subsidies which have to be made up by cutting other (inevitably, bus) service.
> 
> ...



Rail has to be carefully thought out. In specific locations it makes better options than building more highways. High speed rail needs to be seriously looked at as an alternative to air travel in short  to moderate distance travel between cities. The Boston to Washington Corridor is the only profitable section of the entire Amtrak System. But the numbers when extended to high speed rail make runs like NY to Chicago, and California SF to LA much more economically feasible.

In Canada it doesn't make sense because of the vast distances between major population centers, other than the Montreal to Toronto corridor.


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Aug 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> Rail has to be carefully thought out. In specific locations it makes better options than building more highways. High speed rail needs to be seriously looked at as an alternative to air travel in short  to moderate distance travel between cities. The Boston to Washington Corridor is the only profitable section of the entire Amtrak System. But the numbers when extended to high speed rail make runs like NY to Chicago, and California SF to LA much more economically feasible.
> 
> In Canada it doesn't make sense because of the vast distances between major population centers, other than the Montreal to Toronto corridor.



I would argue that Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton might work.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Aug 2015)

Forget it - Brad has it right.  Invest in roads.  There are long stretches in Western Canada (specifically BC - Hwys 1, 3, 16 and 97)) of our national highway system that are narrow, windy and dangerous.  A project to turn these into twin freeways (a la Hwy 5) - even with the fancy Alpine elevated highways I've seen in Europe - is right up ER Campbell's alley and would do wonders for our road networks.  Anyone who has driven to Ft McMurray and seen the amount of work going into making Hwy 63 a safe, twin-two lane freeway understands how this kind of infrastructure is a great, long-term stimulus.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Aug 2015)

>But the numbers when extended to high speed rail make runs like NY to Chicago, and California SF to LA much more economically feasible.

"Economically feasible" should be interpreted as "profitable" ("loss-less").  If it needs an operating subsidy, it isn't economically feasible.  I know the SF/LA HSR proponents think it is going to be profitable without a subsidy, but the ridership estimates and operating cost estimates they use are (as customarily happens with HSR) very optimistic.  It isn't an open/shut case either way, but I find the critics more persuasive - particularly given the tendency of HSR projects to spiral up.

With both the CPC and LPC on-board with infrastructure investment, I'm more optimistic about positive outcomes for a CPC minority supported by - and occasionally answering to - Liberals.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Aug 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "Economically feasible" should be interpreted as "profitable" ("loss-less").  If it needs an operating subsidy, it isn't economically feasible.



By that logic, we should only have toll roads, since highways and streets require ongoing maintenance, snow removal etc - they therefore require operating subsidies and, by your logic, are not economically feasible.


----------



## Harrigan (27 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Are the two mutually exclusive? What is the definition of the "national" interest.



No, they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.  But partisan policies (of any political stripe) are rarely in the national interest.



> But if they get elected by giving people what they want, isn't that what they are there for?



Wow......


----------



## Harrigan (27 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That is a purely philosophical question ~ I say that because Canada has good enough credit (better than most countries, including the USA, thanks to King, St Laurent, Pearson, Diefenbaker, Mulroney, Chrétien and Harper (and John Turner and Paul Martin, too, as finance ministers)) so, should there be a HUGE disaster we would have no problem borrowing whatever is necessary to finance a recovery. "Hope" doesn't have to be a COA; seven of Canada's last 12 prime ministers left a good enough fiscal legacy to allow us ready access to credit.
> 
> Some economists and other observers will say it, constraining governments' abilities to spend, is very much in the national interest because politicians cannot be trusted to act in that manner. Others will say that it is wrong headed because we need to move, steadily, towards a Marxist model: social equality or equality of outcomes ~ _from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs_. Me? I'm an old fashioned _utilitarian_ (Betham and Mill) ~ _the greatest good for the greatest number_ ~ so I tend to say that smaller, less intrusive and less _active_ government is better for most of us most of the time.



And that is consistent with the belief of the 40% of the nation that is conservative-leaning.  The other 60% (we've discussed this before) believes that government has a positive role to play, and doesn't automatically mean that it must be "more" intrusive. (After all, Bill C-51 is not coming from, say, the NDP)


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I support borrowing, massively, for public transit
> 
> If you mean to include "rail", you should rethink it.  Rail transit in North America is almost without exception a money sink that cannibalizes (devours) other parts of a transit agency's budget: essentially, it's a vicious cycle in which the more rail is built, the greater become the operating subsidies which have to be made up by cutting other (inevitably, bus) service.
> 
> ...




I didn't mention rail. Generally I agree with you, Brad and Infanteer: we haven't the population density to make rail an affordable means of internodal human transport. But, I do support rail as an _urban_, mass/rapid transit solution for large(r) cities, including e.g. Ottawa and its suburbs, so when I agree that "public transit" is a good priority I am thinking about _investing_ in subways and light rail systems.

I also agree with datpaterson that some roads should be toll roads.

_I believe_ that price (market forces) is a very good way to clarify and prioritize "demand" for any good or service, including some public goods and services. I was closely involved in the (radio) "spectrum auction" process, from it's inception, in New Zealand back around 1989, until I retired from the business in 2006. There was much public and bureaucratic angst about using "market forces" to do something that had, always, been done by bureaucrats using the :"beauty contest" method of determining the _public good_. The evidence, _as I see it_, anyway, is overwhelming: auctions, market forces, make bidders refine and optimize their "demands" and gives the public the best return ~ short and medium term, for sure, we'll have to wait a generation to see if the long term results are what we believe they should be ~ for "supplying" its (public) resource. Thus,_ I believe_ that the market ~ bus fares and road tolls and gas taxes ~ can be used to optimize transportation use: road vs rail; car vs bus or metro; faster (toll road) vs slower (free).


----------



## Jed (27 Aug 2015)

Infrastructure: How about Sewer and Water for communities, not sexy but needed by all.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> Infrastructure: How about Sewer and Water for communities, not sexy but needed by all.




Indeed, Jed, they should be at the _*top*_ of everyone's list, along with good (better? best?) garbage disposal. It is city engineers ~ clean water, sewage and garbage disposal ~ not doctors, nurses and hospitals that keep us alive into our '60s and even '80s. The doctors and hospitals _extend_ our lives to 70+ and into our '90s.

If we consider infrastructure to be like the human body then the road and rail networks are both the bones/skeleton and the circulatory systems, that keep us alive and working; the sewers and water and garbage dumps are the immune system, that keeps us healthy. We need to care for (maintain) both. (And don't forget seaport and airports and, to go back to Kevin Lynch's article, basic research (not applied research or "development") which is done, mostly,* in our great public universities, in laboratories that we, Canadians, should build and maintain for the common good.)

____
* The _Perimeter Institute_ is the exception that proves the rule.


----------



## Altair (27 Aug 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be choked if it was a bit of media bias, I see it as a full on deceptive assault, and in the CBC's case, job protection.  And that is 9 years with most of those years hampered with minorities and piss poor opposition parties. And those 9 years gave us pretty good governance considering.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I am definitely not a Stephen Harper supporter, I wish he would have taken a long walk in the snow.  However, his party is far and away much better than the other alternatives, especially when we have to deal with the upcoming economic concerns.  Of course this is just my opinion based on observing all of these politicians and their respective parties over the last 40 to 50 years.


In the category of "Stupid self inflicted wounds" Harper has his current director of issues management talking to the former director of issues management while he is a sworn witness.

Then to have your campaign manager come out on TV looking like a fool, and the prime minister with his same talking points that have nothing to do with the question at hand. Again, Duffy means nothing to me, other than the conservatives bush league handling of it only making their reelection chances worst by the gaffe.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2015)

Well, foreign policy, one aspect of it , anyway, has made its way onto the campaign stage, albeit a bit obliquely, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/justin-trudeau-fundraiser-picketed-by-jewish-group-over-liberals-support-for-iran-nuclear-deal


> Justin Trudeau fundraiser picketed by Jewish group over Liberals’ support for Iran nuclear deal
> 
> Jake Edmiston | August 26, 2015 | Last Updated: Aug 27
> 
> ...




The Iran nuclear deal is divisive; it is risky and complex, but, if it works (a Big IF) it will be a signature achievement.

There is, on this issues, a clear division of opinion between the CPC on one hand, and the LPC and NDP on the other(s).  

The forthcoming, televised Munk Centre Leaders' Debate on Foreign Policy on 28 Sep will, _I hope_, test leaders' foreign policy _chops_.


----------



## Remius (27 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> In the category of "Stupid self inflicted wounds" Harper has his current director of issues management talking to the former director of issues management while he is a sworn witness.
> 
> Then to have your campaign manager come out on TV looking like a fool, and the prime minister with his same talking points that have nothing to do with the question at hand. Again, Duffy means nothing to me, other than the conservatives bush league handling of it only making their reelection chances worst by the gaffe.



Agreed.  Most of this is self inflicted.  Put a bit of your own blood in the water and teh sharks will come. This whole thing though will likely not be a huge factor for the base.  Swing voters though...


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2015)

And, the _National Post reports__ that M Trudeau has another nomination challenge, this time in a Montreal area riding where the loser contends that there were 285 more ballots cast then there were riding association members voting, and since she lost by less than 195 votes she probably believes that some "ballot box stuffing" may have occurred. The winner, Mélanie Joly, is described as a "confidante" of Justin Trudeau. _


----------



## suffolkowner (27 Aug 2015)

The thing is what is Duffy guilty of? To me the whole thing is a non issue. I think Harper made a mistake by painting Duffy as a villain so heavily that now everybody is tainted by association.


----------



## Remius (27 Aug 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> The thing is what is Duffy guilty of? To me the whole thing is a non issue. I think Harper made a mistake by painting Duffy as a villain so heavily that now everybody is tainted by association.



He isn't guilty of anything yet.  He faces charges of breach of trust and bribery.  None of which has been proven yet.  The PMO made sveral misteps and mismanaged this whole thing.  The that's where the taint comes from.  Although not shocking, they tried to make the whole thing go away with PR and smoke and mirrors.  Except the magic trick failed and we saw the Wizard of Oz for what he is. 

That leads to other questions about other things that may or may not be what they seem.  

And whileit is a non-issue to some, for others it is an issue.  The media has made it an issue and newer revelations have made it an issue.  Plus we're in the middle of a campaign.  

So yeah, a bit of the perfect storm.  But now that court is adjourned i suspect we'll hear less and less but the damage I think is done, but limited.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Aug 2015)

In one issue I sense that Stephen Harper has _already_ won, and won a huge victory. I have seen two talking head pieces on CBC and CTV in the last week, both of which were arguing how the Liberals and NDP could possibly carry out their promises without creating a deficit.

The idea of running deficits as if there were no consequences runs very deeply in the Liberal/NDP wolrdview, and is generally accepted as a given by the Laurentian consensus, the fact that the debate has now shifted to the idea that running deficits is a bad idea. The fact that pro Liberal and NDP policy wonks/TV talking heads should be talking in such a fashion indicates a huge sea change in what ideas are considered "acceptable" by the electorate today.


----------



## Remius (27 Aug 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> In one issue I sense that Stephen Harper has _already_ won, and won a huge victory. I have seen two talking head pieces on CBC and CTV in the last week, both of which were arguing how the Liberals and NDP could possibly carry out their promises without creating a deficit.
> 
> The idea of running deficits as if there were no consequences runs very deeply in the Liberal/NDP wolrdview, and is generally accepted as a given by the Laurentian consensus, the fact that the debate has now shifted to the idea that running deficits is a bad idea. The fact that pro Liberal and NDP policy wonks/TV talking heads should be talking in such a fashion indicates a huge sea change in what ideas are considered "acceptable" by the electorate today.



I guess you haven't seen this yet.  

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberals-infrastructure-deficits-1.3205535

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/liberals-propose-modest-deficits-in-order-to-kickstart-economy-1.2535718


----------



## dapaterson (27 Aug 2015)

It's interesting political theatre right now.

The NDP is attempting to shed its image as spendthrift, and thus appeal to more centrist voters, by committing to no deficits.

The Liberals are attempting to appeal to a wider swath of the left, and thus committing to potential deficits to fund a variety of Good Ideas.

Methinks strategists for the third political party are enjoying watching that jockeying for position on the centre/left.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Aug 2015)

But the Young Dauphin and his advisors cannot propose freely spending and are constrained by the "new" reality of what voters will find acceptable to only propose "small" deficits. (You and I know that that promise is only a form of organic fertilizer, of course).

And when Thomas Mulcaire finds himself actively arguing for a balanced budget, then you know that Steven Harper is smiling to himself when he reaches for the remote to turn off the news.


----------



## Remius (27 Aug 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It's interesting political theatre right now.
> 
> The NDP is attempting to shed its image as spendthrift, and thus appeal to more centrist voters, by committing to no deficits.
> 
> ...



Too true. 

I suspect that you are correct about the NDP.  I'm not sure people are buying it.

Not so sure that is the complete picture of the Liberals.  While I agree that they want more of the NDP share of the vote, I suspect that this latest move is to appeal to those that believe in stimulus spending.  Done right it could work.  I'd rather see us have a deficit by investing in infrastructure than in 15$ a day daycare.    It also eliminates the "how to pay for it argument" before it happens.  It is an interesting move.

Yes, I suspect the CPC is hoping for a split.  But so far I'm not sure they are happy with what they were hoping for.  But there is still plenty of time.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Too true.
> 
> I suspect that you are correct about the NDP.  I'm not sure people are buying it.
> 
> ...




I know I keep saying this over and over and over again, but ...

                                                            
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





                                                                                                ... and there are still 7 and a bit "long times" to go until election day.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2015)

For those who want to raise the HST/GST ...

I know the _Fraser Institute_ is not everyone's cup of tea, but, _I suggest_, it is no more (nor less) _biased_ than the _Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives_ and it's research is pretty rigorous. This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Sun_ reports on a _Fraser Institute_ report on taxes:

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/08/27/taxes-eat-up-42-of-average-canadian-familys-income-fraser-institute


> Taxes eat up 42% of average Canadian family's income: Fraser Institute
> 
> JEREMY APPEL, TORONTO SUN
> 
> ...




I'm not sure the CPC can make political hay from this: Canadians tend, I think, to be somewhat non differential when it comes to taxes and they blame all governments/parties (national, provincial and municipal) that are in power equally.

But it does raise and interesting question: _how much is enough?_


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Maybe, just maybe, M Trudeau is going to address fiscal policy, if insideHALTON.com has it right.
> 
> The article says, "The Liberal leader's infrastructure policy, to be unveiled Thursday in Oakville, Ont., is expected to include significant new funding for:
> 
> ...




I think M Trudeau's plan actually worries the CPC a bit. Enough, anyway, to prompt this ad, which appeared online today:


----------



## kratz (27 Aug 2015)

ref:  CTV.ca

With the debate over ABC on this site and the LPC policy announcement for veterans this week, it's interesting to read the CPC is looking for veterans willing to publicly support the CPC during the campaign. 



> Conservatives looking for veterans to sing praises of Harper: email
> Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
> Published Thursday, August 27, 2015 5:12AM EDT
> 
> ...



...more at link


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2015)

The _Globe and Mail_ now has it's own election prediction, which it will update weekly. Currently it predicts that:





Even with NDP leading polls, Conservatives projected to win more seats

Paul Fairie
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published: Wednesday, Aug. 26, 2015 7:35PM EDT

If the NDP continue to poll well, showing leads in four of the last six publicly-released polls, why does the Globe’s Election Forecast suggest that the Conservatives have a higher probability of winning the most seats? The important thing to remember is that not all votes are created equal in terms of their ability to convert into seats.

The NDP’s strength, like in 2011, remains in Quebec. In the latest Angus Reid poll, the New Democrats are polling at a robust 51 per cent of the vote. Yet, in 2011, they turned 43 per cent of the province’s vote into winning 59 of the 75 seats. If we accept the Angus Reid number, increasing their vote share by 8 per cent around the province doesn’t leave them with much room to grow seat-wise: a seat is a seat, won by 1 vote or 20,000.

At the same time, the Conservatives also remain reasonably strong in Ontario. While certainly down from their 44 per cent vote share in 2011, they remain marginally in the lead in the province in a number of recent polls. In the latest Angus Reid survey, the Conservatives polled 35 per cent to the NDP’s 33 and in the Nanos poll released a day earlier, the Conservatives led the Liberals 39 per cent to 32.

History reminds us that this has happened before. In 1979, the Pierre Trudeau-led Liberals won 40 per cent of the vote, compared to the Joe Clark-led PCs’ 36 per cent share. Despite this, the Conservatives won 22 more seats than the Liberals and formed a brief-lived minority government. One reason the Liberals were able to win a larger share of the vote despite losing the seat count was the result in Quebec, where the Liberals won an astounding 61 per cent of the vote, capturing 67 of the province’s 75 seats.

_Paul Fairie is a University of Calgary political scientist who studies voter behaviour, who designed The Globe’s Election Forecast._


In another article, the _Globe and Mail_ reports that, "Canadians believe economy is in recession, OK with deficit: poll"

The article says, that "Canadians think the country is in recession, according to a new poll, and a majority supports the idea of the federal government running a deficit to stimulate the economy."


----------



## Remius (27 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think M Trudeau's plan actually worries the CPC a bit.



I think you are correct in that assessment.  I think some of the smart advisers he may have surrounded himself with are making their mark.  His plan, to me, seems rather sound and for once honest.  Whether that translates into more votes remains to be seen.  I would like the CPC to communicate their economic policy a bit more...I don't know how to explain it...but the stay the course message, isn't hitting home enough and may get stale.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2015)

It's not Labour Day yet, and, in contrast to what the _Globe and Mail_'s polling may suggest (see above), the _Toronto Star_ has data that suggests that an NDP majority is within reach.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (27 Aug 2015)

But the Red Star polls are always wonky. The Red Star poll of August 24 has the NDP lead at the expense of the Conservatives while the Angus Reid poll of the same day has it at the expense of the Liberals

Red Star
  NDP  40
  Liberals  30
  Conservatives  23

Angus Reid
  NDP  37
  Liberal  24
  Conservative  30

I simply don't believe the Red Star poll.

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2015)

As I expected, the CPC is starting to "attack" using the Trudeau<>Wynne<>Trudeau notion:






_I think_ Ontario is divided: the inner cities and some suburbs are _left_ (Liberal/NDP) and Premier Wynne and M Trudeau are popular and the real 'enemy' is Thomas Mulcair and the NDP; in other suburbs and in small town and rural Ontario I believe Premier Wynne is less popular and Pierre Poilievre's new ad might work very well indeed. We'll need to see if other Ontario CPC candidates follow suit.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Aug 2015)

An earlier article by Stephen Gordon at the National Post (21 Jul) explains why more spending is not appropriate for this recession and is referenced by Kevin Milligan at Maclean's in an article discussing infrastructure.

Summary: a plan for steady long term infrastructure spending is a good idea, but not if deficit spending is required.  The policy point goes to the CPC and NDP this time.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Aug 2015)

Earlier I wrote: "Economically feasible" should be interpreted as "profitable" ("loss-less").  If it needs an operating subsidy, it isn't economically feasible."

And dapaterson proposed that "By that logic, we should only have toll roads, since highways and streets require ongoing maintenance, snow removal etc - they therefore require operating subsidies and, by your logic, are not economically feasible."

The distinction is that roads are public, and rails are not.  And I don't mean the facade of ownership: if I buy one of the fancy pickups the railroad companies use, I still won't be allowed to use even publicly owned rails.  I support public funding of genuinely public infrastructure.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Aug 2015)

Wynne (and others) might want to think about getting out of the way.

Supporting pipelines and other development isn't going to alter the short term arithmetic, but might serve them better in the longer term.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Aug 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Earlier I wrote: "Economically feasible" should be interpreted as "profitable" ("loss-less").  If it needs an operating subsidy, it isn't economically feasible."
> 
> And dapaterson proposed that "By that logic, we should only have toll roads, since highways and streets require ongoing maintenance, snow removal etc - they therefore require operating subsidies and, by your logic, are not economically feasible."
> 
> The distinction is that roads are public, and rails are not.  And I don't mean the facade of ownership: if I buy one of the fancy pickups the railroad companies use, I still won't be allowed to use even publicly owned rails.  I support public funding of genuinely public infrastructure.



But then we're subsidizing truckers vs rail companies, and buses vs passenger rail.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Aug 2015)

In theory truckers and busses (and car drivers) pay for the roads with taxes on fuel. In actual practice, fuel taxes go into the general revenue pool to spend on "infrastructure" like downtown sports arenas and performing arts centres......


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2015)

kratz said:
			
		

> ref:  CTV.ca
> 
> With the debate over ABC on this site and the LPC policy announcement for veterans this week, it's interesting to read the CPC is looking for veterans willing to publicly support the CPC during the campaign.
> 
> ...more at link




But, in the _Globe and Mail_, editorial cartoonist Brian Gable wonders how just well it's working:





Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorial-cartoons-for-august-2015/article25744115/


----------



## George Wallace (28 Aug 2015)

There already exists a Veterans group on FB that support the Conservative.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There already exists a Veterans group on FB that support the Conservative.




Agreed, George, but _my sense_ is that they aren't getting much _traction_ (media attention, anyway). Additionally, they're not "news." Being for someone or something is rarely as newsworthy (attention getting) as being and demonstrating _against_ that someone or something.

Going beyond that, as the _Ottawa Citizen_ say "To deficit or not to deficit — that is the election question du jour." _I suspect_ that the veterans _might_, if they are a bit smarter than they look on their social media pages, get some _traction_, on either or both sides of the NVC/benefits issue, if they focus almost all of their attention ~ and whatever money they have and are allowed to spend ~ on one, single constiyuency: Durham, where Veterans' Affairs Minister Erin O'Toole (a popular MP, a cabinet minister, and a _potential_ future CPC leadership candidate) is running. If the CPC thinks that a sitting minister might be knocked off by a single issue, special interest group then they might care enough to address that group's grievances ... maybe.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Aug 2015)

On the other hand, perhaps they are a more tempered group who feel that the groups like ABC do not represent "ALL" veterans, who are using the wrong tactics, tactics that do more harm to veterans concerns than help.  They may feel that the tactics of the groups like ABC alienate veterans in the eyes of the Public.  Perhaps they prefer not to be like ABC and more along the lines of the "quiet professional" who is more likely to discuss their concerns than  make a public spectacle of themselves.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> On the other hand, perhaps they are a more tempered group who feel that the groups like ABC do not represent "ALL" veterans, who are using the wrong tactics, tactics that do more harm to veterans concerns than help.  They may feel that the tactics of the groups like ABC alienate veterans in the eyes of the Public.  Perhaps they prefer not to be like ABC and more along the lines of the "quiet professional" who is more likely to discuss their concerns than  make a public spectacle of themselves.



George, you are describing the fate of all conservatives.  By inclination they tend to be quiet, undemonstrative and solitary and seek the quiet life, although highly disputatious.  Not the best fodder for a movement.


----------



## C-Aitchison (28 Aug 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> George, you are describing the fate of all conservatives.  By inclination they tend to be quiet, undemonstrative and solitary and seek the quiet life, although highly disputatious.  Not the best fodder for a movement.



Unless they're university students. The Conservatives here in KW, at both UW and WLU are moving hard and fast.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2015)

Campbell Clark, in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, suggests that M Trudeau "has just broken this election campaign wide open" and that he "is trying to do to Mr. Mulcair what Kathleen Wynne’s Ontario Liberals did to Andrea Horwath’s NDP – outflank them on the left:"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/justin-trudeau-alters-election-equation-with-deficit-spending-gamble/article26137791/


> Justin Trudeau alters election equation with deficit-spending gamble
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




But, _it seems to me_ that M Trudeau is doing more than just outflanking M Mulcair on the left; he is also outflanking Prime Minister Harper on the right. Amongst those respected economists who are advocating buying long term bonds, even if it means going into deficit, to fund useful and appropriate long term infrastructure projects, include real, well known _fiscal hawks_ like Kevin Lynch and Don Drummond. This proposal is not a Canadian Labour Congress idea, it comes from the fiscal-political _right_.


----------



## Remius (28 Aug 2015)

I couldn't agree more.  And given the reaction from Stephen Harper yesterday (the first time I've seen him act that way to be honest) I think it may have rattled the CPC a bit.

But with today's budget numbers showing a real surplus for the first half of the year, the CPC can at least flaunt their current plan with something to back it up.  Or at least something that seems to back it up.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I couldn't agree more.  And given the reaction from Stephen Harper yesterday (the first time I've seen him act that way to be honest) I think it may have rattled the CPC a bit.
> 
> But with today's budget numbers showing a real surplus for the first half of the year, _the CPC can at least flaunt their current plan_ with something to back it up.  Or at least something that seems to back it up.



Part 1 of 2

And Lawrence Martin, who is certainly no friend of Prime Minister Harper, but who has more than just a wee a bit of truth on his side, takes aim at the Conservatives' fiscal reputation in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/stephen-harper-economic-genius-or-flop/article26038579/


> Harper's economic plan: spin to win
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...



End of Part 1 of 2


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2015)

Part 2 of 2



> Exceptionalism on the economic front served as a strong weapon in the 2011 election. At the same time he was spending great sums to spur the economy, Harper was able to hold to his promise to cut taxes—and to poison the atmosphere for anyone wishing to raise levies. Through history, the Liberals had used taxation to build their idea of an equitable Canadian society. They were now left spinning their wheels and tongues. In the 2011 election campaign, Michael Ignatieff couldn’t put forward any big new national programs, like a high-speed rail system, because of the cost.
> 
> Yet the large deficit the Conservatives had run up, much of it a result of the GST cut and excessive spending in their first two years in power, hardly hurt them on the campaign trail. Nor did the Tories pay a price for Harper becoming the first PM in history to be found in contempt of Parliament. It was for excessive information control—his hiding from Parliament basic costing information on corporate tax cuts, combat jets and other programs.
> 
> ...




I can, I'm sure others will, poke holes in the Martin/Goodale argument that it's all _spin_, but, to be sure, some of it is. And you cannot take economic performance out of context; contrary to what Ralph Goodale says, some factors can and, indeed, must be blamed on the ongoing economic crisis ... and it wasn't over in 2011, this is probably the most anaemic recovery in modern times. But, that being said, some of you will really enjoy  :nod:  the above article; it will _enrage_  :rage:  others.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2015)

The _Globe and Mail_, in an editorial which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, asks and answers three questions about the Liberals' deficit promise:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/three-questions-to-ask-about-the-liberals-deficit-promise/article26145427/
(My emphasis added, for clarity)


> GLOBE EDITORIAL
> Three questions to ask about the Liberals’ deficit promise
> 
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I take issue with one point: It is naive, in the extreme, and it borders on being silly, to suggests that government spending, on anything, should be kept "at arm's-length from politicians." That will not happen, because it cannot happen and it probably, in our system of government, and given 1,500 years of our political _traditions_, should not happen.

I applaud M Trudeau for coming out with this policy, *but* _I doubt_ he and his colleagues can invest Canadians money "prudently" or "wisely."


----------



## Acorn (28 Aug 2015)

Re the Lawrence Martin article: While I agree it's not all about spin, it's not very flattering is it?


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2015)

Acorn said:
			
		

> Re the Lawrence Martin article: While I agree it's not all about spin, it's not very flattering is it?




Well, it is Lawrence Martin so I hope no one expected "flattering" or, even, "fair and balanced." Mr Martin is an interested and interesting writer, but he doesn't even pretend to be non-partisan.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2015)

Here, from _iPolitics_, are _Ekos_' latest polling results ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          ... The NDP maintain a comfortable lead while the Liberals are closing the gap with the CPC.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, from _iPolitics_, are _Ekos_' latest polling results ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Those numbers are wholesale; the important numbers are retail - riding by riding.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Aug 2015)

>But then we're subsidizing truckers vs rail companies, and buses vs passenger rail.

Ironically, without roads, trucking companies, and bus companies, the rail companies don't have much of a viable business.  I'll stick with my bright line between infrastructure "anyone can use" and infrastructure which is basically a business.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Aug 2015)

Current debt as a percentage of GDP is around 32%.  At the end of 81-82 it was 29%.  Five years later it was 49% and climbing fast.

The point: "events" don't creep up on us slowly.  (Another example: recent Chinese turmoil.)  We lost control of our spending in the mid '70s long before the problem of the cost of debt became apparent.  I see the same school is speaking its voice that spoke then: it's OK if you keep debt growth below GDP growth.  The hidden assumption: no significant change in the cost of servicing debt.  (Interest rates really have nowhere to go but up.)

When people presume to talk about small deficits, it staggers me a little to read sums like $20B.  $2B, maybe.  If $30B is high (referring to several of our past years, not the exceptionally high watermark of $55B in 2009-10), $20B is moderate, not small.

We shouldn't be riding a string of primary deficits into the next real recession.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2015)

Andrew MacDougall,* in the _Ottawa Citizen_ says that Justin, Trudeau, by surrounding himself with candidates who he presented as his "economic team" was tacitly admitting that the Conservative ads are right: he's _Just Not Ready!_

MacDougall says, and I agree that, "It’s the Prime Minister that makes the final budget calls. It’s the Prime Minister that sits in a room at high-stakes economic summits. While support is required and dissenting views a must, there isn’t time during a crisis to ring around 31 different offices to find out what to do."

_____
* _Caveat lector:_ Andrew MacDougall is the Senior Executive Consultant at MSLGROUP London and is a former director of communications to Stephen Harper.


----------



## Altair (28 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Andrew MacDougall,* in the _Ottawa Citizen_ says that Justin, Trudeau, by surrounding himself with candidates who he presented as his "economic team" was tacitly admitting that the Conservative ads are right: he's _Just Not Ready!_
> 
> MacDougall says, and I agree that, "It’s the Prime Minister that makes the final budget calls. It’s the Prime Minister that sits in a room at high-stakes economic summits. While support is required and dissenting views a must, there isn’t time during a crisis to ring around 31 different offices to find out what to do."
> 
> ...


Since when is having a team a bad thing? :facepalm:


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Since when is having a team a bad thing? :facepalm:



When leading by consensus is not an option.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Since when is having a team a bad thing? :facepalm:




You and I might believe it's a good thing, but, as I have mentioned many times, we tend to follow the US, somewhat slavishly, in many things, including, sadly, politics. In the USA it's all about the individual leader ~ parties and party discipline, in the congress and between the congress and the White House, are weaker there; the leader matters most. We are, _I think_, becoming similar: it's less the Conservative Party of Canada than it is Stephen Harper and his candidates ... not a team as much as a leader and followers. Like it or not, that's what M Trudeau is up against.


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Aug 2015)

A "team" is bad when the staff are more qualified to lead than the CO and they know it.  I realize many people think it is just horrible that Harper is firmly in charge, unlike limp noodles such as Chretien, Mulroney, or Trudeau, but the other end of that spectrum is even less desirable.  Then you end up with a palace court where people spend more time jockeying for position, and the leader defending his, than they do on state business.

The slew of articles suddenly speaking out in favour of deficits is remarkably well-timed.


----------



## Remius (28 Aug 2015)

The poll tracker from Eric Grenier shows the conservatives are in danger of being relegated to third in the next series of polls.  Not the best way to start the post labour day campaign phase if it holds true. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-polls-aug28-1.3206184

I wonder, like Eric Grenier does, if the appetite for change will be tempered by the recent news of a surplus (even if spun).


----------



## Altair (29 Aug 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> A "team" is bad when the staff are more qualified to lead than the CO and they know it.  I realize many people think it is just horrible that Harper is firmly in charge, unlike limp noodles such as Chretien, Mulroney, or Trudeau, but the other end of that spectrum is even less desirable.  Then you end up with a palace court where people spend more time jockeying for position, and the leader defending his, than they do on state business.
> 
> The slew of articles suddenly speaking out in favour of deficits is remarkably well-timed.


I don't think that's the case here. The liberal party needs trudeau more than trudeau nerd the liberal party. 

This party was consistently getting demolished in elections, with every result worst than the last. Ignatieff almost destroyed the party. 

When trudeau took over the party, it was broke, it's membership numbers were abysmal and it had not big name candidates for the leadership other than garneau. If Garneau had taken over I'm sure Stephen Harper and the attack ad machine would have ripped him to shreds by now. One of the only reasons trudeau has been able to withstand the barrage of attack ads is that Canadians already sort of knew him. Garneau would have gone the way of dion  and Ignatieff as brilliant individuals but horrible leaders.

Trudeau might not be the strongest in terms of education and political experience like many on his team, but he has been the sole guy in past decade (maybe further, because I think martin also failed in this regard) who can confidently lead the party. There is nobody on his team who can usurp him, no one who can challenge him. He needs them for their brains experience and knowledge, they need him because he is the guy holding the party together.

I think that's a good balance.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Since when is having a team a bad thing? :facepalm:




Maybe, when the "team," part of it, anyway, named Rob Burton, the Mayor of Oakville, ON ( @OakvilleMayor ) goes online (on _Twitter_ at 9:18 PM - 28 Aug 2015) and compares the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, who have been hired to provide security at Conservative events, to the NAZI brownshirts ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Maybe, when the "team," part of it, anyway, named Rob Burton, the Mayor of Oakville, ON ( @OakvilleMayor ) goes online (on _Twitter_ at 9:18 PM - 28 Aug 2015) and compares the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, who have been hired to provide security at Conservative events, to the NAZI brownshirts ...


Thanks for sharing that tidbit - first I've heard of the security vets being Commissionaires, since the party's been pretty tight-lipped with the media:


> .... Conservative spokesman Kory Teneycke characterized the additional security officers as part of the party's logistical team.
> 
> "We don't comment on our event logistics, that's not something that's new," said Teneycke, who took issue with the characterization of the additional personnel as "security."
> 
> ...


As for His Worship's tweet .... :facepalm:


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2015)

For those who see a _"pinko prevert"_* in every media story ... take a look at this, from the _Calgary Sun_. There are media outlets, e.g. the _Sun_ chain and, I would_ suggest_, the _National Post_ and the _Globe and Mail_, which range from "Harper friendly," to, at least, neutral in their coverage of the prime minister and the CPC.

Every major newspaper outlet tries for a range of _opinion_: that's why e.g. NDP candidate and loony left _dingbat_ Linda McQuaig used to have a job on the _National Post_ when Conrad Black ran the paper: he wanted a resident _leftie_ to offset the general _rightward_ tilt of the paper. If you find Lawrence Martin and Jeffrey Simpson too _Liberal_ then look at the _Report on Business_ section or the frequent guest articles by e.g. Andrew MacDougall (I posted a link one, here, yesterday). The _Good Grey Globe_ also strives for editorial/content _balance_.

____
* How's that for an old, maybe obscure, pop-cultural reference?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (29 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> * How's that for an old, maybe obscure, pop-cultural reference?



You still want to stop the Vietnam war  ???  Sir, no, Sir!

That's good digging ERC.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You still want to stop the Vietnam war  ???  Sir, no, Sir!
> 
> That's good digging ERC.




I love Dr Strangelove, especially Keenan Wynn's "deviated preverts".


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Aug 2015)

>The liberal party needs trudeau more than trudeau nerd the liberal party. 

I agree his presence helped it to rebuild.  I believe, however, that but for him, they could be in first place in polls as "change".


----------



## Jed (29 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Maybe, when the "team," part of it, anyway, named Rob Burton, the Mayor of Oakville, ON ( @OakvilleMayor ) goes online (on _Twitter_ at 9:18 PM - 28 Aug 2015) and compares the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, who have been hired to provide security at Conservative events, to the NAZI brownshirts ...



And the public can put their faith in the current Liberal party that they have veterans and military personnel best interests at heart?


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2015)

The title of this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, It could backfire, but at least Liberals finally have a message to sell, defines the risk M Trudeau and his team are taking and the potential rewards, too:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/it-could-backfire-but-at-least-liberals-finally-have-a-vision-to-sell/article26155211/


> It could backfire, but at least Liberals finally have a message to sell
> 
> ADAM RADWANSKI
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




That's it: this policy is either the fuel to move M Trudeau closer to his goal of forming a government, or it's the dynamite that will blow his dreams, and him, away.

I I was a Liberal insider I would be terrified.

I would know that Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien and, now, Stephen Harper all worked hard, for most of the past 30 years, to persuade Canadians that balanced budgets, not deficit financing, are the way to go. And I agree, broadly and generally. But, contrary to the Mulroney/Chrétien/Harper mantra, deficits are not, in an of themselves, _evil_. They simply mean that we are going into debt. We, most of us, do that ourselves: some of our debts, our mortgages, for example, _might_ be (often are) _productive_ in that the asset we borrowed to buy appreciates in value by more than the cost of servicing the debt. Other debts, consumer loans, for example, are less ~ far less ~ productive. Money we borrow to finance a lavish vacation, for example, is worse then unproductive, it is counterproductive. It is similar with public debt. Money borrowed, at low interest rates, to repair and maintain e.g. water-mains and sewers is good, _productive_ debt; money borrowed to build public housing or a new hospital or a library _might_ be socially beneficial but it is, likely, economically _unproductive_. Money borrowed to pay for social programmes, including child care tax credits, is counterproductive debt.

I'm not sure that's an easy argument to make to most Canadians.

_I salute M Trudeau for being bold._    I am waiting, patiently, to see if he will advocate for good, productive debt or for counterproductive debt ... _my guess_ is that there are HUGE argument about that going on right now on the campaign busses. I also wonder if M Trudeau, himself, is the right person to sell this.  :dunno:


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Aug 2015)

Bold?  Maybe.  More truthful than I am used to hearing from a politician?  To my ears, yes.  They usually claim, balanced budgets or lower taxes for this program or that and shortly after we buy in an give them a mandate, it's like any plan after first contact.  It all goes pear shaped and we end up with deficits and higher taxes.  At least the kid is showing some candor and being more or less up front with what will happen if he gets the nod.  That, is refreshing and strange to hear coming from a politician's lips.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (29 Aug 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> At least the kid is showing some candor and being more or less up front with what will happen if he gets the nod.  That, is refreshing and strange to hear coming from a politician's lips.



Yes, but his lips are moving and you know what that means.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2015)

This Internet and (I understand) radio ad suggests, to me that M Trudeau's polls are the same as the public ones: Thomas Mulcair is in first place. Note the target: M Mulcair. Stephen Harper is only mentioned once, (at the 15 second point), in conjunction with the child benefit cheques which M Trudeau promises to cancel.

It's a good ad. I actually agree with cancelling the child benefit, but I'm still not sold on either M Trudeau or his policies, to date.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2015)

Ian Capstick, a very smart, very funny, very hard working, very professional NDP staffer has a little fun with campaign gaffes in a really funny video.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2015)

Andrew Coyne, writing in the _National Post_, is skeptical ~ as am I ~ about just what M Trudeau plans in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Canada.com_:

http://www.canada.com/business/Andrew+Coyne+Spend+that+money+Trudeau+what/11325300/story.html


> Spend all that money, Mr. Trudeau? Why and on what?
> 
> BY ANDREW COYNE, NATIONAL POST
> 
> ...




Yes, indeed, some details, please, M Trudeau (and Mr Butts). Are there going to be some useful, _productive_ projects or just pork-barrelling in Liberal ridings to counter the effects of Conservative pork-barrelling in Tory ridings?


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Aug 2015)

Here is a poll, from _EKOS_, that _might_ matter before Labour Day:

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I'm reading "Ethics and Accountability" as Duffy _et al_. I'm not exactly sure what the distinction is between Fiscal and Economic: maybe Fiscal means Taxes, Taxes and Spending, Deficits?


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Maybe, when the "team," part of it, anyway, named Rob Burton, the Mayor of Oakville, ON ( @OakvilleMayor ) goes online (on _Twitter_ at 9:18 PM - 28 Aug 2015) and compares the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, who have been hired to provide security at Conservative events, to the NAZI brownshirts ...


Some updates:
1)  Said Tweet seems to have disappeared - funny that.
2)  He's apologized:


> I apologize to all vets for my remarks. I regret any impact on their feelings or pride. I celebrate the way they went to fight for freedom.


3)  His Worship is now getting a lot of #ResignMayorBurton action in the Twittersphere.
Way to kick an "own goal" for Team Anti-Conservative, buddy.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Aug 2015)

Sadly, his Worship's "reveal" of how he really thinks isn't going to surprise anyone who pays attention to how "Progressives" think and operate. Indeed, for a lot of people, his remarks will not be seen as a bad thing at all, and they will be angry at his being "forced" to make a retraction and apology.

If you really want to use elections to "change" Canada, _there_ is one to start working on now...



> The next municipal election will be held Monday, October 22, 2018. Elections for municipal government are held every four years on the fourth Monday of October


----------



## PPCLI Guy (30 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Ian Capstick, a very smart, very funny, very hard working, very professional NDP staffer]has a little fun with campaign gaffes in a really funny video.



That was, indeed, very funny!  I have always respected his commentary - and as smart a his Dad is, he is even smarter.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Aug 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Some updates:
> 1)  Said Tweet seems to have disappeared - funny that.
> 2)  He's apologized:3)  His Worship is now getting a lot of #ResignMayorBurton action in the Twittersphere.
> Way to kick an "own goal" for Team Anti-Conservative, buddy.




I'm actually surprised at how much media attention it got. It was a silly comment by a silly man ... hardly earth shattering either in its scope or in the depths of its stupidity.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Ian Capstick, a very smart, very funny, very hard working, very professional NDP staffer has a little fun with campaign gaffes in a really funny video.



But how can one post a campaign video such as that without mention of former ministers of foreign affairs?


----------



## George Wallace (30 Aug 2015)

To appease a large segment of new arrivals to Canada, Justin Trudeau proposes scrapping the new Citizenship laws.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Trudeau campaigns in Toronto; vows to scrap Tory citizenship law
> News 1130
> NATIONAL
> by THE CANADIAN PRESS
> ...



LINK


For those of you who may be wondering what he wants to undo, here is the link to what changes were made to the Law, on 12 June 2015:

http://citizenshipcounts.ca/citizenship-act-changes


----------



## GAP (30 Aug 2015)

I wonder if it is cumulative.....Justin Trudeau just keeps giving reasons not to vote for his party.....


----------



## observor 69 (30 Aug 2015)

Stephen Lautens ‏@stephenlautens  · 60m60 minutes ago  
.@chernjones @jenditchburn Have a look at his security motorcade in last week's visit to ISIS hotbed Fredericton https://youtu.be/_KEVe6q0gZI 








   





----------



## Good2Golf (30 Aug 2015)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Stephen Lautens ‏@stephenlautens  · 60m60 minutes ago
> .@chernjones @jenditchburn Have a look at his security motorcade in last week's visit to ISIS hotbed Fredericton https://youtu.be/_KEVe6q0gZI



Holy Jeebuz! 7 vehicles...did you see that?  Police state for sure...I saw at least two cop cars and probably a few unmarked cruisers.  Crazy.  Next thing we'll see troops in the streets...with guns...oh wait, that was JT's dad...


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Aug 2015)

If I'm reading this column by the _Globe and Mail_'s Jeffrey Simpson correctly then the anti-Harper factions, the _Laurentian elites_, if you like, are worried that the "loss" of the Duffy trial for a few weeks, until after the election, will seriously benefit Prime Minister Harper and the CPC.

I expect to see a rough copy of Mr Simpson's column, albeit by someone else, every week or so in various national media outlets. _I think_ the LPC and NDP need the Duffy trial to distract voters from fiscal and economic issues, especially given a reported $28Billion gap in M Mulcair's promises and M Trudeau's $60 Billion dollar deficit promise.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Aug 2015)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Stephen Lautens ‏@stephenlautens  · 60m60 minutes ago
> .@chernjones @jenditchburn Have a look at his security motorcade in last week's visit to ISIS hotbed Fredericton https://youtu.be/_KEVe6q0gZI 



Sounds like the narrator hasn't been out of his house or had contact with the outside world for about 40 years. :

Security is not the job of the PMO, it is the job of the security services to relegate what happens, how many and what type. If they say 20 cars and 100 security pers, that's what happens.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Aug 2015)

An article in today's_Globe and Mail_ is headlined Economists cut Canada’s growth projection, casting cloud on election pledges and it says, in part: 

     "Economists are shaving their growth forecasts for 2015 ahead of a Statistics Canada report this week that is widely expected to confirm that Canada slipped into recession earlier this year.

      A new survey of 16 economists conducted this month by Consensus Economics shows the economy is only expected to grow by 1.1 per cent this year, which is down from the two-per-cent growth the federal government expected when it released its April budget.

      Statistics Canada will release its Gross Domestic Product figures Tuesday for June, closing out the second quarter of the calendar year. The release is sure to have an immediate impact on the federal election campaign, where economic management is shaping up
      as a key point of debate between party leaders. It is also likely to impact the discussion over Ottawa’s bottom line as both the Conservatives and NDP are promising surpluses while the Liberals say they would fund major infrastructure spending through
      short-term deficits."

But, the article goes on to state that: "While there has been a considerable drop in the forecast for 2015, the consensus projection for economic growth in 2016 is still roughly in line with the assumptions in the budget."

It _seems to me_ that this is a golden opportunity for the CPC to "change the channel" (away from the Duffy scandal and the PM's 'integrity') back to "safe" ground: the economy and Canadian's fear for their own financial security.

_I think_ that the campaign should say ...

                                                        
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





And it should ask Canadians who they want "at the helm" in a storm?

                             
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




_I believe_ the campaign can (and should) make the case that the economic headwinds are global: think _Eurozone_ and China and Canada is being "sideswiped" by "events" rather then being damaged by government policy. The campaign can (and should) say that Prime Minister Harper/the CPC plans to _stimulate_ the economy with some good, solid, useful (job saving) infrastructure "investment" but, unlike M Trudeau, will not run the budget into the red. Canadians may not like Stephen Harper but they can be persuaded that he is the _better _choice, amongst the three, for difficult times.


----------



## TwoTonShackle (31 Aug 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Canadians may not like Stephen Harper but they can be persuaded that he is the _better _choice, amongst the three, for difficult times.



Unfortunately I don't think there is anything that can be done to persuade Canadians that Harper is the better solution.  With the changes in some of the polls, I think the more center viewing Conservatives are leaning towards the Liberals due to the fear of an NDP government.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Aug 2015)

TwoTonShackle said:
			
		

> Unfortunately I don't think there is anything that can be done to persuade Canadians that Harper is the better solution.  With the changes in some of the polls, I think the more center viewing Conservatives are leaning towards the Liberals due to the fear of an NDP government.




That's certainly a possibility, but this a a very, very _loooooong_ campaign and the CPC has both the time and the money to persuade Canadians ...

_I think_ the Just Not Ready notion has taken hold, even favourable accounts of M Trudeau's policies and campaign performance regularly mention that he is fighting back against the fairly general perception that he lacks "bottom." The argument against bloth M Trudeau and M Mulcair can be made in two words: big deficits.

This economic crisis may not last all that long, but the CPC shoud exploit it while it's here.


----------



## C-Aitchison (31 Aug 2015)

New Liberal branding to engage young voters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKIfJgAyQIo

We're being branded as #GenerationTrudeau. As much as I am a university student who supports the liberals, (I'm a VP of our Young Liberals Campus Club), I'm not a huge fan of this branding.

http://www.generationtrudeau.ca/


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Aug 2015)

TwoTonShackle said:
			
		

> Unfortunately I don't think there is anything that can be done to persuade Canadians that Harper is the better solution.  With the changes in some of the polls, I think the more center viewing Conservatives are leaning towards the Liberals due to the fear of an NDP government.



...or...some red tories may actually have more faith in M. Mulcair to control his left flank and run a more disciplined centrist (although left of CPC) approach than what Gerald Butts Justin Trudeau is proposing...


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Aug 2015)

Heard some moaning a while ago about Pension Plans and how Canada's is crap.... or some such thing

Maybe not.

How about #7 in the world?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/11209273/Ten-countries-with-the-worlds-best-pension-systems.html?frame=1530690



> according to the latest Mercer index.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Aug 2015)

Much of the commentary regarding the Liberals' deficit-funded infrastructure plan is muddling two ideas.

1) Deficits taken on in order to increase spending in order to stimulate economic growth.  The article by Stephen Gorden I linked earlier explains why this works poorly in Canada, if at all:

"An increase in government spending induces an exchange rate appreciation and the resulting decrease in net exports offsets the original stimulus. The only effect of higher government spending is to displace private spending.

To be sure, this is only theory, but it’s the same theory that says fiscal policy would be effective in the U.S. and in eurozone countries. Moreover, the available data fit the theory. The Chrétien-era budget cuts produced an increase in the primary budget balance (that is, before debt service charges) by more than four percentage points of GDP in the space of three years — on the order of the austerity currently expected of Greece. But while the consensus of opinion is that this level of budgetary rigour will be disastrously costly for Greece, Canada’s economy emerged from the 1990s austerity years almost unscathed. The proximate explanation is our flexible exchange rate: the Canadian dollar depreciated and the resulting export boom offset the decline in public spending. It works the other way, of course: there’s at least one cross-country statistical study that I’m aware of that finds that the net effect of an increase in Canadian government spending during the period 1980-2001 was to reduce GDP."

He also points out that it's a solution for a different problem (demand shortfall).  The current "recession" is driven by a slump in commodity prices.

Several people have noted that none of the funding could possibly roll out in time to deal with the current "recession".

Additional irony: once again, Wynne is backing the player and policy that is wrong for export-driven manufacturing in ON (higher spending -> higher dollar).

2) Deficits taken on to fund something in particular - in this case, "infrastructure", preferably productivity-enhancing infrastructure.  Social housing and senior's centres don't fit that description.  Public transit fits provided it does not include rail (plenty of literature exists which shows that rail transit is a "gift" that sucks funding out of other transit).  "Green" energy infrastructure fits only if it excludes subsidies; again, plenty of examples exist to show that companies simply structure themselves to be profitable with subsidies and fold without them.

Basically, "stimulus" is a dead idea and the people talking about it as if it matters are clueless.  The Liberal platform can only be evaluated in terms of whether projects genuinely qualify as investments to increase productivity.  If not, then all the spending does is buy more stuff that has to be maintained at the expense of other infrastructure and increase the debt.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ... The Liberal platform can only be evaluated in terms of whether projects genuinely qualify as investments to increase productivity.  If not, then all the spending does is buy more stuff that has to be maintained at the expense of other infrastructure and increase the debt.




This is the key to it all; _stimulus_ spending must: _*1)*_ be a _productive_ investment which disqualifies most of the projects most people want; and _*2)*_ include the costs of maintaining that system over its service life, if one is going to build, for example, a new rapid transit system in, say, Ottawa or Calgary. (But you can (as an accounting exercise) "deduct" from "maintenance"costs of new mass/rapid transit the "costs" that would, otherwise, have been incurred, for more and more and more road construction and maintenance to move the same people to and fro, but you are picking the fly-shit out of the pepper.) The point is: repairing sewers and water-mains is "good," but unglamorous and, therefore, politically unpopular, but building new social housing or arenas is "bad" but very popular.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2015)

This ad should resonate in one of the two "must win" battlegrounds for the Conservatives: suburban Toronto and _small city/town_ Ontario (the other is in BC).

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          (Remember, please, that I am a Conservative partisan ~ not a firm _"never anyone but a Tory"_ sort of partisan but, in this time I could not support the NDP,
           despite my respect for M Mulcair and Paul Dewar, my own MP, or the Liberals, despite my respect for some of that parry's members and (incomplete) policy
           proposals) ~ I try to comment with reasonable "fairness" but I'm not offering "unbiased" political analysis. I am planning to vote Conservative, despite the fact
           that I disagree with about half of the CPC's policies and past decisions, because I cannot see a "less bad" alternative.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Much of the commentary regarding the Liberals' deficit-funded infrastructure plan is muddling two ideas.
> 
> 1) Deficits taken on in order to increase spending in order to stimulate economic growth.  The article by Stephen Gorden I linked earlier explains why this works poorly in Canada, if at all:
> 
> ...




The _left_ish counterpoint (almost _Marxist_ some might say) is found in this opinion piece, in the _Globe and Mail_, by Prof Marc Lavoie. Prof Lavoie appears to believe that almost any spending, including social _transfers_, qualifies as acceptable stimulus and that some stimulus is need whenever the private sector tightens its belt, however briefly. You will not be surprised to learn that I disagree ... but many, especially young people, accept his notion ... until they become taxpayers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2015)

It's still a week ~ "a long time in politics" ~ until Labour Day so this poll doesn't really much matter, either ... unless it portends something:

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



          Source:  http://abacusdata.ca/race-narrows-as-ndp-support-dips/

The headline for this _ABACUS Data_ item, datelined 31 Aug 15, is: Race narrows as NDP support dips

The piece also has a table showing regional trends:

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




The NDP's lead in Quebec is solid and substantial, good, at a _guess_, for 50 or even 60 of Quebec's 78 seats (let's say 55, just for the sake of argument). The Liberals have an equally solid lead in Atlantic Canada, good, at another _guess_, for 15 to, even, 25 of the 32 seats there (say 20). The Conservatives lead is in the Prairies and, yet another _guess_, it's good for 40 to 60 of the 62 seats there (say 50). BC and ON are the battlegrounds; they have 163 seats. If they split evenly (54 each) that would mean that we might have this:

CPC:   104 )
LPC:    74  }  of 273 seats ~ the winner will be whoever gets enough of the remaining 65 seats.
NDP:  109  )

Based on _ABACUS Data_'s numbers, a week ahead of Labour Day, and seven weeks ahead of the election: either the NDP or CPC will for the government; a majority is very unlikely; and the Liberals will remain the third party, but with more seats than in the last go-round.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2015)

In the article just above, _ABACUS Data_ says that 70% of Canadians are _undecided_, but in another article, this time in the _Globe and Mail_ the _guesstimate_ is that half of Canadians are undecided.

Let's, for argument's sake, put the _split_ at 60/40 (undecided/decided).

The issue, as _ABACUS_ says is "room for growth." _ABACUS_ says available "growth" space is:

CPC:   42% )
LPC:   55% } that would seem to favour an NDP victory: a minority government with, say, 120 to 140 seats; a CPC opposition with 110 to 130 seats; and the LPC in third with 60 to 80 seats.
NDP:  62% )


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Sep 2015)

I would still put a Buck and a Half on the CPC holding on.

I don't think many of the CPC 42% are likely to switch to LPC or NDP when push comes to shove.  The biggest danger to the CPC cause is:"a pox on all their houses - what did you think of that turkey?"

There is still power in incumbency (not least the rule book that MacKenzie King exploited) and there is the "vote efficiency" issue, you regularly point out.

Meanwhile the Liberals and the NDP are making it harder for their voters, in particular the "foam at the mouth ABC voter", to decide whether to switch from Red to Orange.  And Mulcair is actually alienating some of his base by not being sufficiently Corbynite (hard left dogmatic). Finally their vote is less geographically efficient.

Harper at the post.


----------



## McG (1 Sep 2015)

I find Mr Trudeau comes across as an orange Liberal ... he may even be better fit for the NDP but ended up in the family party because of his name.  On the other hand, Mr Mulcair is a red to blue NDPer, and I have read a few commentaries about some of the party's base not being happy about it.  It is like the two parties stole each other’s leader.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (1 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> I find Mr Trudeau comes across as an orange Liberal ... he may even be better fit for the NDP but ended up in the family party because of his name.  On the other hand, Mr Mulcair is a red to blue NDPer, and I have read a few commentaries about some of the party's base not being happy about it.  It is like the two parties stole each other’s leader.



I was speaking with the missus about this just the other day!  We both agreed that JT and TM should probably flip houses ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> I find Mr Trudeau comes across as an orange Liberal ... he may even be better fit for the NDP but ended up in the family party because of his name.  On the other hand, Mr Mulcair is a red to blue NDPer, and I have read a few commentaries about some of the party's base not being happy about it.  It is like the two parties stole each other’s leader.



Actually JT is following in PET's footsteps, exactly.  Daddy was and NDPer before he jumped ship to the Liberals.  

PET - Catholic: Corporatist: Communist: Socialist: NDP: Liberal.


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Sep 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Actually JT is following in PET's footsteps, exactly.  Daddy was and NDPer before he jumped ship to the Liberals.
> 
> PET - Catholic: Corporatist: Communist: Socialist: NDP: Liberal.



Sometimes I think JT is a seventies throwback minus the bellbottoms and Fu Manchu moustache.


----------



## George Wallace (1 Sep 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Sometimes I think JT is a seventies throwback minus the bellbottoms and Fu Manchu moustache.



.....and the charisma.  He definitely does not have the flair of the elder.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> I find Mr Trudeau comes across as an orange Liberal ... he may even be better fit for the NDP but ended up in the family party because of his name.  On the other hand, Mr Mulcair is a red to blue NDPer, and I have read a few commentaries about some of the party's base not being happy about it.  It is like the two parties stole each other’s leader.



_I think_ that's exactly right and _I suspect_ it's intentional; _I believe_ that Gerald Butts is following the Kathleen Wynne playbook from the last Ontario general election: 

     First: Demonize and then isolate Harper on the right, as was done to Hudak, so that right leaning voters are not inclined to go there; and

     Then: Outflank Mulcair on the left, as was done to Horwath, and "come up the middle," especially in the suburbs around Toronto.

The problem, _it seems to me_, is that it's not working ~ at least it's not working yet, and/or it 's not working well enough. In a column in _MacLean's_ Paul Wells suggests, based on the new _ABACUS Data_ that M Trudeau is paralleling Stéphane Dion's performance levels in 2008. Although that was better than Ignatieff's in 2011, it is unlikely to lift him out of third place if the CPC and NDP split most of the vote and seats.


----------



## Remius (1 Sep 2015)

Nanos poll, likely the last one before labour day weekend. 

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/nanos-on-the-numbers/major-parties-still-tied-month-into-campaign-nanos-poll-1.2542268

Pretty much where all the paries were when this all started.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If I'm reading this column by the _Globe and Mail_'s Jeffrey Simpson correctly then the anti-Harper factions, the _Laurentian elites_, if you like, are worried that the "loss" of the Duffy trial for a few weeks, until after the election, will seriously benefit Prime Minister Harper and the CPC.
> 
> I expect to see a rough copy of Mr Simpson's column, albeit by someone else, every week or so in various national media outlets. _I think_ the LPC and NDP need the Duffy trial to distract voters from fiscal and economic issues, especially given a reported $28Billion gap in M Mulcair's promises and M Trudeau's $60 Billion dollar deficit promise.




I was wrong ...

I said a version of this would reappear every week or so; make that every couple of days: as with this, from Lawrence Martin in the _Globe and Mail_.

It's the same story ~ _Duffy is the issue, folks, not economics_ ~ being spun by the same gang now that the Duffy trial is in recess until after the election.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> I find Mr Trudeau comes across as an orange Liberal ... he may even be better fit for the NDP but ended up in the family party because of his name.  On the other hand, Mr Mulcair is a red to blue NDPer, and I have read a few commentaries about some of the party's base not being happy about it.  It is like the two parties stole each other’s leader.



For the win. This should have been apparent to the media for a long time (the one time I saw the Young Dauphin, he gave an uninspiring speech that was essentially a stringing together of leftist tropes). Once you redact the "foot in mouth" unscripted moments, I see his advisors and speech writers have certainly pushed the leftist tropes all along.

Perhaps this "overlooking" of the obvious is more a reflection of the values of the "Laurentian Elites" than anything else.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I was wrong ...
> 
> I said a version of this would reappear every week or so; make that every couple of days: as with this, from Lawrence Martin in the _Globe and Mail_.
> 
> It's the same story ~ _Duffy is the issue, folks, not economics_ ~ being spun by the same gang now that the Duffy trial is in recess until after the election.



I have a very clear recollection of a documentary on the coverage of the 2004 election which Harper lost over some abortion related comments made by some of his members which (to my mind) he fielded effectively.  In the documentary, standing beside Harper's campaign bus, Simpson, Martin and some other reporter were recorded effectively saying that Harper had fielded the ball and how were they going to spin it to make news out of it.

I can't seem to lay my hands on that documentary but ever since I have had zero respect for both of those two gentlemen.  They are proselytizers.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Sep 2015)

>Duffy is the issue, folks, not economics

And with a helpful tug in the direction of Watergate, the knob is right away turned up to 11.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Sep 2015)

Too bad people are not looking at the "reporters" jumping up and down screaming "pay attention! pay attention!" but are looking at the economy.

My own pocketbook is much more important to me than Duffy's, and at least _he_ isn't promising to reach into my wallet, unlike the Young Dauphin (or indirectly Mr Mulcair, or even to a certain extent the Prime Minister....)


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Too bad people are not looking at the "reporters" jumping up and down screaming "pay attention! pay attention!" but are looking at the economy.
> 
> My own pocketbook is much more important to me than Duffy's, and at least _he_ isn't promising to reach into my wallet, unlike the Young Dauphin (or indirectly Mr Mulcair, or _even to a certain extent the Prime Minister..._.)




Don't forget that Prime Minister Harper/the Conservative Party has promised billions of dollars in infrastructure renewal (generally a good thing), public transit (also, generally, defensible) and other less _productive_ "goodies."


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2015)

I have frequently said that M Trudeau's road to 24 Sussex Drive, even to Stornoway, runs through Quebec where he must defeat M Mulcair's NDP.

A new story, from the _Montreal Gazette_ via _Canada.com_ suggests that he's struggling, even in Montreal, proper.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have frequently said that M Trudeau's road to 24 Sussex Drive, even to Stornoway, runs through Quebec where he must defeat M Mulcair's NDP.
> 
> A new story, from the _Montreal Gazette_ via _Canada.com_ suggests that he's struggling, even in Montreal, proper.



The Liberal Party of Canada just can't seem to come to terms with the fact that the Canada that elected Jean Chrétien is not the same Canada today.  They keep looking for a white knight to lead them to victory but it isn't going to happen until they get their policy house in order.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (2 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have frequently said that M Trudeau's road to 24 Sussex Drive, even to Stornoway, runs through Quebec where he must defeat M Mulcair's NDP.
> 
> A new story, from the _Montreal Gazette_ via _Canada.com_ suggests that he's struggling, even in Montreal, proper.



I always find it interesting that no one questions the vast support of the NDP and Liberals in Quebec or Ontario (including 1 x BQ seperatist member of parliament joining the NDP) int he same manner that they question the support of the conservatives in the west. Based on the overwhelming boost that Quebec has given the NDP (without a quebec sweep last election there is little to no chance the NDP is close to an election victory) one has to wonder what sort of promises that the NDP will need to make to keep that support.

To be honest, I can see a NDP majority government having a repeat of the PC split in the early 1990s. At this time they seem split between their quebec MPs, the traditional left of centre base, and the leadership pulling them into the centre. Tom Mulclair appears to have the ability to keep it together for the time being, but for how long? How many of the left leaning MPs will stay on course if the budget is balanced at the expense of social programs? How many quebec MPs stay if Quebec isnt given priority?


----------



## Remius (2 Sep 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> To be honest, I can see a NDP majority government having a repeat of the PC split in the early 1990s. At this time they seem split between their quebec MPs, the traditional left of centre base, and the leadership pulling them into the centre. Tom Mulclair appears to have the ability to keep it together for the time being, but for how long? How many of the left leaning MPs will stay on course if the budget is balanced at the expense of social programs? How many quebec MPs stay if Quebec isnt given priority?



They likely will but probably after the election and if they win, maybe not until they are subsequently defeated.  They have never been this close to the top, so much so that they can smell it.  They'll keep it together because they want that power at all costs.  So while there are rumblings we'll likely see a party split on doctrinal lines happen after the election one way or the other.


----------



## Remius (2 Sep 2015)

Another intersting article from Eric Grenier and how important a role BC might play in the upcoming election.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-bc-sep1-1.3211266

I'm not sure I agree but given when the polls close and how tight the race might be he may be on to something.  A lot of other factors though between then and now.  Will be intersting to se if BC becomes the king maker.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have frequently said that M Trudeau's road to 24 Sussex Drive, even to Stornoway, runs through Quebec where he must defeat M Mulcair's NDP.
> 
> A new story, from the _Montreal Gazette_ via _Canada.com_ suggests that he's struggling, even in Montreal, proper.



It would definitely be a schadenfreude moment, for a large number of people, if he lost his own riding.


----------



## kratz (2 Sep 2015)

[quote author=RoyalDrew]
The Liberal Party of Canada just can't seem to come to terms with the fact that the Canada that elected Jean Chrétien is not the same Canada today.  They keep looking for a white knight to lead them to victory but it isn't going to happen until they get their policy house in order.
[/quote]

I agree. My vote is wide open, but M. Trudeau is not winning me over. The CPC could save it's attack ad budget at this point.


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Sep 2015)

If anyone's interested in trying it out, CBC has a vote compass on it's website to try out.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vote-compass-2015-canada-election-1.3204489


----------



## ballz (2 Sep 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If anyone's interested in trying it out, CBC has a vote compass on it's website to try out.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vote-compass-2015-canada-election-1.3204489



I always enjoy them, I think I particularly confused that one as it only has the 5 main parties, doesn't let you put a value on how important each question is to you, and seems to just go by left - right spectrum.

This one has been going around for a while and I believe it has all registered parties on it. https://canada.isidewith.com/political-quiz


----------



## a_majoor (2 Sep 2015)

I recall the last CBC "election compass" which somehow would point to Liberal regardless of how you answered. No bias here, no siree....


----------



## cavalryman (2 Sep 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I recall the last CBC "election compass" which somehow would point to Liberal regardless of how you answered. No bias here, no siree....


This one put me to the right of the CPC on most issues so I'd say it's not as biased as last time :nod:


----------



## Scott (2 Sep 2015)

Agreed. This compass seems fine. The isidewith thingie seemed effect up...to me.


----------



## CougarKing (3 Sep 2015)

Wow, just wow. Trudeau really is averse to balancing the budget!  :-\

Globe and Mail



> *Liberals vow to get rid of balanced-budget law to clear way for stimulus*
> 
> Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are planning, if elected, to scrap a law entrenching federal balanced budgets in order to run deficits to finance a spike in infrastructure spending.
> 
> ...


----------



## McG (3 Sep 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> E.R. Campbell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Given that we have established Mr Mulcair as a better fit for leader of the Liberals that of his own party, and that objections to coalitions really seemed to have revolved around one leader not wanting to work with the other  ...   would a leaderless Liberal caucus be more inclined to fall-in behind the leadership of Mr Mulcair for a coalition government?


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Sep 2015)

ballz said:
			
		

> .... doesn't let you put a value on how important each question is to you, and seems to just go by left - right spectrum ....


This one lets you adjust weighting once you've answered all the questions.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have frequently said that M Trudeau's road to 24 Sussex Drive, even to Stornoway, runs through Quebec where he must defeat M Mulcair's NDP.
> 
> A new story, from the _Montreal Gazette_ via _Canada.com_ suggests that he's struggling, even in Montreal, proper.




Further: David Akin, who is not one of the media _Harper Haters™_, suggests, in an article in the _Toronto Sun_, that "Trudeau aims at austerity-loving Thatcher fan Mulcair."

The article says, "Thomas Mulcair and the NDP now have the undivided attention of the Liberal war room attack machine ... Once, when he was a cabinet minister in the Quebec Liberal government of Jean Charest, Thomas Mulcair said he admired some of the policies of that matron of the global conservative movement, former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher. Asked recently about his endorsement of the anti-union Thatcher, Mulcair did not back away but coloured it slightly differently." and "... the Liberals apparently need something to weaken surprisingly resilient support for the NDP in two parts of the country Liberals absolutely must dominate to have any hope to form government, downtown Montreal and downtown Toronto."


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Sep 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Wow, just wow. Trudeau really is averse to balancing the budget!  :-\



He is not against balancing the budget - rather he is disavowing the national fetish for surpluses, even when economic conditions suggest otherwise - and he is at least being honest about it


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> _He is not against balancing the budget_ - rather he is disavowing the national fetish for surpluses, even when economic conditions suggest otherwise - and _he is at least being honest about it_




Both are true, in so far as they go, and I (as I have done several times) applaud M Trudeau for his boldness and honesty ... *BUT*:

     1. He's following the Premier Wynne script which means that ⅔ of his proposed _stimulus_ spending (on "social" and "green" projects) will be (I am 98% certain) wasteful and even counter-productive; and

     2. Both "social" and "green" projects are very likely to actualy create new debt/spending problems for lower orders of government ~ the provinces and municipalities by adding un-budgeted maintenance costs to their books.

In short: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 M Trudeau for being bold and honest, but 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 for adopting a deeply flawed model.


----------



## Remius (3 Sep 2015)

So Chris Alexander is suspending his campaign for now.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-alexander-refugee-crisis-1.3213869

I watched him on tv yesterday on power and politics and his performance there was...well wasn't what it should have been.  He struggled, especialy when he was pressed and Paul Dewar kept lambasting him rather effectively and he contradicted himself too.  

There could be any number of reasons why he's suspending his campaign but I suspect they need him to be quiet for a bit.  

I'm curious if, given the length of the campaign if we'll see slip ups due to fatigue and what not.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Sep 2015)

Paul Dewar is a highly intelligent, worthy adversary.  Tom Mulcair has, for all the young padawans in the caucus, some solid players whom others would be quite wrong to underestimate -- Dewar is one.  That Chris Alexander is feeling the pressure is interesting.  I'm waiting to see Mr. Dewar lock sights on the CPC's energizer bunney, Jason Kenney...


----------



## MARS (3 Sep 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> So Chris Alexander is suspending his campaign for now.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-alexander-refugee-crisis-1.3213869
> 
> ...



Yeah, Rosemary Barton gave him a (well deserved, IMHO) kick in the nuts yesterday.

While there certainly _could_ have been (and continue to be) more coverage of Syria, I am unsure our limited participation in it and the limited effects it has on Canada would justify it in the Canadian media.  What Chris Alexander was trying to say was that the media wasn't covering it as a safety/security issue - thus not covering it in a way which fits the CPC narrative.

Sorry buds, you can't just throw up a campaign slogan on the side of your campaign bus and expect apathetic voters to buy it.  You are going to have to work for it.


----------



## Remius (3 Sep 2015)

I should note though, that Mr. Alexander wasn't looking too healthy either.


----------



## Poppa (3 Sep 2015)

Could it be that he is doing his job as the current Minister? And not hiding?


----------



## Remius (3 Sep 2015)

Poppa said:
			
		

> Could it be that he is doing his job as the current Minister? And not hiding?



It is unlikely he would have announced a suspension of his campaign for that.  They would have touted that to their advantage.  And his campaign would still roll on with his volunteers etc.   

UPDATE: The article added the following "Alexander cancelled a Thursday morning media appearance and is returning to Ottawa to focus on his ministerial responsibilities"

So maybe...just seems odd that his campaign would stop.


----------



## Remius (3 Sep 2015)

More details here.  It seems he his focusing on his ministerial duties as surmised by Poppa.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/immigration-minister-halts-campaign-to-address-refugee-crisis-1.2545919

The optics and the story behind this are not good though.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2015)

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, Jeffrey Simpson asks a very good question: "What happened to the Liberals’ francophone foundation?"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/what-happened-to-the-liberals-francophone-foundation/article26195459/


> What happened to the Liberals’ francophone foundation?
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Mr Simpson answers his own question, in part, with two names: Brian Mulroney and _"Le Bon Jack"_ Layton. Both were extremely effective in French speaking Canada, Jack Layton even unseated (nearly annihilated) the _separatist_ BQ in2011.

But there's more: older, rural voters, of both _Anglo_ and _Franco_ heritage, tend to have more _conservative_ social values, and the Conservatives, starting with Brian Mulroney, but especially under prime Minister Harper, have appealed to those values more than did/do the Liberals. 

Further, the Liberals and NDP are, too often, using the same points to try to counter the CPC: that confuses the voters who, generally, want three clear choices.

Language is a dying issue in rural regions: young people are leaving the farm (as they always have) and they are moving into the city. Farms will, slowly but surely, consolidate ... there will be fewer and fewer family farms, especially _Franco_ family farms. Franco small towns, like Orleans, East of Ottawa, have changed. Orleans, for example, is no longer a small, predominantly French-Catholic town; it's a big, polyglot suburb with a wide range of "issues," French language rights being just one amongst many.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> More details here.  It seems he his focusing on his ministerial duties as surmised by Poppa.
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/immigration-minister-halts-campaign-to-address-refugee-crisis-1.2545919
> 
> The optics and the story behind this are not good though.



I don't want to sound cruel, but I do need to restate my views on refugees vs immigrants and the better way forward:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Refugees are, by definition, people who are:
> 
> 1. Fleeing their home in fear of life or limb; _*and*_
> 
> ...



In short, as much as this picture pains me, personally, too ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




        ... and as much as I am glad that the government wants to "do something," _I am afraid_ that we, Canada, under pressure from our friends and neighbours and the media, will do the wrong thing, rather than taking
             a leadership role in helping the Arabs to find a solution to Syria, military, _I guess_,* and helping some Arabs, especially Jordan to better manage the Syrian refugees.

____
* The US led West can, with minimal effort, invade Syria, topple and hang Assad, deal a series of smashing military blows to IS** and then leave, and leave the Arabs to clean up the mess. There will be all manner of "do gooders" (from the political left, centre and right) screaming _"You broke it, you fix it!"_ but the correct answer tol that is silence, during the rapid withdrawal and nearly total from the region. There is nothing that we, the West, can do to "fix" the Middle East; only the people there, Arabs, Persians and Israelis, can do that, and they may have to have another generation (or two) of war ~ small or large wars, doesn't matter ~ to manage the "fix," whatever it is. What we, the US led West, can do is to _simplify_ the problem:


                                                                                                  _Simplifying a problem_







                                                                                                   _This way    or     that way_


----------



## George Wallace (3 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ____
> * The US led West can, with minimal effort, invade Syria, topple and hang Assad, deal a series of smashing military blows to IS** and then leave, and leave the Arabs to clean up the mess. There will be all manner of "do gooders" (from the political left, centre and right) screaming _"You broke it, you fix it!"_ but the correct answer tol that is silence, during the rapid withdrawal and nearly total from the region. There is nothing that we, the West, can do to "fix" the Middle East; only the people there, Arabs, Persians and Israelis, can do that, and they may have to have another generation (or two) of war ~ small or large wars, doesn't matter ~ to manage the "fix," whatever it is. What we, the US led West, can do is to _simplify_ the problem:



We in the WEST have become too weak riding on our laurels.  We are too soft and that will lead to our demise.  Your suggestion is a very reasonable solution.  A US led invasion, with hundreds of thousands of WESTERN troops on the ground would advance and create the "SAFE HAVENS" behind them, as they advance, where the "refugees" could return to their native lands.  Of course that would mean that what we see now in Europe are indeed refugees and not migrants.

A few RCAF personnel and fighters will not achieve this.  Do we have any real Statesmen left in our parliament, and those Governments in our allied Western nations, that have the 'balls' to mount such an invasion to eradicate the IS threat?  It does not look like it.  Nor does it look like the soft population of our nation and those of our allied Western nations have the courage to agree to such an action.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2015)

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, Andrew Coyne discusses the possibilities ~ _constitutional_ possibilities, _conventional_ possibilities, _tactical_ political possibilities ~ after the election:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/andrew+coyne+just+election+results+that+impossible+predict+what/11336244/story.html


> img]http://cfl.uploads.mrx.ca/ott/images/general/2014/07/crop_20562474919.jpg[/img]
> It isn’t just the election results that are impossible to predict — it’s what happens after
> 
> ANDREW COYNE  09.02.2015
> ...




One factor Mr Coyne ignores is that if Prime Minister harper holds on to power and is, fairly quickly, defeated in the HoC he will demand an election (remember the "King Byng Thing") because the CPC, unlike the LPC and NDP will still have a sizeable "war chest" available to mount a big, aggressive campaign while the others will, very likely, be in financial distress.


----------



## Lumber (3 Sep 2015)

I don't know if this will actually contribute to anything anyone has said, but anyways...

Something that has really furstrated me about this election (and about average joe Canadian in general) is how blind to reality the anti-Harper/anti-CPC front seems to be. Their rhetoric is so strong and so full of conviction that I can't help but think that they believe that all Canadians are with them in their hate for Harper. They always speak about the change that is coming and that "Haper is going to get his", and many more of what they say can be down right violent.

Do they not pay attention to the polls and news? Do they not see that the CPC still has a very large support base, and can very likely win the next election? They don't speak on behalf of all Canadians. A lot of people supported some of Harper's most controversial bills (C-51 anyone?). Futhermore, I can't stand how much they de-huminize him (and any other politician for that matter). The worst ones have actually advocated killing him (seen it many time) to solve Canada's "Harper problem". Come on! The guy is a husband, a farther and  Canadian. You may not like his policies, but he's not Pol Pot!

Anyone else find this annoying?

FYI this is a non-partisan post; on all of the political/vote compasses I consistently get the CPC as the furthest away from my political views.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Sep 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I don't know if this will actually contribute to anything anyone has said, but anyways...
> 
> Something that has really furstrated me about this election (and about average joe Canadian in general) is how blind to reality the anti-Harper/anti-CPC front seems to be. Their rhetoric is so strong and so full of conviction that I can't help but think that they believe that all Canadians are with them in their hate for Harper. They always speak about the change that is coming and that "Haper is going to get his", and many more of what they say can be down right violent.
> 
> ...



Lumber - I don't share your politics but I do share your views on discourse.

This whole environment where discourse is fuelled by bringing the mob to a boil, and then trying to keep it there without having the lid blow off entirely, is not healthy.

Heat does not lend clarity.  And there is no country, or cause, or party that can claim to be free  of guilt on this one.

Everyone has adopted the Gramsci-Alinsky school of campaigning.


----------



## Kilo_302 (3 Sep 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I don't know if this will actually contribute to anything anyone has said, but anyways...
> 
> Something that has really furstrated me about this election (and about average joe Canadian in general) is how blind to reality the anti-Harper/anti-CPC front seems to be. Their rhetoric is so strong and so full of conviction that I can't help but think that they believe that all Canadians are with them in their hate for Harper. They always speak about the change that is coming and that "Haper is going to get his", and many more of what they say can be down right violent.
> 
> ...



I think part of this "heated" nature of criticisms of the current government is that they are largely, a nasty bunch of people. They have demonstrated that they are overly vindictive and bent on pursuing policies that often seem to make little sense. Even traditional Tories are beginning to chime in. Take Allan Gregg's recent attacks for example:

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/djclimenhaga/2013/04/former-tory-strategist-allan-gregg-rips-harper-cons-systematic-a#at_pco=smlrebv-1.0&at_si=55e8669f983999ac&at_ab=per-3&at_pos=2&at_tot=5



> Alas, as Gregg told the 500 or so trade unionists at the AFL conference, "it seems as though our government's use of evidence and facts as the basis of policy is declining, and in their place, dogma, whim and political expediency are on the rise."
> 
> He added: "Even more troubling, especially from the perspective of a public opinion researcher, is that Canadians seem to be, if not buying it, certainly accepting it."
> 
> ...


----------



## Altair (3 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, Andrew Coyne discusses the possibilities ~ _constitutional_ possibilities, _conventional_ possibilities, _tactical_ political possibilities ~ after the election:
> 
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/andrew+coyne+just+election+results+that+impossible+predict+what/11336244/story.html
> 
> One factor Mr Coyne ignores is that if Prime Minister harper holds on to power and is, fairly quickly, defeated in the HoC he will demand an election (remember the "King Byng Thing") because the CPC, unlike the LPC and NDP will still have a sizeable "war chest" available to mount a big, aggressive campaign while the others will, very likely, be in financial distress.


War chest won't save him then.

Just like when Canadians were disgusted with the Liberal-bloc-ndp coalition trying to topple harper and appoint dion, the losing liberal guy who was stepping down, as PM. 

 Seems to go against our sense of fair play, and would feed the anti democracy, doesn't play by the rules sentiment that already exists regarding the conservative party. Voters would literally kill one of the two left leaning parties to make sure the other got a majority. 

No amount of money would save the conservatives from the rage of Canadians,  same as back in 2008 when the liberal support dropped off dramatically after trying to oust harper when his party had the most seats.

I think Canadians expect that the guy with the party that has the  most seats to become prime minister, not the guy who comes in second.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> * The US led West can, with minimal effort, invade Syria, topple and hang Assad, deal a series of smashing military blows to IS** and then leave, and leave the Arabs to clean up the mess. There will be all manner of "do gooders" (from the political left, centre and right) screaming _"You broke it, you fix it!"_ but the correct answer tol that is silence, during the rapid withdrawal and nearly total from the region. *There is nothing that we, the West, can do to "fix" the Middle East*; only the people there, Arabs, Persians and Israelis, can do that, and they may have to have another generation (or two) of war ~ small or large wars, doesn't matter ~ to manage the "fix," whatever it is.



I understand your reasoning, and I've written in support of it in the past but the reality of the situation gives me pause.

In general I accept the isolation/containment philosophy.  And I can agree that we can't "fix" the Middle East/Islam/Developing World....

But we can move the Centre of Gravity back towards the Middle East.  I have previously argued the need for "safe havens" to be locally established in the crisis region.  This implies an enduring presence - neo-colonialism if you will.

No fan of the UN I am, however, quite willing to use whatever fig leaves (or laurels as the case may be) to give cover to solving problems.

I agree that we can depose Assad.  And we should.  But we can't be under any illusion that that would solve the refugee crisis.  Many of the people currently in Hungary are not Syrians - they are coming from as far east as Pakistan.  The people coming into Spain and Italy are from Morocco and the Sudan.

We should eliminate Assad's regime.  We absolutely should eliminate ISIL/ISIS.   But we need to back the clock up.  We need to re-establish havens of Western Values in North Africa and the Middle East.    We need to establish Free Ports (Shanghai-Calcutta-Singapore model).  We need to establish UN mandates (Syria-Palestine) model.  And this time we need to be prepared to defend and manage those refuges to the betterment of the locals and ourselves.

In all the hand-wringing about colonialism there is this inconvenient truth forgotten - many colonial subjects sided with the westerners, so much so that at the earliest opportunity they moved west.  And their grand children are still moving west.

I was reading the other day of yet another outrage in India - a village council had decided that fit punishment for a young lad running off with a higher caste girl was to have his sisters publicly gang raped by the council.  It is argued that this is a cultural practice, a custom.

I was immediately reminded of this quote by Napier of Sindh:



> "Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."



We need more Sindhs. We need more refuges where OUR national customs prevail.

No we can't be everywhere.  Be we can be more aggressive and adopt a more forward leaning posture.  

Don't create concentration camps.  Create work zones where people can go and earn a living and raise a family - in the middle east, according to western values.

And be prepared to defend them. Vigorously and without remorse.

Another quote from Napier.



> The best way to quiet a country is a good thrashing, followed by great kindness afterwards. Even the wildest chaps are thus tamed.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I think part of this "heated" nature of criticisms of the current government is that_* they are largely, a nasty bunch of people*_. They have demonstrated that they are overly vindictive and bent on pursuing policies that often seem to make little sense. Even traditional Tories are beginning to chime in.





> Alinsky's Rules
> 
> “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.
> “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
> ...



A reminder, in this election season, of the rules of the game.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Sep 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I recall the last CBC "election compass" which somehow would point to Liberal regardless of how you answered. No bias here, no siree....



Appears to be working better this time.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Globe and Mail_ now has it's own election prediction, which it will update weekly. Currently it predicts that:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




A week later and the _Globe and Mail's elcetion predictor__ now say, "The NDP are now favoured to win the most seats as Conservatives drop."

Paul Fairie, a University of Calgary political scientist who studies voter behaviour, who designed The Globe’s Election Forecast, says that

     "The Globe’s forecast now predicts that the NDP are the most likely party to win the largest number of seats, with the party leading in 53 per cent of the simulations. This follows a string of seven consecutive national polls each showing a lead of
      between 1 and 10 percentage points for the New Democrats.

      The seven poll lead was reported by seven different pollsters, using three different methods: traditional telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and online surveys. The New Democrats have only had such a string of good polling on two
      separate occasions during this parliament: earlier this year in June, and in the May-June period of 2012.

      In good news for the Liberals, three recent polls, by Nanos, Ipsos Reid and Forum, have showed the party in second place, ahead of the Conservatives. Furthermore, polls consistently suggest the gap between first and third place is under 5 percentage points.

      This all reinforces how unusual this election is: the best a third-place party has ever done in terms of vote share was in 1988, when the Ed Broadbent-led NDP won 20.4 per cent of the vote. Currently, we’re in a situation where whatever party is
      polling in third is earning 25 per cent popular support."_


----------



## Acorn (3 Sep 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Another quote from Napier.
> 
> 
> > The best way to quiet a country is a good thrashing, followed by great kindness afterwards. Even the wildest chaps are thus tamed.



Worked with the Axis. Too bad nobody took that on board with the recent ME troubles.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (3 Sep 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Another quote from Napier.
> 
> Quote
> The best way to quiet a country is a good thrashing, followed by great kindness afterwards. Even the wildest chaps are thus tamed.



I believe Machiavelli said something similar.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Sep 2015)

So the Liberals have been forced to admit they want to spend without taxing*, and we're just waiting for confirmation/admission that the NDP will be forced to either borrow or raise taxes to satisfy their wish list.

*There is nothing Canada needs urgently enough to justify borrowing, and the current economic problem (commodities price slump) can not be fixed by Keynesian "stimulus".  What is needed are fewer impediments to major economic activity.  There is no point wishing for a magic fix for manufacturing / exports: the dollar is low; corporate taxes are low.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Sep 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> More details here.  It seems he his focusing on his ministerial duties as surmised by Poppa.
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/immigration-minister-halts-campaign-to-address-refugee-crisis-1.2545919
> 
> The optics and the story behind this are not good though.


We'll have to see if this becomes, in the words of those way smarter than me, "an event" ....




Six weeks left, and counting ....


----------



## Lumber (3 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> What is needed are fewer impediments to major economic activity.



Such as a tax cut? Tax incentives?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Sep 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> More details here.  It seems he his focusing on his ministerial duties as surmised by Poppa.
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/immigration-minister-halts-campaign-to-address-refugee-crisis-1.2545919
> 
> The optics and the story behind this are not good though.



Optics? Perhaps. The story is now being reported by the family member as false. She didn't petition for the drowned family.

Also, Canada is in the business of accepting qualified _*immigrants*_.

We are not in the business of setting up refugee camps, on our soil, and importing said *refugees* here where it would be difficult for them to return to their homes.

If the opposition and the MSM *know* the difference between immigrants and refugees, they are playing stupid to spin the story. If they *don't know* the difference, they need to STFU.


----------



## Remius (4 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> We'll have to see if this becomes, in the words of those way smarter than me, "an event" ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is the risk of a long campaign.

I suspect that the CPC is going to weather this.  Mostly because people have short attention spans and unless we see images like the one we've all scene every week, then this will not have a large effect nationally.

 The one that likely will not weather this is Chris Alexander. This is the sort of thing that could cost him his seat.  That race is purportedly tight and this could tip things against him.


----------



## Remius (4 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> A week later and the _Globe and Mail's elcetion predictor__ now say, "The NDP are now favoured to win the most seats as Conservatives drop."
> 
> Paul Fairie, a University of Calgary political scientist who studies voter behaviour, who designed The Globe’s Election Forecast, says that
> 
> ...


_


My guess is we'll be seeing a lot of these polls swing back and forth.  But as you said, the real race and polls begin after this weekend._


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Sep 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> I suspect that the CPC is going to weather this.  Mostly because people have short attention spans and unless we see images like the one we've all scene every week, then this will not have a large effect nationally.
> 
> The one that likely will not weather this is Chris Alexander. This is the sort of thing that could cost him his seat.  That race is purportedly tight and this could tip things against him.


It will be interesting to see how much sticks to the party, and how much to the Minister, indeed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2015)

> It will be interesting to see how much sticks to the party, and how much to the Minister, indeed.



Bruce Anderson, a "closet Liberal" but a very smart guy with good connections and instincts, explains, in the article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, that, for the moment, the "events" are spinning in directions Prime Minister Harper did not anticipate:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/this-campaign-is-being-taken-over-by-events-out-of-harpers-control/article26206928/


> This campaign is being taken over by events out of Harper’s control
> 
> BRUCE ANDERSON
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




These "events" are precisely the sort that "SuperMac" (the late Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, later 1st Earl of Stockton, PM of the UK from 1957 to 63)) had in mind when (maybe) a reporter (may have) asked him what might bring down his government.

There were a number of good half decent political and diplomatic and even policy reasons for jumping on the anti-IS** bandwagon and, as M Trudeau, said, "whipping out our CF-18s" (to display our manhood). At a purely partisan, _tactical_, political level it created yet another _wedge_ to drive between undecided voters and the LPC and NDP. Of course, no one could have anticipated the political fallout from the tragic death of one small boy ...

But, there are opportunities in any crisis: some (most) of the Canadian media, for example, by virtue of its own knee jerk, reflexive reaction, can now be pilloried as a biased, anti-Harper cabal that routinely misleads the Canadian public on any issue with a political slant.

Re: Chris Alexander ~ he's a very smart guy, sometimes the "smartest kid in the room," and a _potential_ CPC leadership candidate. Now we'll see what sort of "bottom" he has, too.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Bruce Anderson, a "closet Liberal" but a very smart guy with good connections and instincts, explains, in the article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, that, for the moment, the "events" are spinning in directions Prime Minister Harper did not anticipate:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/this-campaign-is-being-taken-over-by-events-out-of-harpers-control/article26206928/
> 
> ...




Remember, please, that the _Sun_ chain of newspapers is NOT part of the media _Harper Haters™_ cabal when you read this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Sun_:

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/03/who-is-to-blame-for-the-drowning-of-alan-kurdi


> Who is to blame for the drowning of Alan Kurdi?
> 
> BY TAREK FATAH, TORONTO SUN
> 
> ...




I agree, broadly, with Tarek Fatah* that the LPC and NDP cynically seized upon this issue to unfairly and dishonestly attack Chris Alexander and the CPC. I don't blame political operatives for being cynical or unfair or even dishonest ... but I do think that most of the Canadian media could have and should have done much, Much, MUCH better. The media's lemming like rush to judgement was amateurish and reflects an inbuilt, automatic ant-Harper bias.

_____
* Who founded the Muslim Canadian Congress and served as its communications officer and spokesperson for several years. He advocates for gay rights, a separation of religion and state, opposition to sharia law, and advocacy for a "liberal, progressive form" of Islam. Some of his activism and statements have met with considerable criticism from other Canadian Muslim groups.


----------



## Remius (4 Sep 2015)

I agree that blaming Mr. Alexander or Mr. Harper for this is wrong.  However, given the interview Alexander gave the day before (some would call it disasterous) prior to the events that unfolded, I think that things might have unfolded differently.  But they didn't.  Unforthunately now he is the face of this fairly or unfairly.  And it would seem that events are forcing the Conservatives into more damage control.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (4 Sep 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> "What is needed are fewer impediments to major economic activity.  "
> 
> Such as a tax cut? Tax incentives?



Such as not taking 8 - 10 years to approve something as routine as a pipeline.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (4 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The media's lemming like rush to judgement was amateurish and reflects an inbuilt, automatic ant-Harper bias.



Yeah, what's with that?  It is not like he has treated the media with utter contempt since his first day in office or something...

It is not like this is the least transparent government in recent memory or something...

It is not like he refuses to have actual press conferences or something....




Oh, wait a minute.....


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (4 Sep 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Yeah, what's with that?  It is not like he has treated the media with utter contempt since his first day in office or something...
> 
> It is not like this is the least transparent government in recent memory or something...
> 
> ...



It's not like the media has a professional obligation for neutrality that is part of their professional ethos... oh wait a minute...

See, sarcasm is fun in all cases!


----------



## PPCLI Guy (4 Sep 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> It's not like the media has a professional obligation for neutrality that is part of their professional ethos... oh wait a minute...
> 
> See, sarcasm is fun in all cases!



Or that elected politicians have a professional obligation to actually respond to and respect the fourth and fifth estates as part of their duty of transparency to the electorate.

There is no excusing Mr Harper's treatment of the media, and by extension, the voters.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2015)

It's getting closer to Labour Day and here is the latest poll from _EKOS_:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (4 Sep 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Or that elected politicians have a professional obligation to actually respond to and respect the fourth and fifth estates as part of their duty of transparency to the electorate.
> 
> There is no excusing Mr Harper's treatment of the media, and by extension, the voters.



I disagree that elected politicians have an obligation to respond and respect the media or interact with the media in any way, shape, or form if they dont so choose. PM Harpers obligation is to advise her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II through the GG on matters relating to Canada as he sees fit, and to the Canadian people.

The media, on the other hand, I would suggest do not have a right to a response. Terry Melewski et al may feel that they have a right to an answer, but in reality, PM Harper is under the same obligation to answer a media outlets questions as any other Canadian. It certainly behooves politicians to answer questions of the media as the media have significant sway (and can be used to send a message, etc) but there is no obligation. The PM, if he wishes, can advise the GG verbally in person and speak to the Canadian people through press releases, TV/radio addresses, etc without question. The hurt feelings of journalists trying to make their names as "Ottawa insiders" notwithstanding, the rest is hogwash.


----------



## Acorn (4 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Remember, please, that the _Sun_ chain of newspapers is NOT part of the media _Harper Haters™_ cabal when you read this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Sun_:
> 
> http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/03/who-is-to-blame-for-the-drowning-of-alan-kurdi
> 
> ...



Alexander was hoist on his own petard for the performance the day before the boy's picture hit the front pages. He may be a smart guy, but he wasn't on form for that CBC piece.

I hope the Tarek Fatahs and Irshad Manjis can influence the Muslim Reformation I spoke of elsewhere.


----------



## Acorn (4 Sep 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I disagree that elected politicians have an obligation to respond and respect the media or interact with the media in any way, shape, or form if they dont so choose. PM Harpers obligation is to advise her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II through the GG on matters relating to Canada as he sees fit, and to the Canadian people.
> 
> The media, on the other hand, I would suggest do not have a right to a response. Terry Melewski et al may feel that they have a right to an answer, but in reality, PM Harper is under the same obligation to answer a media outlets questions as any other Canadian. It certainly behooves politicians to answer questions of the media as the media have significant sway (and can be used to send a message, etc) but there is no obligation. The PM, if he wishes, can advise the GG verbally in person and speak to the Canadian people through press releases, TV/radio addresses, etc without question. The hurt feelings of journalists trying to make their names as "Ottawa insiders" notwithstanding, the rest is hogwash.



I'll refrain from unparliamentary language in response to this, despite the temptation. The media are our representatives. They range from openly hostile to the government, to being unapolagetic syncophants (I though "bag-lickers" might be too strong?). You can choose to read it all and derive your own conclusions, read the stuff that supports your point of view, or read nothing (which is basically what you'd have if press releases were the only insight you get into the government of the day). Total government control of the message is available in a number of states of your choosing, but I doubt you'd want to live there.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (4 Sep 2015)

Acorn said:
			
		

> I'll refrain from unparliamentary language in response to this, despite the temptation. The media are our representatives. They range from openly hostile to the government, to being unapolagetic syncophants (I though "bag-lickers" might be too strong?). You can choose to read it all and derive your own conclusions, read the stuff that supports your point of view, or read nothing (which is basically what you'd have if press releases were the only insight you get into the government of the day). Total government control of the message is available in a number of states of your choosing, but I doubt you'd want to live there.



I'm glad you refrained, since I think you're wrong. To say that the government isn't obligated to speak to the media isn't to say that the media doesn't have a responsibility to present stories... in fact, they're paid to find stories where politicians may not want them to. The government cannot, and must not, restrict the rights of the journalists to find interesting stories to present to their readership and for editors to editorialize. However, to say that Stephen Harper is required to speak to the CBC is ludicrous. The media is required to maintain journalistic standards, so if they want to make the governments non comment by part of the story than that is a fair deal- something the CBC has done often.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Sep 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I'm glad you refrained, since I think you're wrong. To say that the government isn't obligated to speak to the media isn't to say that the media doesn't have a responsibility to present stories... in fact, they're paid to find stories where politicians may not want them to. The government cannot, and must not, restrict the rights of the journalists to find interesting stories to present to their readership and for editors to editorialize. However, to say that Stephen Harper is required to speak to the CBC is ludicrous. The media is required to maintain journalistic standards, so if they want to make the governments non comment by part of the story than that is a fair deal- something the CBC has done often.



I'm with Bird Gunner here.

"The Media" is an assortment of for profit organizations that happen to hire a variety of writers with varying opinions.  Some of the outlets allow the writers freedom to voice their own opinions.  Some tailor their output to the market to improve sales. Some tailor their output to further pet causes.

None of them are accredited members of the organs of governance.

They occasionally supply useful intelligence.  Most often a small amount of that intelligence is used to generate many hours and many reams of commentary and conjecture which attracts eyeballs and permits the sale of advertising at elevated prices.

The freedom of the press is a great thing.  It permits me to publish these opinions of mine here.  Just as it permits Terry Milewski to publish his elsewhere.  The fact that I publish mine for fun and enjoyment while he publishes his to pay the mortgage is immaterial.

The press has no special call on politicians.  They can ask questions.  I can ask questions.  Whether there is a response or not, whether the response is useful or along the lines of "fuddle-duddle", "just watch me" or the one fingered salute is entirely up to the politician fielding the question and whether they give-a-dam.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Sep 2015)

Nobody is REQUIRED to speak to the media.  Having government ONLY communicate through canned messaging, though, can (at least potentially) lead to voters getting a less-than-full picture, as has been seen in other "tight message discipline" regimes  ;D

In all seriousness, no matter where you get your information, you're almost _never_ getting the whole story - who you believe is often based on whose info-triage you trust.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2015)

I think we, all of us, both overestimate and underestimate the media.

The media is not and never, ever was the "voice of the people." It is, as it always was a business ... sometimes, at its _public service_ best, compelling, even brave, and it can change how we see and respond to the great issues of the day; at other times, when the media is at its worst, e.g. when Caitlyn Jenner "came out," celebrity gossip "owns" the daily news, blacking out the real news. Mostly the media is in the middle: trying to entice us to buy the paper or watch the broadcast by offering a mixture of information and titillation ~ _infotainment_.

Journalists, many of them, anyway, are honest, hard working people who really believe that they are _public servants_ in the best and broadest sense of that word. They believe that an informed public is "better" ~ better at making the right decision for the greater good of all. (Of course a few journalists are nothing more than pompous, air-headed windbags, but that's the same in every profession or occupation, including the military, and I suspect the ratios are about the same in journalism, law, engineering, medicine and the military, too.) But the media is more than journalists, good and bad, it is a business with printing presses and TV studios and broadcast towers and satellites and bank loans and bonds and obligations to owners and shareholders ... and points of view.

Some journals (and broadcast networks, and, and, and ...) wear their points of view on their sleeves as badges of honour: see the _Toronto Star_'s famous _Atkinson Principles_: _Toronto Star_ people, including all the working journalists, are expected to "conform" in all they do at the paper. The _CBC_ has its own _Journalistic Standards and Practices_ which include Accuracy, Fairness, Balance, Impartiality and Integrity. Your views and the _Toronto Star_'s or _CBC_'s views on how well they meet those standards might differ, and that's fair because they have points of view when they _inform_ us ~ tell us the stories, as they see them ~ and we have points of view, too, when we process that information.

All journals, newspaper chains, radio and TV stations and networks share one common, sometimes overwhelming problem: income. The media is a business and it's not the easiest or most profitable of businesses. It costs money, big money, to publish _The Economist_ or for the BBC to broadcast worldwide; it also costs money to run CFSO, a small, independent TV station in Cardston, Alberta and to publish the _The Tyee_ in BC. The need to make money can, does and will effect the editorial decisions that media outlets, giant networks, prestigious journals and small, independent outlets alike, make. They will tell us what we want to hear: that's why, for example, _Report on Business_ and the _Financial Post_ have separate editorial boards from the _Globe and Mail_ and the _Financial Post_, respectively: they want to make sure they tell their target audiences what they need to know, what they want to hear ... otherwise their subscribers and the people who put coins in the box every day will look (pay) somewhere else. That attitude _leaks_ over to the "news" business, too ... that's why Caitlyn Jenner's "coming out" was more important than e.g. the fact that, in the USA, the _Patriot Act_ expired but the congress passed a new, "better" (more draconian) law or that a cruise ship capsized in Asia killing hundreds or that over 1,000 people died of heat related causes in India: Caitlyn Jenner was more _interesting_ to more people so the business of journalism _informed_ us about what most of us (a plurality, anyway) wanted to hear.

So it is with political journalism, and so it has been since the 18th century, and probably farther back than that.

Stephen Harper is no different in how he "treats" the media and, therefore the public, than was e.g. John Fitzgerald Kennedy a half century earlier. Conservative media manipulation in Canada is no different in either detail or extent than what JFK's rich dad, Joseph P Kennedy did in the 1960 election campaign ... you can pretend what Harper is doing is new or worse, but your fooling yourself.

That the media, broadly and generally, is _biased_ is undeniable. But, it is not all biased in any one direction: there are journalists and outlets to suit every political taste. 

Prime Minister Harper is no fan of the media; he treats them with contempt and he doesn't try to sugarcoat it; and they, many, but not all, of the people in the media, respond in kind. It was, however the same for Jean Chrétien and Brian Mulroney and Pierre Trudeau, whose contempt for the media was nearly legendary, even as he courted them shamelessly. The "courting" worked and it is, _I think_, why some politicians do well with the media and others do not.

It all began, I think, around 1960, when BIG television was young and so was the "spin doctoring" business. TV gave the media a new, unprecedented, access to the homes of Americans and Canadians and the journalists became stars and they began to see themselves as a _filter_ through which politicians needed to be seen. John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Barak Obama and Pierre Trudeau were/are all excellent "users" of the media (and so were Eisenhower and St Laurent, in an earlier, less confrontational era) and the media responded well to their "use." Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George W Bush and, today, Stephen Harper do not "use" the media well, at all, and they pay a price.

_I believe_ that our media is, mostly, of a low standard ~ not universally, there are plenty of good, hard working, fair journalists, the ones who want top _inform_ us, in all parts of the media, including e.g. the CBC ~ I think too many, not all, journalists are poorly educated (not enough math or history or economics) and lazy (the latter attribute is why so many corporate press releases become "new stories") and _I think_ that's why most of the Canadian media "spun" a tragic human interest story into a phoney political scandal. And that's not Stephen Harper's fault.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Sep 2015)

Many, too many, of the MSM are in the game for one reason and one reason only. To make money for their boss. That's it and that's all.The premise that they should report the facts and let others make up their own minds disappeared in the 50's and 60's. Now they present spin, create controversy where there really is none and attempt to sway public opinion solely for their own gain. Journalists, for the most part, are only in it to increase their readership and thereby their paycheck.

Politicians are tired of being sandbagged, misquoted, smeared by lowlife hacks that call themselves journalists. If I want rumour, innuendo, spin and gossip, I'll read the National Enquirer.

Mr Alexander, who, if anyone decided to fact check his record, would find he's an outstanding Immigration Minister and has done more for immigrants than anyone in a long time. He's passionate about his job and compassionate towards his charges.

The lopsided, inaccurate, deceitful attack on him has become the standard of the MSM. 

We need more of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzq57mux-_o

Many of these MSM parasites need to be put back in their place.

Mr Campbell beat me to it and was clearly more succinct in his delivery


----------



## George Wallace (4 Sep 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Many, too many, of the MSM are in the game for one reason and one reason only. To make money for their boss. That's it and that's all.The premise that they should report the facts and let others make up their own minds disappeared in the 50's and 60's. Now they present spin, create controversy where there really is none and attempt to sway public opinion solely for their own gain. Journalists, for the most part, are only in it to increase their readership and thereby their paycheck.
> 
> Politicians are tired of being sandbagged, misquoted, smeared by lowlife hacks that call themselves journalists. If I want rumour, innuendo, spin and gossip, I'll read the National Enquirer.
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:

When it comes to Mr. Alexander, it more or less "character assassination" in the media lately.  You have to dig deeply to find out the real story.  Many Syrian Canadians have attested to the work he has been doing.  Unfortunately, that news is not making the MSM.

When I look at the recent statements from Thomas Mulcair on the refugee/migrant problem and military intervention against IS, I see him not as part of the solution, but part of the problem.  Will the MSM clue into that; but more important, will Canadians clue in?


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Sep 2015)

And here are the reasons why Harper feels he can ignore the media (and may be able to get away with it)






CBC’s Audience Crisis: CBC TV Audience is Down 40%, Lowest in History


----------



## Kilo_302 (4 Sep 2015)

One of the main factors behind the decline in the quality of the media is no doubt concentrated corporate ownership, and resulting commodification of the news. News programming has traditionally been a "money loser" at a network but was also largely seen as a necessary public service. Also, the more people watched a particular networks new shows, the more likely they would watch the rest of it's programming as well. But the transformation of news into revenue generators has meant that ad revenues have become more of a focus than quality.

As a public broadcaster, the CBC has also suffered in quality because it is trying to compete directly with private news networks who don't have the same public mandate to provide quality news programming. Just watch CBC programming from the 60s and 70s. It's definitely quaint and in many ways backward, but a lot of the analysis is far more complex and well thought out than it is now. I would also argue that in some ways the programming was far more critical of the status quo than it currently is (they aired Gwynne Dyer's "War" in its entirety for example). 

The BBC is much the same, watch this debate from 1984 on the documentary "The 8th Day" (itself a quality piece of programming the likes of which we don't see today very often, in fact it's interesting to contrast the discussion of its ideas with our current climate change debacle). 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0VcT-XWb7M

You have a broad swathe of political views represented, scientists, politicians in an uninterrupted hour long discussion (it could be more cerebral, but it's still news for normal people). Now compare that with the garbage the CBC, CTV, Global has foisted on us regarding most news of the day.  I think Chris Alexander was fairly treated because he's often totally full of it, but the next day the discussion of the refugee situation and Canada's military role was reduced to two guests, both of whom agreed on every point except for one minor disagreement (they both used exactly that terminology) over the efficacy of increased air strikes. This is not a real debate, the spectrum here is razor thin. The CBC's analysis of our economic system is similarly stunted. If Amanda Lang is left wing I'm Ronald Reagan. In my opinion, we've had a narrowing of the definition of what is considered acceptable debate, while the depth of analysis has also gotten a lot shallower. This has mirrored what's happened in our politics. Remember Paul Orchard? Remember when everything wasn't black and white?

If the media's job is to "monitor the centers of power" as I believe it is, I would argue our media is NOT tough enough on our political leaders. That goes for Harper as it does Mulcair and Trudeau. It's easier to catch Harper in a lie now, because well, he's been in power for 10 years. But Mulcair's shift to the right, the Liberal Party's history of austerity (Harper only continued what they started) should all be fodder for any journalist who knows how to use Google. All of these guys are full of it, and they should be called out on it.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Sep 2015)

Well, Mulcair has made one decision easy for me.  Mulcair is part of the problem, not part of the solution. 

His solution to the refugee/migrant problem is not to reduce the numbers, but increase their numbers, by his not believing in sending troops in to stop IS from spreading their barbarianism throughout their spheres of influence in the Middle East, Africa and South West Asia.  Sorry Thomas.  Wrong answer.

Will the Canadian public clue in?   Sadly, probably not.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Sep 2015)

Politicians have no duty or obligation to engage with non-professional media.

Non-professional media are all the media who do not conduct themselves professionally, irrespective of who they work for or how long they have been working.  The ones working full time are occupational media, but not necessarily professional.

How would you recognize professional media?  By observing whether they adhere to professional standards as rigorous as those observed by other professions: doctors, lawyers, clergy, soldiery, etc.

For example: a criminal defence lawyer provides the best possible defence of a client irrespective of a client's guilt.  By analogy, a professional reporter reports a story as accurately as possible - no spin, no slant, no rush to judgement, no gratuitous adjectives and adverbs, none of the usual bullsh!t that graces most stories to serve political or aesthetic preferences.

There are very, very few truly professional people working in media today.  Hence there are very, very few who should expect to have the right to ask questions and receive answers with any greater privilege than I have.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Sep 2015)

Stuff coming up in the veteran's advocacy thread prompted me to bore you all with some perspective, but it affects all issues dependent on financing.

All numbers from gc.ca fiscal reference tables for 2014, year 2014, in millions of CAD.  (This is about where money goes - expenditures only, no revenues.)

Note relative size of all transfers, and DND, with respect to "Other dept and agencies".  The latter is basically everything the federal government does other than transfers and DND.  DND and the rest of government operations are the parts that have been under spending restraint pressure.  And if you think we should spend 2% of GDP on defence rather than 1.2% (or whatever it exactly is right now), you can gauge the size of the spending problem.  You can also gauge the relative size of the various parties' social spending intentions and decide where VA benefits (which are social spending) might rank.


Transfers to other levels of government42,758CHT/CST (health & social transfers)19,833"fiscal arrangements" (whatever those are)2,107Other-4,223QC abatement (I knew we were sticking it to 'em.  Go Harper, Go!)Transfers to individuals41,786OAS13,136Family allowance and children's benefits17,300EI benefitsDirect program expenses36,698Other transfers (includes indiv and govt not included above)7,484Crown corp expenses21,511National defence50,217Other dept and agencies-------248,607sum of above (aka "Program Expenses" in the Tables)28,220Public debt charges

[NB: had a little trouble with table formatting - very professionally embarrassing.  Never drink while ranting.]


----------



## Jed (5 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Stuff coming up in the veteran's advocacy thread prompted me to bore you all with some perspective, but it affects all issues dependent on financing.
> 
> All numbers from gc.ca fiscal reference tables for 2014, year 2014, in millions of CAD.  (This is about where money goes - expenditures only, no revenues.)
> 
> ...




Interesting. Family Allowance and EI are 141 % of DND's budget


----------



## Altair (5 Sep 2015)

In what will likely be a futile attempt to steer the conversation back to that election thing, new poll by ekos has the NDP slipping outside of quebec.

http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/09/three-way-tie-as-voters-try-and-sort-out-who-can-solve-the-economy/

Liberals and conservatives picking up the gains.

Sadly,(for me)  this only seems to help the conservatives.  Curious as to what is hurting the NDP though.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (5 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> In what will likely be a futile attempt to steer the conversation back to that election thing, new poll by ekos has the NDP slipping outside of quebec.
> 
> http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/09/three-way-tie-as-voters-try-and-sort-out-who-can-solve-the-economy/
> 
> ...



More than likely the second line on the site:

BALANCED BUDGET ISSUE MAY BE SORTING LIBERAL AND NDP FORTUNES IN REVERSE DIRECTIONS. The economy, not Duffy, hair, syrian refugees, veterans, etc is the real issue that will decide the fortunes of the parties and it appears from the way that the NDP has presented its platform that they were hoping that other issues would be a primary concern and the economy would be more of a secondary issue. According to the poll under the current voting intentions they were terribly mistaken.

Also, I suspect that the NDP received a lot of "blind support" upon their election win in Alberta and due to their overwhelming support in quebec. Certainly, their high level of support in Qc led to higher than usual polling numbers, which have influence in the ABC crowd. Perhaps we're seeing a shift towards the norm (the NDP 30.6 is almost exactly their 30.3 from 2011) as the lustre rubs off on them?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (5 Sep 2015)

This slide would seem to indicate why the LPC/NDP are so keen on changing the first past the poll voting system into a preferential system... it essentially makes them kingmakers....


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Stuff coming up in the veteran's advocacy thread prompted me to bore you all with some perspective, but it affects all issues dependent on financing.
> 
> All numbers from gc.ca fiscal reference tables for 2014, year 2014, in millions of CAD.  (This is about where money goes - expenditures only, no revenues.)
> 
> ...




 :bravo: :goodpost:  Excellent, Brad, and thank you for that important information ... facts, not fictions; facts around which (some) voters can wrap their minds, not their emotions.

It's good to see that the level of interest on the public debt continues to decline. It reached historic peacetime highs during the Mulroney years as the impact of  Prime Minister Trudeau's social spending began to be felt. Prime Minister Chrétien began to cut back and a rapidly growing (hot) economy helped a lot. Prime Minister Harper has been just as restrained, despite having (for both acceptable economic (Keynsian) and _force majeure_ political reasons) a massive _stimulus_ programme in 2008-11. Over the past 55 years, since 1960, our public debt has ranged from being about 20% of GDP (1962), when the full effects of the St Laurent years of high growth and (relatively) moderate spending were being felt, to a high of nearly 65% (1997) when the full effects of the Trudeau entitlement (social) projects were being felt. It is, now, somewhere around 37.5% and falling, slowly. What is a "good" level of public debt in the 21st century? My _guess_: 20-35% of GDP is easily manageable and indicates that governments are _investing_ prudently, especially in recessions.

I am one of those who favours a substantial increase in defence spending ~ _I think_ 2% of GDP is both a reasonable and responsible goal, even as I appreciate that, absent a clear, well understood _threat_, it is politically impossible ~ and I believe that a properly organized DND (one that has (again) e.g. a ship design capability (it used to be called the Naval Drawing Office)) could spend money on _stimulus_ if it had, in the HQ desk drawers, "shovel ready" projects (large (e.g. warships) and small (e.g. reserve armoury and training area upgrades)) that could spend money, fairly quickly ~ same year to within 36 months ~ in Canada. (That was something that existed in the 1960s and 70s ~ pre 1975, for certain ~ and staff officers in DNR, DLR, DAR and the like and in ADM(Mat) had to keep a list with costs and timelines updated.)

I also understand that we will (almost) never cancel major social programmes. Paul Dewar of the NDP has posted this on his Facebook page:

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





          ... I'm tempted to use the punchline form one of the lawyer jokes and say, "It's a good start," but that would be rude. But it is a good start and a fiscally prudent
              (responsible) government should cut more agencies like that.

Because of my views on the public debt and on "how" to spend the money governments have I cannot and will not support either M Mulcair or M Trudeau ... that's based on the "facts on the ground," which you have presented, and their promises on the really important economic issues.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Sep 2015)

MARS said:
			
		

> Yeah, Rosemary Barton gave him a (well deserved, IMHO) kick in the nuts yesterday.
> 
> While there certainly _could_ have been (and continue to be) more coverage of Syria, I am unsure our limited participation in it and the limited effects it has on Canada would justify it in the Canadian media.  What Chris Alexander was trying to say was that the media wasn't covering it as a safety/security issue - thus not covering it in a way which fits the CPC narrative.
> 
> Sorry buds, you can't just throw up a campaign slogan on the side of your campaign bus and expect apathetic voters to buy it.  You are going to have to work for it.




More, in the way of an unflattering portrait of Chris Alexander, in this article from long time Liberal _insider_ Scott Reid, which is reproduced, without comment, under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/reid-chris-alexander-just-the-latest-example-of-how-politics-debases-even-the-best-of-us


> Chris Alexander just the latest example of how politics debases even the best of us
> 
> Scott Reid
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Sep 2015)

On whether politcians MUST speak to media - from the article in the previous post:


> .... Harder to excuse was the petty, nasty tone that accompanied Alexander’s initial defence of the government’s refugee policy. He scolded critics, deflected responsibility, questioned others’ commitment and, when backed into a corner of his own making, attacked the media as being to blame for it all. It came to a head on the Wednesday edition of CBC’s Power and Politics. Alexander grew hostile as he struggled to explain his position, eventually challenging the show’s host, Rosemary Barton. In full bluster, *he tried bullying her, saying that the network had never discussed the issue before (not true) and had certainly never before interviewed him on the topic (only true because he had refused to participate in such broadcasts)* ....


You don't _have to_, but here's the risk you run - live by the sword ....


----------



## Retired AF Guy (5 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> 7,484Crown corp expenses



Well, that is one area where could probably save some money.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Sep 2015)

> I am one of those who favours a substantial increase in defence spending ~ I think 2% of GDP is both a reasonable and responsible goal, even as I appreciate that, absent a clear, well understood threat, it is politically impossible



Especially if we figure that (essentially) doubling the Defence Budget would put it on the same level as CHT/CST expenses and would increase the total expenditures of the government by about 8%.

The numbers also scotch my other plan to sell a Defence Budget increase by a matching Foreign Aid Budget increase.  Raising the Defence Budget to 2% of GDP and the Aid Budget to 1% of GDP (I know the international target is 0.7% - bear with me) would increase government expenditures by 16%.  That is totally unsaleable.

But.

Perhaps the matching formula could work at a less agressive level?  Say, for every additional 0.1% of GDP spent on Defence an equivalent amount will be spent on Foreign Aid?

With a bit of work that Foreign Aid budget could also be used to serve Industry Canada (supplying Canadian goods overseas)  and National Defence (purchasing logistical services from ND to respond to foreign disasters).


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (5 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> On whether politcians MUST speak to media - from the article in the previous post:You don't _have to_, but here's the risk you run - live by the sword ....



I wonder if people are as concerned about Mr. Trudeau and his refusal to speak to Sun media or Obama and his refusal to speak to Fox? For all their perceived bias they are still media outlets (and why is it that media with a right bias are "crazy" (Fox) but media with a left bias (MSNBC) are fair and balanced?)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Sep 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I wonder if people are as concerned about Mr. Trudeau and his refusal to speak to Sun media or Obama and his refusal to speak to Fox? For all their perceived bias they are still media outlets (and why is it that media with a right bias are "crazy" (Fox) but media with a left bias (MSNBC) are fair and balanced?)



Bingo!


----------



## PPCLI Guy (5 Sep 2015)

No media outlet has called Mr Harper's father a slut, and reused to apologise.  

As to Obama and Fox, who fucken cares?  What happens in a different country has no bearing on this.

As to Fox itself, I will let them talk for themselves:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/most-insane-fox-news-moments-of-all-time#.rtBxEKxpN]www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/most-insane-fox-news-moments-of-all-time#.rtBxEKxpN]http://www.buzzfeed.com/jessicamisener/most-insane-fox-news-moments-of-all-time#.rtBxEKxpN

And in the spirit of fairness, here it is for MSNBC:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/31/msnbcs-top-offensive-moments/


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Sep 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> No media outlet has called Mr Harper's father a slut, and reused to apologise.



Doesn't explain why Mr Trudeau used an incident in 2014, not to speak to Sun in 2012 and 2013. Besides a poor choice of words, what Levant said was basically true. For both Mr Trudeau's father and mother, of which neither was bashful about including the media in their sexual affairs.


----------



## Acorn (5 Sep 2015)

A bit of an omnibus post here. I'm sure only some of you will mind.  ;D

Re: the media - I'll accept that there's no legal obligation for a politician to speak to the media, but trying to manage the message the way the Harper Government (R) has done is clearly working against them - given their promises of "openness" in government, doubly so.

Chris Alexander was "sandbagged" alright, but not by the CBC. He was sandbagged by the way the Conservatives have been doing things. Ministers who are not permitted to "freelance" an interview or media scrum find themselves unable to handle things that pop up unexpectedly. "Events, dear boy" as we've seen. The knee-jerk reaction which was to attack is what they do, and it backfired. I'm not sure Harper is inclined to swing towards "mission command" but he should think about it. Where's Joe Oliver? 

By the way, whatever good people think Chris Alexander brought to CIC, I think Kenny was a better minister - probably the best Immigration minister since, umm, well a really long time.

Mulcair's position on Iraq/Syria doesn't impress me. It's a situation that can't be controlled or dealt with by a single tactic. There needs to be miltary action in the region, political action to influence what eventually rises as governments there, and humanitarian action to ease the suffering. Libya shows us what happens when we walk away. Iraq is an example of expectations being a replacement for planning. Afghanistan was better handled, though the interregnum of the Iraq war was a lost opportunity, I think. But that stuff is hardly Canadian.

I'm not holding the "winter coats" thing against Trudeau though. It's innocuous compared to Mulcair's "Truther" comments on 9/11 some time ago. I'd like to see/hear Trudeau's policies firm up, but I won't hold my breath.

I'd like to think economic policy will be the main factor in the election, as it should be, but I'm not sure there are enough voters who delve into that. Come election day, the party with the fewest gaffes in the preceeding week is going to have an advantage. Sorry, I should caveat that - the party other than Conservative. Like it or not, the Governing Party has a record, and if that record is unpopular, as the Conservative record is, they're fighting an uphill battle.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (5 Sep 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Doesn't explain why Mr Trudeau used an incident in 2014, not to speak to Sun in 2012 and 2013. Besides a poor choice of words, what Levant said was basically true. For both Mr Trudeau's father and mother, of which neither was bashful about including the media in their sexual affairs.



Response deleted to reflect a private conversation


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Sep 2015)

Day after tomorrow is Labour Day, soon, sometime after Labour Day, the polls will actually start to matter.

That being said, here is David Akin's latest _Predictionator_:


----------



## Altair (5 Sep 2015)

If those are the results, things are going to be interesting.

Informal coalition in the works I imagine. 

And the only leader I see stepping down is harper.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Sep 2015)

If Trudeau lands third place again, after being a 10 point leader a year ago, expect calls for his head. The Liberals are great at throwing the party leader under the bus for the failings of their policy makers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> If those are the results, things are going to be interesting.
> 
> Informal coalition in the works I imagine.
> 
> And the only leader I see stepping down is harper.




Don't forget the "long time" thing ... and there are six _long times_ to go. In six long times: any of the three leaders can melt down/implode/whatever, any of the "events" that are, as yet unimagined can explode and wipe out any of the parties' campaign, or an "event" can vault any of the leaders and his party into solid majority territory.

The first phase of the campaigns ends on Tuesday. the second and third phases will run from 8 Sep through to, about, 12 Oct (Thanksgiving). The final phase will be from Thanksgiving until election day, itself. Just as we do in the military, the campaign _tacticians_ will have different _objectives_ for each phase, leading, phase-by-phase, to capturing the _"vital ground"_ (the most seats) on 19 Oct.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (5 Sep 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> No media outlet has called Mr Harper's father a slut, and reused to apologise.
> 
> As to Obama and Fox, who fucken cares?  What happens in a different country has no bearing on this.
> 
> ...



You just stated the media, not the media that you like. 1 commentator on Sun news made a comment about Mr. Trudeau's mother, which was quickly disavowed by sun news. I think it was more a case of a convenient excuse for Mr Trudeau, but no bother. 


My original point is that Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Harper, Mr. Mulclair, and Mrs May have no obligation to speak to the media if they dont wish to do so. Using Mr. Trudeau as an example, he manages to pass his message perfectly well (well, as the third place guy maybe not as well as he would like) through friendly media. Ditto for Mr. Harper, ditto for Mr Mulclair. If they desire to avoid the media (which isn't just the traditional print and TV media anymore, lets not forget) than they do so at their own peril.

The nice thing about a democracy is that we can choose to view the leaders how we want. We also have a media free to find stories and present stories (even if they have a blatant bias).

In terms of the MSM, I do get a sense that some of their writers are perplexed that their views on Harper "destroying Canada" aren't causing the LPC to form a majority government, and others are equally perplexed that anyone would vote for Trudeau. Tom Mulclair by and large seems to be presented in the MSM as the third place candidate.


----------



## Altair (6 Sep 2015)

Two more polls came out Saturday,  all of which had the conservatives in third, grits in second and dippers in first.

Forum 

NDP 36

LPC 32

CPC 24

Léger

NDP 31

LPC 30

CPC 28

A couple of more long times to go, but same as in a hockey game, you can only watch and comment on the period you're in.

Léger looks more accurate though.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> A couple of more long times to go, but same as in a hockey game, you can only watch and comment on the period you're in.
> 
> Léger looks more accurate though.




There are some further comments on the Léger poll in this article in the _Globe and Mail_ which is headlined: "Canadians want a new PM, poll suggests."

Now, _I still think_ it's too early to worry about polls, but _I suspect_ that the headline is correct. As I have said, earlier and more than once, _I believe_ that seven to 10 years is about the modern "limit" for a prime minister. _I doubt_ that we will, ever again, see PMs who _endure_ for 15+ (Trudeau) or 20+ (Mackenzie King) years. My _sense_ is that Prime Minister's Harper's "best before date" was in the Spring of 2015. He _*might*_ have given his party a better shot at remaining in power had he announced his resignation in late 2014, and handed over, after a two month leadership race, early in 2015. But late summer 2014, when he _might_ have made that decision, was a very, very different time: before the oil price collapse (Sep 14), before the Mike Duffy charges (Jul 14) and trial (Apr 15) and before the NDP victory in Alberta (May 15).

_My guess_ is that Canadians will vote against Prime Minister Stephen Harper, not because they actually oppose his policies (the vast majority will have little or no idea about any party's policies) and not because they think he's dishonest (Ialthough some do believe that) but, rather, because they are tired of him ~ sick and tired of him in some cases.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2015)

Acorn said:
			
		

> A bit of an omnibus post here. I'm sure only some of you will mind.  ;D
> 
> Re: the media - I'll accept that there's no legal obligation for a politician to speak to the media, but trying to manage the message the way the Harper Government (R) has done is clearly working against them - given their promises of "openness" in government, doubly so.
> 
> ...




There is an article in the _Ottawa Citizen_ headlined, "Canada has no military role to play in Syria, Iraq: Mulcair" which says that "Mulcair dismissed military action, specifically Canada’s current bombing campaign in Syria and Iraq, as a solution ..."

I have not seen (but I haven't looked very hard) anything new from M Trudeau since he said (two months ago), "I'll end ISIS combat mission, restore relations with Iran."


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have not seen (but I haven't looked very hard) anything new from M Trudeau since he said (two months ago), "I'll end ISIS combat mission, restore relations with Iran."


I haven't seen any change/finessing of that - here's his latest refugee plank:


> .... Trudeau said his party had already set a target of accepting 25,000 refugees from Syria and the region, but are “committed to doing more.”
> 
> “To doing more to help people in their camps who are worried about things, who are fleeing for their lives, who are living in terrible conditions.”
> 
> He stopped short of saying whether Canada should be more active in helping its anti-ISIS coalition partners in Europe deal with the border security issues brought on by this mass influx of hundreds of thousands of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. He chose instead to criticize Harper and the Conservatives on international aid and cooperation ....


----------



## George Wallace (6 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There is an article in the _Ottawa Citizen_ headlined, "Canada has no military role to play in Syria, Iraq: Mulcair" which says that "Mulcair dismissed military action, specifically Canada’s current bombing campaign in Syria and Iraq, as a solution ..."



And with that, I have said:  Mulcair is not part of the solution, but part of the problem.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And with that, I have said:  Mulcair is not part of the solution, but part of the problem.




Most Canadians do not put foreign policy anywhere near the top of their electoral priority list ... same as national defence and money to build symphony concert halls.

The stands taken by Messers Mulcair and Trudeau may be "part of the problem" for you, but _I doubt_ they will have any measurable impact on the election outcome.


----------



## s2184 (6 Sep 2015)

s2184 said:
			
		

> What I will do?
> 
> In regards to Election 2015, I will vote for Conservative if Liberal seems stronger by the time of the election. I will not vote for Conservative if it seems stronger at the election time. In that case I have to still decide to whom I am going to vote.  :
> 
> I agree with you that it cannot be all the government, but private sectors, and other entities can play significant roles to deliver best output for the nation.



Still undecided..  :facepalm:

May be I should vote for the known devil instead. 

Honestly I lost interest in voting.  :-X


----------



## George Wallace (6 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Most Canadians do not put foreign policy anywhere near the top of their electoral priority list ... same as national defence and money to build symphony concert halls.
> 
> The stands taken by Messers Mulcair and Trudeau may be "part of the problem" for you, but _I doubt_ they will have any measurable impact on the election outcome.



Agreed.  I have little faith in the Canadian voter making truly informed decisions.  Some here are very enlightened and informed, but I feel that it will boil down to last minute 'gut feelings' when the majority of Canadians mark their "X" on their ballot.  Only the 'diehards' will vote along their Party lines.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Agreed.  _I have little faith in the Canadian voter_ making truly informed decisions.  Some here are very enlightened and informed, but I feel that it will boil down to last minute 'gut feelings' when the majority of Canadians mark their "X" on their ballot.  Only the 'diehards' will vote along their Party lines.




Well, _George_, you and I will just have to agree to disagree. Even when, in the 1970s and 1990s, I disagreed, vehemently, with the policies and programmes of the governments the Canadian voters chose, I _respected_ the choices themselves. I didn't think much of the _quality_ of the people elected to lead our country but my faith in the basic good sense of the electors remained strong. I understood, in the 1970s, that Prime Minister Diefenbaker was a tired old man, more than just a spent force, and that Mr Stanfield, estimable man though he was, as a person, did not have the _vision_ that Canadians wanted. Equally, in the 1990s, I knew than Ms Campbell and M Charest were not the right people to lead Canada. I thoroughly detested Prime Minister Trudeau, as a man and as a politician, but understood that Canadians elected him because he, more than anyone else, spoke to and about their hopes and fears and dreams. I was not alone is disliking Prime Minister Chrétien, but, for many Canadians, as British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher so often said, _"there was no alternative,"_ he was the least unacceptable choice for a plurality of the people.

I contin ue to believe what I said more than two weeks ago:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The numbers are fun, the _strategies_ and _tactics_ are fascinating, but: there is some good news and some bad news.
> 
> The good news is that we have a pretty robust, open, generally fair democracy. We all, well most of who are qualified, get to vote ... if we choose. And the party that the greatest number of us select is very likely to form a government. It is very likely that 60%+ of us are going to wish, on 20 Oct 15, that someone else was forming the government, but _c'est la vie_, as they say. There's more good news: none of Prime Minister Harper, Opposition Leader Mulcair or M Trudeau are bad men; none are going to turn into a right wing despot or a left wing nut. Most of the couple of thousand Canadians who will stand for office are similar to the leaders, not _*bad*_, not really _*good*_, perhaps, but, by and large, acceptable.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rocky Mountains (6 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Two more polls came out Saturday,  all of which had the conservatives in third, grits in second and dippers in first.
> 
> Forum
> 
> ...



Actually, in the Forum/Red Star poll the Conservatives improved from last time and the Leger/Globe they only went down .8%.  Don't read anything into either of these polls.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Sep 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Actually, in the Forum/Red Star poll the Conservatives improved from last time and the Leger/Globe they only went down .8%.  Don't read anything into either of these polls.


<pedant> Also remember the accuracy/margin of error of the poll results, too.  If the difference is at or less than the margin of error, it might as well be considered a tie.

For example, for the Forum polling, _"Results based on the total sample are considered accurate +/- 3%, 19 times out of 20."_  That means the difference between the NDP and Liberals puts them pretty well neck and neck - although the Tories are behind more than the margin of error in that snapshot.

For the Leger poll, _"a random sample of 2,119 respondents would yield a margin of error of +/- 2.1%, 19 times out of 20,"_ meaning there's not enough of a difference between the results to be anything more than "all three are tied".

Thus endeth Poll Reading 101  ;D</pedant>


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Sep 2015)

Pedant, Milnews, but also incorrect (which makes it worse  ;D).

The +/- error is not something you can apply as you wish to increase someone's number or decrease someone else (i.e. you can't say that the poll shows the NDP  just as likely at 33% [36-3] than the Libs at 35% (32+3).

The plus minus error figures are non-distributive mathematical model errors: this means that (if you pair it with the 19 times out of 20 factor, known in maths as the 95 percentile confidence factor) if you polled the same number of Canadians, at random, 20 different times, on that same day, you could find different results for each party that would fall within the figure released + or - 3%, and the last survey would bear no such resemblance with such distribution at all. However, the further you are in the outliers (i.e closer to the 3% difference, the least repeated the error - so one out of 20 polls may show the NDP at 3% lower or higher, but 10 out of twenty would have them between + /- 1%, and 15 would have them within + /- 2%. The value of the error itself being a statistical distribution.

Moreover, as I indicated, these error figures are "non-distributive", but the effect on the polling is a distributed effect (i.e. the distribution must always total 100% - Thus if a party goes up, somewhere else figures must come down. The statistical likelihood, however, that the NDP be down 3% while only the liberals be up the same 3% is probably in the order of one in a thousand chance (sorry, don't have my tables with me and don't remember the formula by hearth anymore).

/even more pedant off.

 :irony:


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Sep 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Pedant, Milnews, but also incorrect (which makes it worse  ;D).
> 
> The +/- error is not something you can apply as you wish to increase someone's number or decrease someone else (i.e. you can't say that the poll shows the NDP  just as likely at 33% [36-3] than the Libs at 35% (32+3).
> 
> ...


Holy crap - I'll have to re-check my ooooooooooooold notes, based on this (NOT Wikipedia  ;D):


> .... Knowing that a survey found that 60% of people support Candidate X doesn’t tell us much without knowing the margin of error. If the margin of error is +/- 15%, we would expect the true population support for Candidate X to be between 45% and 75%. Though at first it would appear that the majority of people support Candidate X, the large margin of error casts doubt on this conclusion. If, however, we know that 60% of people support Candidate X with a margin of error or +/- 3% we would expect the true population support for Candidate X to be between 57% and 63%. We would have much more confidence in the conclusion that the majority of people support Candidate X ....


Thanks for the new info.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Sep 2015)

Your quote from the U of Texas is not incorrect as a statement. If candidate X has 60% support with a 15% error, his true support will fall between 45% and 75% (except that 20th time out of twenty when it will fall outside that range). However, since the error is itself a statistical distribution, it is more likely that his true figure is found between say 55% and 65% than between either 45-50% or 70-75%.

That second degree (and I won't even get into the third degree of statistical levels - which exists and for some things such as dynamics, must be taken into account) of statistical analysis is usually ignored for more mundane pursuits (such as political polling) but must be taken into consideration for more advanced modelling such as cosmology, quantum mechanics and macro-econometric model of open economies.

It is sufficient to know that the error figure is an indication of how much trust you can have in the values derived by the polling. But it does not mean that you can say that a poll of candidates showing four or five points difference between candidates with a 3% error margin indicates that they are basically neck-to-neck.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Sep 2015)

How about we agree that you have to look closely at poll results, so the rest of the non-stats-geeks (unlike both of us) can get back to political wrestling?  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> How about we agree that you have to look closely at poll results, so the rest of the non-stats-geeks (unlike both of us) can get back to political wrestling?  ;D



Thanks, my head was starting to smoke...


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Sep 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Thanks, my head was starting to smoke...



JJT - I prefer just to leave them all alone these days.  Just like I don't spend any time at the track and I let other folks worry about the ups and downs of the stock market.

One horse race is much like another..... ;D


----------



## a_majoor (6 Sep 2015)

Given the increasing unreliability of polls over the last several election cycles (Federally, Provincially and Municipally, as well as in many foreign elections), I tend to doubt anything being posted by any individual polling company, and have even more doubt about polls commissioned by sources such as the Toronto Star.

Of course weighted averages like the ones published by 308 are problematic as well, if the input is unreliable to begin with then the end result will also be unreliable (GI-GO). I suspect lots of Canadians (like many Americans) only tell the pollsters what they think the pollsters want to hear, rather than what they intend to do in the privacy of the ballot box.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Sep 2015)

From the "Need to do a better job vetting our candidates" department, may I present Jerry "Pissing in your coffee cup" Bance.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/topstories/jerry-bance-marketplace-1.3217797


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Sep 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> From the "Need to do a better job vetting our candidates" department, may I present Jerry "Pissing in your coffee cup" Bance.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/topstories/jerry-bance-marketplace-1.3217797



The PM needs to dump him quickly. That being said, if the CBC had the footage in 2012, why did they wait three years to release it?


----------



## dapaterson (6 Sep 2015)

CBC did release it in 2012 (http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/episodes/2012-episodes/when-the-repairman-knocks).


----------



## Altair (7 Sep 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Given the increasing unreliability of polls over the last several election cycles (Federally, Provincially and Municipally, as well as in many foreign elections), I tend to doubt anything being posted by any individual polling company, and have even more doubt about polls commissioned by sources such as the Toronto Star.
> 
> Of course weighted averages like the ones published by 308 are problematic as well, if the input is unreliable to begin with then the end result will also be unreliable (GI-GO). I suspect lots of Canadians (like many Americans) only tell the pollsters what they think the pollsters want to hear, rather than what they intend to do in the privacy of the ballot box.


I thought 308 was pretty close to the actual results in the last election using the weighted polls?


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2015)

The _science_ (mostly mathematics) behind polling, market research, is solid and reliable. Companies and organizations as diverse as _Apple_ and the _Zillow Group_ (a multi-billion dollar US real estate/housing company) use it, almost daily, to figure out what you want and need. Ditto e.g. the _Government of Canada_ and _Greenpeace_ or the _Liberal Party_ and _Loblaws_. Figuring out what you want (and need) by way of a career or wearable technology or pizza is a lot less complicated than figuring out what you want in areas like _vision_ and _leadership_ or what will inspire _fear_ or _hope_ in your heart.

One problem with polling is that it alters its own results. If there are enough polls indicating that e.g. the NDP are _trending_ "up," then it is very likely that many Canadians will decide that they, too, "like" the NDP ... until something else, new and shiny, comes along.

Good market research is time consuming, painstaking and expensive. The results are, very often, not what anyone expects or ~ and this really matters in politics ~ wants. A good polling firm using innovative techniques might well be fired if its (very accurate) results run counter to what the party or campaign leadership wants (needs?) to hear.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, is an article explaining how Big Labour plans to mobilize the anti-Harper vote on 19 Oct:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/labour+unions+across+canada+preparing+launch+major+anti+harper/11344856/story.html


> Labour unions across Canada preparing to launch major anti-Harper offensive
> 
> GIUSEPPE VALIANTE, THE CANADIAN PRESS, MONTREAL GAZETTE
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> I find Mr Trudeau comes across as an orange Liberal ... he may even be better fit for the NDP but ended up in the family party because of his name.  On the other hand, Mr Mulcair is a red to blue NDPer, and I have read a few commentaries about some of the party's base not being happy about it.  It is like the two parties stole each other’s leader.



Lysiane Gagnon, writing in the _Globe and Mail_, agrees, at least in so far as the _left_ wing parties are concerned, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/parties-are-losing-their-sense-of-identity/article26227041/


> Parties are losing their sense of identity
> 
> LYSIANE GAGNON
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




I remember when there were _social value_ issues that defined the three parties:

     1. The CCF was a _semi-socialist_ party born out of the prairie _co-op_ movement;

     2. The NDP, which displaced the CCF when the Canadian Labour Congress took over, was somewhat more socialist ~ nationalize the banks, etc;

     3. The Progressive Conservatives were the party of the small town/main street ~ a bad place to be, politically, when the country was urbanizing at a very rapid rate;

     4. The Liberals were the "big tent" party that embraced the Big Banks, Big Labour, Big Business and the Big State.

The only party that has remained fairly true to some of its roots is the CPC: but only, _I suspect_, because the NDP and LPC already had a lock on the big cities. Brian Mulroney tried to move the PC Party into Liberal territory and, ultimately, failed; he couldn't be as _Liberal_ as the Liberals, themselves. Stephen Harper has, essentially, abandoned the vibrant, young, polyglot, _progressive_ urban centres and has focused on the stable, middle aged, middle class, _conservative_ suburbs and small cities (in addition to his rural/small town base).

All three major parties are courting the "middle:" the middle aged, middle class, moderate or _centrist_ voter. Big is no longer beautiful; socialism is stale; the one area where Canada differs, markedly, from America is in socio-religious attitudes: we don't have a powerful _religious right_. In Canada we prove Yeats wrong: the _centre_ cannot just "hold," it can grow and prosper and politicians must court it, abandoning _principles_ as they do.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> All three major parties are courting the "middle:" the middle aged, middle class, moderate or _centrist_ voter. Big is no longer beautiful; socialism is stale; the one area where Canada differs, markedly, from America is in socio-religious attitudes: we don't have a powerful _religious right_. In Canada we prove Yeats wrong: the _centre_ cannot just "hold," it can grow and prosper and politicians must court it, abandoning _principles_ as they do.



Thank God!

It means we don't have to worry either about jailing officials for refusing to carry out their duties because its against their "religion".

But otherwise, I also agree with Ms Gagnon that the parties are losing the battle where engagement of volunteers is concerned, but I am not certain it is a result of disengagement from politics. I have a strange feeling that many who would have been volunteers in the past have moved their engagement into cyberspace, as it is unregulated (as yet) by the Election Act, and these younger people think they can convince more people directly of their political ideas by engaging them one on one.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Sep 2015)

Unifor was largely responsible for Wynne carrying Ontario. A cautionary tale if there ever was one.


----------



## Scott (7 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Agreed.  I have little faith in the Canadian voter making truly informed decisions.  Some here are very enlightened and informed, but I feel that it will boil down to last minute 'gut feelings' when the majority of Canadians mark their "X" on their ballot.  Only the 'diehards' will vote along their Party lines.



Believe me, others will say the same about your mark, whatever it is.

I have flip flopped since springtime, and could again - because I consider myself informed. 

And I would tread very carefully labeling others as not being so.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Sep 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> From the "Need to do a better job vetting our candidates" department, may I present Jerry "Pissing in your coffee cup" Bance.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/topstories/jerry-bance-marketplace-1.3217797



And... colour him gone:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jerry-bance-marketplace-1.3217797#commentwrapper


----------



## dapaterson (7 Sep 2015)

I guess he'll no longer be putting the Pee in the CPeeC.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2015)

David Akin reports that, "The Conservative Party of Canada - Parti conservateur du Canada just lost another candidate: Tim Dutaud is out. Apparently he is YouTube's "Unicaller" (Watch below). Dutaud was running against NDP incumbent Craig Scott in Toronto-Danforth, a riding he had no hope of winning. He's the second candidate the Conservatives lost today. The other guy out is Jerry Bance, caught on a CBC program a couple of years ago peeing into a mug ... Well, scroll down to have this one explained. Bance, too, was running in a riding the Conservatives were almost certain to lose."

More on Tim Dutaud, here, and on Jerry Bance, here.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Sep 2015)

I'm waiting for some of the usual voices to start their apologia - Ezra Levant pointing out that Gandhi is reputed to have drunk his own urine, and that therefore Bance should be forgiven...


This does not speak highly of the internal candidate reviews that most parties conduct; were I in the Tory war room, my question now would be "Of the 336 we didn't fire over the long weekend, how many more bozo eruptions will we have?"


----------



## Rocky Mountains (7 Sep 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I tend to doubt anything being posted by any individual polling company, and have even more doubt about polls commissioned by sources such as the Toronto Star.



I wonder if the Red Star isn't polling its subscribers.  Lately it has had the Conservatives way lower than all the other polls.


----------



## Altair (7 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _science_ (mostly mathematics) behind polling, market research, is solid and reliable. Companies and organizations as diverse as _Apple_ and the _Zillow Group_ (a multi-billion dollar US real estate/housing company) use it, almost daily, to figure out what you want and need. Ditto e.g. the _Government of Canada_ and _Greenpeace_ or the _Liberal Party_ and _Loblaws_. Figuring out what you want (and need) by way of a career or wearable technology or pizza is a lot less complicated than figuring out what you want in areas like _vision_ and _leadership_ or what will inspire _fear_ or _hope_ in your heart.
> 
> One problem with polling is that it alters its own results. If there are enough polls indicating that e.g. the NDP are _trending_ "up," then it is very likely that many Canadians will decide that they, too, "like" the NDP ... until something else, new and shiny, comes along.
> 
> Good market research is time consuming, painstaking and expensive. The results are, very often, not what anyone expects or ~ and this really matters in politics ~ wants. A good polling firm using innovative techniques might well be fired if its (very accurate) results run counter to what the party or campaign leadership wants (needs?) to hear.


I would imagine a polling company would lose all credibility and therefore future customers if they published results that their client "wanted" to hear and we're totally off. Polling companies got a lot of flak for screwing up the alberta(2011) and BC elections and a lot of people questioned their competency. They also took a lot of flak for not giving enough weight to the federal NDP surge.

They've turned things around as of late in large part because of these swing and a miss polling where they were laughingstocks. I don't think any one polling firm will want to be risking their reputation again, and in the case of 308.com, I doubt all the polling firms will want to risk their reputations. 308.com has been pretty spot on for a while now, I think their methodology can be trusted in regards to polling numbers.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (7 Sep 2015)

Credibility?  The Red Star in 2 polls since August 24 has the Conservatives at 23.5 %.  The others in 8 polls since August 24 has the Conservatives at 29.175 %.  Does anyone think the Red Star is the slightest bit concerned about credibility?  They're too busy selling their agenda.

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html


----------



## Scott (7 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> David Akin reports that, "The Conservative Party of Canada - Parti conservateur du Canada just lost another candidate: Tim Dutaud is out. Apparently he is YouTube's "Unicaller" (Watch below). Dutaud was running against NDP incumbent Craig Scott in Toronto-Danforth, a riding he had no hope of winning. He's the second candidate the Conservatives lost today. The other guy out is Jerry Bance, caught on a CBC program a couple of years ago peeing into a mug ... Well, scroll down to have this one explained. Bance, too, was running in a riding the Conservatives were almost certain to lose."
> 
> More on Tim Dutaud, here, and on Jerry Bance, here.



 :facepalm:

Wow. Just wow.

Kinda appears to me that the team captain picking the CPC side is "just not ready"


----------



## Altair (7 Sep 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Credibility?  The Red Star in 2 polls since August 24 has the Conservatives at 23.5 %.  The others in 8 polls since August 24 has the Conservatives at 29.175 %.  Does anyone think the Red Star is the slightest bit concerned about credibility?  They're too busy selling their agenda.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html


minus them then?

An outlier or two won't effect the methodology of three hundred and eight too much in the long run.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Sep 2015)

I have and have started reading John Ibbitson's new book, _Stephen Harper_. It is, _I think_, a good portrait ... very "warts and all."

Gerald Caplan, long time NDP insider, has read it, too, and in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, he gives us his, unflattering, analysis of "what drives" Prime Minister Harper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/what-drives-harper/article26243659/


> What drives Harper?
> 
> GERALD CAPLAN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




There are many echoes of Mr Ibbitson's recent book (with Darrell Bricker), _Thge Big Shift_, in fact, Mr Ibbittson concludes with an assessment that the Harper years have fundamentally altered Canada, made it more _conservative_ and less likely, ever again, to be driven, from the top down, from Toronto and Montreal.

Take Mr Caplan with a grain of salt: he really, really doesn't like the prime minister; but do not disbelieve all that he says. Stephen Harper is neither Louis St Laurent, a real, honest gentleman, nor Brian Mulroney, all "hail fellow, well met." If he is _like_ any prime minister in my lifetime it would be Pierre Trudeau: private, introspective, and even studious, but given to snap, black and white judgments on complex, nuanced issues and to bursts of emotion.


----------



## cupper (7 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _science_ (mostly mathematics) behind polling, market research, is solid and reliable. Companies and organizations as diverse as _Apple_ and the _Zillow Group_ (a multi-billion dollar US real estate/housing company) use it, almost daily, to figure out what you want and need. Ditto e.g. the _Government of Canada_ and _Greenpeace_ or the _Liberal Party_ and _Loblaws_. Figuring out what you want (and need) by way of a career or wearable technology or pizza is a lot less complicated than figuring out what you want in areas like _vision_ and _leadership_ or what will inspire _fear_ or _hope_ in your heart.
> 
> One problem with polling is that it alters its own results. If there are enough polls indicating that e.g. the NDP are _trending_ "up," then it is very likely that many Canadians will decide that they, too, "like" the NDP ... until something else, new and shiny, comes along.
> 
> Good market research is time consuming, painstaking and expensive. The results are, very often, not what anyone expects or ~ and this really matters in politics ~ wants. A good polling firm using innovative techniques might well be fired if its (very accurate) results run counter to what the party or campaign leadership wants (needs?) to hear.



As Mitt Romney's campaign found out in 2012.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Sep 2015)

>There is, of course, a debate among the political class about whether Mr. Harper has seriously dismantled the architecture and institutions of Canadian democracy.

Maybe a good place to start is defining what each of the participants has in his mind as a meaning for "democracy".  The word has ceased to have any meaningful use when it is just thrown out without identifying which framework or institution has been altered.  A shopping list of special interests, for example, is not what I have in mind as "democratic institutions".


----------



## Altair (8 Sep 2015)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/support-for-conservatives-dips-on-response-to-migrant-crisis-poll-shows/article26246364/?service=mobile


New  poll conducted by nanos for the globe and ctv has,

NDP 33

LPC 31

CPC 26

I'm beginning to spot a trend. Possible sources of the CPC drop is the response to the refugee crisis. Which has been to say continue bombing,  take in 2500 refugees from syria yearly for the next 4 years.

Which looks terrible compared to the NDP 49000 and the LPC 25000.

A week is a long time in politics and that picture of a little Syrian boy washed up on a Turkish beach with a small Canadian connection has made this long time a bad one for the CPC.

Also mulcair is now the preferred prime minister if you believe the poll at 30 percent, trudeau at 28 and harper a dismal 25.

A most interesting election.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2015)

More on that pol in a report in the _Globe and Mail_ which says that, "The Nanos survey conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV News suggests many Canadians switched their voting intentions in recent days. The three-day sample puts support for the NDP at 32.7 per cent nationally (up 2.3 percentage points from a week ago), followed by the Liberals at 30.8 per cent (up 0.6 percentage points). Support for the Conservatives has slipped to 26.2 per cent (a 2.3-percentage-point drop) ... [and] ... With six weeks remaining until the Oct. 19 vote, Labour Day marked the start of heightened campaigning by political parties. Long weekends are considered to be key moments during election campaigns because friends and family come together to discuss politics, which can influence voting intentions."

The _Globe and Mail_ article goes on to report that Nick Nanos suggests that, just half way through a very, very long campaign (six weeks to go) this could mean a two way race: Liberals vs the NDP. Maybe, but ... don't forget two remarks from long dead British prime ministers:

     _"Events, dear boy, events"_
                   Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, 1894 – 1986

     _"A week is a long time in politics."_
                   Harold Wilson, Baron Wilson of Rievaulx, 1916 – 1995

The ongoing Syrian refugee crisis is one of those pesky "events" about which _"Super Mac"_ mused, and it _can_, indeed, bring down the CPC, but in the several "long times" between now and 19 Oct it can be overtaken by more, different "events" whcih can have very different impacts on all the parties' and leaders' fortunes.


Edit: corrected quote


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Sep 2015)

Here's the party's defence platforms, from the parties themselves:

Conservative
Liberal
NDP
Green
Enjoy!


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2015)

A Brant County (South Western Ontario) farmer and retired civil servant, John Langs, expresses his political views with a tractor:






Source: http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2015/09/07/oct-19-federal-election-farm-field-yields-political-message

Mr Langs, according to the article at the source, "is a former regional vice-president of the Syndicat Agriculture Union, which is part of the Public Service Alliance of Canada."


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Here's the party's defence platforms, from the parties themselves:
> 
> Conservative
> Liberal
> ...




Thanks for that!


----------



## Remius (8 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Here's the party's defence platforms, from the parties themselves:
> 
> Conservative
> Liberal
> ...



Colour me unimpressed by any of their platforms.

I don't trust the first one.
The other two are full of criticism about the first one without offering real alternatives.
And I didn't really read the last one because it would waste my time.

As mentioned before, defence isn't a top issue this election so the electorate won't care.  None of them are inspiring me to vote their way on this issue. Defence will go into my undecided column for now until I see something substantial.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> More on that pol in a report in the _Globe and Mail_ which says that, "The Nanos survey conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV News suggests many Canadians switched their voting intentions in recent days. The three-day sample puts support for the NDP at 32.7 per cent nationally (up 2.3 percentage points from a week ago), followed by the Liberals at 30.8 per cent (up 0.6 percentage points). Support for the Conservatives has slipped to 26.2 per cent (a 2.3-percentage-point drop) ... [and] ... With six weeks remaining until the Oct. 19 vote, Labour Day marked the start of heightened campaigning by political parties. Long weekends are considered to be key moments during election campaigns because friends and family come together to discuss politics, which can influence voting intentions."



To me, this should be concerning to the incumbent CPC - far more than the surge in the NDP.  I am speculating, but there are probably many voters who were planning to vote Conservative because they wouldn't vote NDP, but wouldn't feel bad about voting Liberal as opposed to Conservative now that some polls indicate that Trudeau may have a shot.  Blue to Red is probably easier to find than Blue to Orange.


----------



## Scott (8 Sep 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> To me, this should be concerning to the incumbent CPC - far more than the surge in the NDP.  I am speculating, but there are probably many voters who were planning to vote Conservative because they wouldn't vote NDP, but wouldn't feel bad about voting Liberal as opposed to Conservative now that some polls indicate that Trudeau may have a shot.  Blue to Red is probably easier to find than Blue to Orange.



Ding, ding, ding.


----------



## Remius (8 Sep 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> To me, this should be concerning to the incumbent CPC - far more than the surge in the NDP.  I am speculating, but there are probably many voters who were planning to vote Conservative because they wouldn't vote NDP, but wouldn't feel bad about voting Liberal as opposed to Conservative now that some polls indicate that Trudeau may have a shot.  Blue to Red is probably easier to find than Blue to Orange.



I suspect that as more polls come in this week that it will show a similar trend.  The CPC have been knocked off message every week so far and I suspect they will be knocked off message again.  I think that the Liberals have managed to claw their way back into contention despite the effectivelness of the attack ads and have taken support from those conservatives that might feel they can't support their party this time around.

I suspect we'll see a ramping up of ads and what not but it seems that the NDP and the Liberals have been holding back their ads, not falling for the early/long campaign trick of trying to bleed them.  

Things are about to get messy and dirty.


----------



## Altair (8 Sep 2015)

Both the NDP and LPC have done well to weather the attack ad storm while keeping their powder dry.

Trudeau has done well to not be squeezed out and remain relevant and mulcair has done well to keep up the momentum as the frontrunner. 

Harper is doing well considering the daily barrage he's going through from every conceivable layer of media there is.


----------



## Remius (8 Sep 2015)

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html

Well, CBC's poll tracker is showing a decline for the CPC and momentum for the LPC.  It seems, as pointed by Eric Grenier, that the CPC is losing ground in Ontario and the Liberals are gaining there.  If Ontario is the Key to 24 Sussex, then something will have to be done in this province.  I expect a lot more campaigning in Ontario in the next few weeks. 

(i alos expect a lot of third party activity in ontario as well...  )


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from TVO's _Steve Pakin's Blog_ is a very good article:

http://tvo.org/blog/current-affairs/would-stephen-harper-really-give-up-power-even-if-he-doesnt-win-the-most-seats

My _emphasis_ added


> Would Stephen Harper really give up power even if he doesn't win the most seats?
> 
> Steve Paikin
> 
> ...




Good question, Steve.

- mod edit to clean up article link -


----------



## Infanteer (8 Sep 2015)

One of the advantages of our system of unwritten convention is that they flex with the times and change.  If all the major parties are saying the party with the most seats gets the first crack and not the incumbant, then the convention has changed.  So, saying "wrong" may not actually be accurate - after all, the conventions are unwritten....


----------



## Altair (8 Sep 2015)

I don't think the electorate would forgive the party who allowed Steven Harper to remain prime minister,  no matter how long.

I honestly believe that if harper came in first by a few seats the opposition would defeat him at the first possible opportunity.

A lot of the support the NDP and LPC have at the moment is coming from those wanting change.

Whoever supported harper couldn't be the agent of change if they propped up another harper government and would be trounced in the next election.


----------



## McG (8 Sep 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> One of the advantages of our system of unwritten convention is that they flex with the times and change.  If all the major parties are saying the party with the most seats gets the first crack and not the incumbent, then the convention has changed.


I think the narrative that Canadian's elect governments is being taken deliberately because that is a narrative which gives powers to parties over parliamentarians ... It is a narrative that is in the interest of party dynasties, and it is part of our "game of thrones."



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> Whoever supported harper couldn't be the agent of change if they propped up another harper government and would be trounced in the next election.


Actually, whoever props the Harper government in such a scenario would have a lot of leverage to get concessions out of that government. So, they could be the agent of change.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I honestly believe that if harper came in first by a few seats the opposition would defeat him at the first possible opportunity.



And cause us another 8 week election campaign? You underestimate Canadians ability to tolerate 2 back to back elections. What is the NDP going to do? Vote down a balanced budget? Liberals already ruled out a coalition publically, so its likely the GG isn't going to side with a coalition.

If there's a Tory minority, it'll last 2 years until the Opposition has licked its wounds and decided to try again.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I don't think the electorate would forgive the party who allowed Steven Harper to remain prime minister,  no matter how long.
> 
> I honestly believe that if harper came in first by a few seats the opposition would defeat him at the first possible opportunity.
> 
> ...




But what if they, both the Liberals and the NDP, had spent damned near every last dime on this election, but the CPC still had tens of millions in the bank ~ enough to fight another, snap election campaign? Should they, the Liberals and NDP, defeat Harper, possibly forcing an election they cannot afford? And, see Infanteer's comment above. The _unwritten_ "rules" say that the GG should, if a government is defeated very quickly, call on the Leader of the Opposition to try to form a government that can secure the confidence of the HoC, but some constitutional scholars suggest that the _King-Byng Thing_ (1926) may have changed the "rules" and the if/when the PM asks for another election the GG must agree ... by _convention_.

So, if you are Justin Trudeau, leader of the third party in the HoC, and your party in, essentially broke, do you defeat Prime Minister Harper and fight an election for which you cannot pay? Or do you keep him in power while you refill your party's campaign "war chest?"


----------



## Altair (8 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> I think the narrative that Canadian's elect governments is being taken deliberately because that is a narrative which gives powers to parties over parliamentarians ... It is a narrative that is in the interest of party dynasties, and it is part of our "game of thrones."
> Actually, whoever props the Harper government in such a scenario would have a lot of leverage to get concessions out of that government. So, they could be the agent of change.


I can see the opposition party lumping whoever supported harper in with harper.

Think the ruckus of the liberals supporting c-51 and put it on steroids. The conservatives didn't even need the liberal support to pass it and the NDP nailed the LPC to the wall on that issue. Liberal support started dropping off around that time and has only recently started to tick upwards. 

I doubt any party risks public backlash by propping up the CPC


----------



## Altair (8 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But what if they, both the Liberals and the NDP, had spent damned near every last dime on this election, but the CPC still had tens of millions in the bank ~ enough to fight another, snap election campaign? Should they, the Liberals and NDP, defeat Harper, possibly forcing an election they cannot afford? And, see Infanteer's comment above. The _unwritten_ "rules" say that the GG should, if a government is defeated very quickly, call on the Leader of the Opposition to try to form a government that can secure the confidence of the HoC, but some constitutional scholars suggest that the _King-Byng Thing_ (1926) may have changed the "rules" and the if/when the PM asks for another election the GG must agree ... by _convention_.
> 
> So, if you are Justin Trudeau, leader of the third party in the HoC, and your party in, essentially broke, do you defeat Prime Minister Harper and fight an election for which you cannot pay? Or do you keep him in power while you refill your party's campaign "war chest?"


 He had better go for broke.

I remember the last time the liberals were in money problems and they would support the Harper minority by voting with it or abstaining from votes. The next election they were dumped to third. 

Now while that wasn't the only reason, the optics of wanting to the force for change while supporting the goverment is bad.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Sep 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> One of the advantages of our system of unwritten convention is that they flex with the times and change.  If all the major parties are saying the party with the most seats gets the first crack and not the incumbant, then the convention has changed.  So, saying "wrong" may not actually be accurate - after all, the conventions are unwritten....



And one can only imagine the screams of outrage if the Prime Minister had given the "right" answer, or continued to remain as Prime Minister in a minority situation with the support of another party. This is a damned if you do, damned if you don't sort of question, and the fact that the Prime Minister is laying the "ground rules" clearly should make things better all around when the smoke clears in October (and probably 18 months after that....)


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I honestly believe that if the Conservative Party of Canada came in first by a few seats the opposition would defeat it at the first possible opportunity.


I disagree.  The Liberal Party and the NDP are both strapped for cash and cannot afford another general election in such a short period of time.  As MCG noted: the party that helped the reigning party retain power would be "King Makers".


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Sep 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> And I didn't really read the last one because it would waste my time.


I'll sum up with this snippet from their policy:



> Our defence policy must reflect that Canada is fundamentally a peaceful country. We should engage in peacekeeping.



eace:


----------



## dapaterson (8 Sep 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I'll sum up with this snippet from their policy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Reads like something by Walter Dorn - a professor at the Canadian Forces College.


----------



## Altair (8 Sep 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I disagree.  The Liberal Party and the NDP are both strapped for cash and cannot afford another general election in such a short period of time.  As MCG noted: the party that helped the reigning party retain power would be "King Makers".


The liberal democrats were king makers in England and all they got was a swift kick to the teeth. 

I think it's especially important for the liberals to avoid propping up the CPC.  Especially a harper lead one. Financial situation aside, if they become the force hindering change the NDP grav that label and off to 24 Sussex goes mulcair.

The Canadian electorate doesn't give a damn about how much money the parties have, they care about wanting a change in government.


----------



## McG (8 Sep 2015)

A minority government with the CPC beholden to one or more other parties would be a change.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2015)

I agree that if either M Mulcair's or Prime Minister Harper's wins the most seats M Trudeau is between a rock and a hard place:

     1. He cannot support Prime Minister Harper or he will drive every anti-Harper voter over to the NDP, destroying the Liberal Party;

     2. He cannot support M Mulcair for very long without blurring the line between Liberals and _Dippers_ and, again, destroying the Liberal Party.

His Liberals have to finish ahead of the NDP. Then he can invite the NDP to join him in either _*a)*_ defeating Prime Minister harper and forcing another election ~ i.e. making M Mulcair decide to be "king maker" and/or hated; or _*b)*_ invite M Mulcair to support him, M Trudeau, in the HoC. He must, on other words, finish first, or second to the CPC, or he risks destroying the Liberal Party of Canada, as Prime Minister Harper is thought to wish.

Oh, and by the way, _I suspect_ M Mulcair's team can do the same calculations.


----------



## Altair (8 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> A minority government with the CPC beholden to one or more other parties would be a change.



True. But I don't see how that change would benefit anyone but the CPC to the detriment of the other two parties.

A conservative minority would need to work with the other parties, calming those who say harper can't play well with others.

It would put more time between the next election and the Duffy show.

For those who hate harper himself,  he might use the time to take his long walk in the snow.

All of this looks like pros for the CPC, cons for the NDP and disastrous for the LPC.

For the LPC, the only thing worst than being in debt is being irrelevant. 

Again, the liberals worked with the CPC the most out of all the parties in parliament during the last minority parliament and nobody thought they were king makers. They were dumped to third and made completely irrelevant. 

I hope the LPC can see that they can always raise more money someday, in the future,especially if they continue to get 90-100 seats. They can't do that if the electorate decides to dump them to third place with 30 odd seats and trudeau resigning in disgrace because they are fed up with the liberals propping up the CPC.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Sep 2015)

>Harper’s answer was fascinating because it was plain and simply wrong.

Not if Harper was framing his answer in terms of output legitimacy - and to situate the judgement thereof - rather than input legitimacy and directing it at voters and the other leaders.  I doubt that at this point Harper misunderstands how Parliament works.  Sometimes the pedantically correct answer is merely a (factually true) response which misses the (rhetorical) point.


----------



## Altair (8 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree that if either M Mulcair's or Prime Minister Harper's wins the most seats M Trudeau is between a rock and a hard place:
> 
> 1. He cannot support Prime Minister Harper or he will drive every anti-Harper voter over to the NDP, destroying the Liberal Party;
> 
> ...


correction,  he needs to finish ahead of someone. 

It can be the NDP or more likely these days, the conservatives. 

At the very least he needs to be close. Within 10-15 seats of the second place party if he finishes 3rd.

But if he finishes in second he's golden.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Sep 2015)

Can Harper pull a Bill Davis?  As my daughter is wont to say: "Maaaaybe".

Bill Davis - 1971-1985



> The 1975 campaign was far more bitter than that of 1971, with Davis and Liberal leader Robert Nixon repeatedly hurling personal insults at one another. Polls taken shortly before the election had the Liberals in the lead. The Progressive Conservatives won only 51 seats out of 125, but were able to remain in power with a minority government. The New Democratic Party (NDP) won 38 seats under the leadership of Stephen Lewis, while Nixon's Liberals finished third with 36. Soon after the election, Davis hired Hugh Segal as his legislative secretary.
> 
> Davis appointed right-wingers Frank Miller and James Taylor to key cabinet portfolios after the election, but withdrew from a proposed austerity program following a negative public response. In 1977, he introduced a policy statement written by Segal which became known as the "Bramalea Charter", promising extensive new housing construction for the next decade. Davis called a snap election in 1977, but was again returned with only a minority. The Progressive Conservatives increased their standing to 58 seats, against 34 for the Liberals and 33 for the NDP.
> 
> ...



Wiki

Will he be forced (is he planning) a Hamlet strategy?  Maaaybe.

Poul Nyrup Rasmussen - 1993-2001 (Centre Left)
Anders Fogh Rasmussen - 2001-2009 (Centre Right)
Lars Lokke Rasmussen - 2009-2011 (Centre Right)
Helle Thorning-Schmidt - 2011-2015 (Centre Left)
Lars Lokke Rasmussen - 2015 (Centre Right)

But first let us consider Britain 2015.















Whole lot of speculation based on speculative data and a whole lot of people trying to pretend they have a clue.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> correction,  he needs to finish ahead of someone.
> 
> It can be the NDP or more likely these days, the conservatives.
> 
> ...




I don't think so. If M Trudeau's Liberals finish second to M Mulcair's _Dippers_ in a minority situation then he has two bad choices:

     1. Support the NDP, which, as I said earlier, will blur the lines between the Liberal _left_, maybe the whole Liberal "brand," and the NDP. People will wonder why they should bother voting Liberal at all when there is a "clear" choice between the NDP and the CPC; or

     2. Join with the CPC, as soon as the finances are in order, to bring down the NDP, no matter how well the latter is governing, opening himself to just the attack you and the _Harper Haters™_ mentioned.

I think he must beat the NDP, _nationally_, and to do that he must, first, beat them in Quebec.

Looking farther into the future: In my opinion the post-Harper Conservatives will still have a solid prairie base (maybe a little less "firm" than today, and that might be a good thing since it would indicate greater "moderation" all around) and BC and Ontario will still be "up for grabs" by all three parties but only the CPC can/is willing to "govern without Quebec" ~ see my very first post in this thread. The Liberals' long term fortunes (survival) depends upon Quebec. In the really long term the "natural governing party" must capture the "hearts and minds" of the voters in suburban and small city Alberta, BC and Ontario ~ that's where the _growth_ in Canada is occurring. Atlantic Canada (32 seats, the Liberal Party's only "stronghold") and MB and SK (28 seats, part of the CPC's "prairie base") are fine, as "firm bases," in military parlance, but the real battlegrounds are in the areas with the real _growth_ and those are in three provinces: AB, BC and ON.

_I am guessing_ that we are drifting, as is the UK, towards an American style two party system: it's simpler, easier to understand, and people like "easy". _I think_ there will be a _centre left to left of centre party_ and a _centre right to right of centre party_. The former can be either the LPC or NDP and the latter can be either the CPC or LPC. Prime Minister Harper is reported to believe that a NDP (left) <> CPC (right) _pairing_ will be preferable, but that _pairing_ could, just as easily, be a LPC <> CPC or NDP <> LPC. The Liberals have the most to lose, and the most "opportunity" to lose, _in my opinion_.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Sep 2015)

Ah, the bias of the CBC.  This is buried down in the Politics section and you have to open it up to read it, I believe if it was a CPC gaffe vs NDP, it would be waved like a red flag.
Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.



> Senior NDP aide to Tom Mulcair apologizes for tweets targeting Catholic Church
> 
> By Colin Perkel, The Canadian PressPosted: Sep 08, 2015 9:46 PM ET|Last Updated: Sep 08, 2015 10:35 PM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting analysis of the (Canadian) political fallout from the refugee crisis:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/three-ways-the-refugee-crisis-could-unfold-and-what-it-means-for-harper/article26267226/


> Three ways the refugee crisis could unfold and what it means for Harper
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




OK, my (hard hearted) views on refugees are already known, ditto my view that the best way to _solve_ the "endless, brutal civil war within Islam" is to sell them weapons to use against one another and then get out of the way and let the slaughter begin, for a generation or two.

My _guess_ is that option one, new _"events"_ displacing this one in the public mind, is very possible but that a variation of option three is most likely. I am prepared to guarantee that a dozen or more IS** terrorists are hidden in that mass of refugees and, fairly soon, one or more will come out of hiding and attack a target in Europe. Equally, I am prepared to guarantee that sometimes within the next six weeks IS** will commit further atrocities, making it harder and hard to say, as Messers Mulcair and Trudeau do, "send blankets, not bombs." Finally, I believe that Canadian voters have short attention spans, especially when foreigners are concerned and their attention will turn to other matters ... see below.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2015)

This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Winnipeg Sun_ is biased, but it can and should form the basis for some CPC and NDP attack ads:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2015/09/08/trudeau-continues-assault-on-paycheques


> Trudeau continues assault on paycheques
> 
> BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF
> 
> ...




First: All those who argue that media bias is always against the CPC need to suck back and reload; and

Second: This is the sort iof good, solid, personal, pocketbook political issue that can be used with devastating effect against the Liberals.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Sep 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Ah, the bias of the CBC.  This is buried down in the Politics section and you have to open it up to read it, I believe if it was a CPC gaffe vs NDP, it would be waved like a red flag.
> Shared under the fair dealings provisions of the copyright act.


The new "truth":

"My view is that my views aren't my views"


----------



## Altair (9 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Winnipeg Sun_ is biased, but it can and should form the basis for some CPC and NDP attack ads:
> 
> http://www.winnipegsun.com/2015/09/08/trudeau-continues-assault-on-paycheques
> 
> ...


The CPC will get right on that, after they are done attacking justin on other important things... like his hair.


----------



## Pencil Tech (9 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't think so. If M Trudeau's Liberals finish second to M Mulcair's _Dippers_ in a minority situation then he has two bad choices:
> 
> 1. Support the NDP, which, as I said earlier, will blur the lines between the Liberal _left_, maybe the whole Liberal "brand," and the NDP. People will wonder why they should bother voting Liberal at all when there is a "clear" choice between the NDP and the CPC; or
> 
> ...



Dear Mr. Campbell,

You are flagellating a deceased equine. Stephen Harper is done. I was active in politics for years and a riding association president for several. It's pretty obvious when a campaign has the smell of death around it. From the bottom of my heart, it's over.


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> The Canadian electorate doesn't give a damn about how much money the parties have, they care about wanting a change in government.



I think you misunderstood me.  What I mean is that those two parties don't have the money to fund a campaign, ie pay for adverts, signs, etc.  That's all.


----------



## McG (9 Sep 2015)

... and, while that public may not care about how much money each party holds, that public is influenced by the advertisments that the money buys.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Sep 2015)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> Dear Mr. Campbell,
> 
> You are flagellating a deceased equine. Stephen Harper is done. I was active in politics for years and a riding association president for several. It's pretty obvious when a campaign has the smell of death around it. From the bottom of my heart, it's over.



I have to agree too, unless other two leaders get caught in a scandal of biblical proportions that makes them and their party pariahs between now and the 19th, the PM will be needing to make post Sussex plans.  There is a smell of a dead whale on the beach coming from SH's side of the game.  I wouldn't be surprised if they fall as hard as the Liberals did under Iggy.


----------



## Remius (9 Sep 2015)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> Dear Mr. Campbell,
> 
> You are flagellating a deceased equine. Stephen Harper is done. I was active in politics for years and a riding association president for several. It's pretty obvious when a campaign has the smell of death around it. From the bottom of my heart, it's over.



I'm not going to say that it's over just yet.  This campaign still has a while to go.  But the momentum has shifted and the ruling party is in what seems to be the beginning of a free fall.  There are reports of low morale and stagnation and dissatifaction with the management of the campaign.  Dumping your campaign manager at this point is dangerous unless they can bring someone who can turn things around.  It could send the wrong signal.

I'm not sure anybody saw his interview on CBC but I think, people need to see more of that.  If he had done something like that, say a year ago, then maybe some of the issues like Mike Duffy would have had less of an impact. 

I think it is too early to call this one.  Remember, this election more than any other will be a riding by riding battle.


----------



## Remius (9 Sep 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I have to agree too, unless other two leaders get caught in a scandal of biblical proportions that makes them and their party pariahs between now and the 19th, the PM will be needing to make post Sussex plans.  There is a smell of a dead whale on the beach coming from SH's side of the game.  I wouldn't be surprised if they fall as hard as the Liberals did under Iggy.



i still think it is too early to tell but if the trend continues, this outcome would not surprise me.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Sep 2015)

I believe the ER hit it on the head earlier in that people are tired of SH and want a new hand on the tiller.  If this is so, then I expect there will be a groundswell of votes to boot the CPC from the king of the hill position.  If enough voters do it, then it will be a slaughter for the CPC and they may just be able to hold their caucus meetings in a phone booth.  And that's why I think there is a smell of a dead whale about the CPC campaign.


----------



## Remius (9 Sep 2015)

While not likely to be on par with peeing in a cup or youtube shenanigans, this here shows that yet again, that some people should watch what they post/tweet.  It may come back to haunt them.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-shawn-dearn-ndp-mulcair-twitter-apology-1.3220283

I'm not sure I would want a communications director with that kind of judgement.


----------



## Remius (9 Sep 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I believe the ER hit it on the head earlier in that people are tired of SH and want a new hand on the tiller.  If this is so, then I expect there will be a groundswell of votes to boot the CPC from the king of the hill position.  If enough voters do it, then it will be a slaughter for the CPC and they may just be able to hold their caucus meetings in a phone booth.  And that's why I think there is a smell of a dead whale about the CPC campaign.



This is a good point.  And if there is momentum and people get caught up in it it could be as bad for the CPC as you say.


----------



## Lumber (9 Sep 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> While not likely to be on par with peeing in a cup or youtube shenanigans, this here shows that yet again, that some people should watch what they post/tweet.  It may come back to haunt them.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-shawn-dearn-ndp-mulcair-twitter-apology-1.3220283
> 
> I'm not sure I would want a communications director with that kind of judgement.



Poor judgment because you think what he said was wrong, or poor judgment because (given his occupation) he should have known it could be politically damaging?


----------



## Remius (9 Sep 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Poor judgment because you think what he said was wrong, or poor judgment because (given his occupation) he should have known it could be politically damaging?



Poor judgement because of the way he communicated his views.  

You can read here exactly what he said.  

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/mulcairs-communications-director-apologizes-past-anti-catholic-tweets-010302934.html

If you are going to be working in communications and media (he would have been in that field at the time according to his bio) and you are going to be tweeting f-bombs about touchy subjects then yeah it's bad and unprofessional.  

The guy is 41.  He did this when he was 39.  This isn't some youthful indiscretion.  He should have known better.


----------



## Lumber (9 Sep 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Poor judgement because of the way he communicated his views.
> 
> You can read here exactly what he said.
> 
> ...



I guess for me I have no objections at all with what he said, and I get un-nerved with how carefully you have to tip toe around what you say and do when you're in politics. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone ..."

Do I agree it was foolish given his position and experience? Yes. Do I actually care and think this actually matters in any way shape or form wrt the election? Does it reflect at all on the NDP, their party, the platform, or their leader? Not one bit.


----------



## Remius (9 Sep 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I guess for me I have no objections at all with what he said, and I get un-nerved with how carefully you have to tip toe around what you say and do when you're in politics. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone ..."
> 
> Do I agree it was foolish given his position and experience? Yes. Do I actually care and think this actually matters in any way shape or form wrt the election? Does it reflect at all on the NDP, their party, the platform, or their leader? Not one bit.



Yep.  That's politics.  What you say and do will matter.  His comment likely offended some.  Hence the danage control.  Luckily his comments were aimed at a group that is a safe target as compared to others where he would have been crucified for it (no pun intended).

Of course it doesn't matter in the long run.  Or even the short run.  My point was that this is just another case of social media coming back and biting you in the a**. 

Mr. Mulcair has taken the apology at face value and has confidence in this individual.  Fair enough and it is his call.  Personally i agree that it isn't a big deal in the end.  But i don't belive him for one second when he says those aren't his views.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Sep 2015)

So, for all the Harper Haters, what if the CPC won again and six months in the PM retires after a leadership convention and the new leader takes over.

Would that make the CPC more palatable? I think there are a lot of people that aren't even aware, one iota, of the various platforms and issues. Their only commonality and reason for voting is they don't like Harper.

They're willing to risk all kinds of financial woes, possible economic failure, maybe four years of irreparable damage, etc simply because they want to punish one man.

Watch what you ask for, you just might get it.


----------



## Lumber (9 Sep 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> But i don't belive him for one second when he says those aren't his views.



Ditto! And this is where I believe politics becomes especially malignant. Mr. Dearn was forced to _lie_ to the public about his views, because his actions were unprofessional. Since I was a kid I've heard people rant about how politicians are coniving liars, but some of them are decent folks who get backed into a corner.

I'd never heard of Mr.Dearn before this story, so for all I know he's a real wicked man. It's moot, because _now _ he _is_ a liar.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Sep 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So, for all the Harper Haters, what if the CPC won again and six months in the PM retires after a leadership convention and the new leader takes over.
> 
> Would that make the CPC more palatable? I think there are a lot of people that aren't even aware, one iota, of the various platforms and issues. Their only commonality and reason for voting is they don't like Harper.
> 
> ...



Sadly, I don't believe that many of the "Harper Haters" are reasonably looking past their distaste for the PM and by extension his party.  There may, or may not be, sound reasons to vote for this, that, or another party/leader and in a perfect world/election these would be the deciding factor on how to cast a ballot.  I don't believe that the electorate is willing or able to see past their present views on each party.  Unless I'm mistaken and ER's fears are unfounded, there is a serious desire for change at the top in the person of SH.  With him go the fortunes of his party.  

I was in Borden in 1989 during the provincial election that catapulted Bob Rae into the driver's seat, for these self same reasons.  The incumbent leadership of the day had to go and it was a landslide on one end and a slaughter on the other end.  I fear history is about to repeat itself and catapult another NDP leader into the driver's seat.


----------



## GAP (9 Sep 2015)

Six weeks is a very long time in politics.......let's see what things look like on Oct 20th..................


----------



## Remius (9 Sep 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> Six weeks is a very long time in politics.......let's see what things look like on Oct 20th..................



this^


----------



## Altair (9 Sep 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So, for all the Harper Haters, what if the CPC won again and six months in the PM retires after a leadership convention and the new leader takes over.
> 
> Would that make the CPC more palatable? I think there are a lot of people that aren't even aware, one iota, of the various platforms and issues. Their only commonality and reason for voting is they don't like Harper.
> 
> ...


depends who the CPC replaces him with. My fear is if SH wins, even a minority,  everything he's done, from his style of leadership to the abuses of parliament tools like omnibus bills with misleading names to pass everything, the attack ad destruction of his opponents, the talking point answers in parliament and to the press that dont even begin to answer the question that was asked, would be legitimized and they will replace harper with the mini harper, pierre poilievre. The if it isn't broke, why fix it camp will stay the course.

If they lose they might just do some soul searching and get someone who might play well with others.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Sep 2015)

You know, one of the advantages of a long campaign is boredom.

HateHarperInc is coming out of the gates early and taking their best shots.  If they keep this up for 6 weeks I wonder how many folks are still listening to them when they
 go into the polling booths.  Even the noisiest factory becomes background noise after a while.

And after they have taken their best shots, showed their hands, spent their money..... then what?


----------



## Remius (9 Sep 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> You know, one of the advantages of a long campaign is boredom.
> 
> HateHarperInc is coming out of the gates early and taking their best shots.  If they keep this up for 6 weeks I wonder how many folks are still listening to them when they
> go into the polling booths.  Even the noisiest factory becomes background noise after a while.
> ...



You could say exactly that about some of the attack ads we are seeing.


----------



## Altair (9 Sep 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> You know, one of the advantages of a long campaign is boredom.
> 
> HateHarperInc is coming out of the gates early and taking their best shots.  If they keep this up for 6 weeks I wonder how many folks are still listening to them when they
> go into the polling booths.  Even the noisiest factory becomes background noise after a while.
> ...


If you believe the so called insiders, the LPC and NDP have kept their powder dry for after labour day. The unions as well.


----------



## Altair (9 Sep 2015)

Polls are coming out faster and faster.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/election/nanos-polls

Liberals 32.5

NDP 31.2

CPC 25.9


http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6976

NDP 34

LPC 30

CPC 29

Wonder when the conservative war room starts to panic?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> depends who the CPC replaces him with. My fear is if SH wins, even a minority,  everything he's done, from his style of leadership to the abuses of parliament tools like omnibus bills with misleading names to pass everything, the attack ad destruction of his opponents, the talking point answers in parliament and to the press that dont even begin to answer the question that was asked, would be legitimized and they will replace harper with the mini harper, pierre poilievre. The if it isn't broke, why fix it camp will stay the course.
> 
> If they lose they might just do some soul searching and get someone who might play well with others.



So you mean just like Chretien did. 



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> Polls are coming out faster and faster.
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/election/nanos-polls
> 
> ...



 You might be selling the CPC short. Given how Harper has played chess, against his opponents, since he was elected, it's hard to believe he's on the ropes. We'll have to wait and see I guess.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (9 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> My fear is if SH wins, even a minority,  everything he's done, from his style of leadership to the abuses of parliament tools like omnibus bills with misleading names to pass everything, the attack ad destruction of his opponents, the talking point answers in parliament and to the press that dont even begin to answer the question that was asked, would be legitimized



Why are attributing to Stephen Harper the same criticisms that have been attributed to Trudeau, Mulroney, and Chretien as if he invented Parliament himself?  Nothing to see here folks, move along.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2015)

It's after Labour Day so polls are _*starting*_ to matter. The _Globe and Mail_'s Election Forecast is here. It says:

                         CPC:       114 (range about 75 to 155 seats)  2nd
                LPC:                  86 (range about 55 to 135 seats)  3rd
                             _*NDP:  126 *_(range about 80 to 160 seats)  _*1st*_
         BQ:                          11 (range about   0 to   20 seats)  4th
Green:                              1                                                 5th

In other words, if the election was held today we would, most likely, have an NDP minority government. It is very unlileky, today, that anyone could get a majority. But, _BIG BUT_, we are only about half way through the campaign, there are still almost six weeks to go.


----------



## Privateer (9 Sep 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Why are attributing to Stephen Harper the same criticisms that have been attributed to Trudeau, Mulroney, and Chretien as if he invented Parliament himself?  Nothing to see here folks, move along.



The seeds of all of these problems were planted before Mr. Harper, I would say.  However, he has cultivated all of them to a level that far surpasses what others have done before him.  Mr. Harper appears to have decided that his government governs best when Parliament is broken and rendered completely dysfunctional.  His contempt for the judicial branch is unconcealed.  There have been Conservative policies that I can support, but what I cannot support is a deliberate effort to dismantle Parliamentary democracy, which is what I have seen from this government.  In our system, constitutional and Parliamentary conventions are the glue that binds the system together.  In my view, the conventions are more important to our democracy than most laws that are passed by any given government.  But in order for the conventions to have hold, they must be internalized and respected by Parliamentarians, including members of the cabinet.  In the current government, I see a Prime Minister and Ministers who have utter disregard for constitutional and Parliamentary conventions.  This is the primary reasons why the Conservatives will not have my vote in this election.  It would be the same for any party that has acted this way.


----------



## Altair (9 Sep 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Why are attributing to Stephen Harper the same criticisms that have been attributed to Trudeau, Mulroney, and Chretien as if he invented Parliament himself?  Nothing to see here folks, move along.


And trust me, if JT or TM resorted to the same tactics in parliament,  I would turn on them as well. I'm not blindly partisan. 

In 2011, despite being a lifelong liberal, I didn't want anyone to win, so I stayed home. 

But the whole he's not that bad because others did it before him doesn't hold water to me. I don't care if chretien or Trudeau ot Mulroney did it, I care that Harper is doing that now. I wasn't even alive for trudeau,  I couldn't even vote for Mulroney and I only became politically aware at the end of Chretiens rule. What they did or didn't do interests me as much as the reign of Joe Clark.


----------



## Remius (9 Sep 2015)

Privateer said:
			
		

> The seeds of all of these problems were planted before Mr. Harper, I would say.  However, he has cultivated all of them to a level that far surpasses what others have done before him.  Mr. Harper appears to have decided that his government governs best when Parliament is broken and rendered completely dysfunctional.  His contempt for the judicial branch is unconcealed.  There have been Conservative policies that I can support, but what I cannot support is a deliberate effort to dismantle Parliamentary democracy, which is what I have seen from this government.  In our system, constitutional and Parliamentary conventions are the glue that binds the system together.  In my view, the conventions are more important to our democracy than most laws that are passed by any given government.  But in order for the conventions to have hold, they must be internalized and respected by Parliamentarians, including members of the cabinet.  In the current government, I see a Prime Minister and Ministers who have utter disregard for constitutional and Parliamentary conventions.  This is the primary reasons why the Conservatives will not have my vote in this election.  It would be the same for any party that has acted this way.



Although I haven't fully decided (too many long times to go between now and the election) this is one thing that will have an impact on my decision.  It certainly will balance against the CPC.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2015)

Privateer said:
			
		

> The seeds of all of these problems were planted before Mr. Harper, I would say.  However, he has cultivated all of them to a level that far surpasses what others have done before him.  Mr. Harper appears to have decided that his government governs best when Parliament is broken and rendered completely dysfunctional.  His contempt for the judicial branch is unconcealed.  There have been Conservative policies that I can support, but what I cannot support is a deliberate effort to dismantle Parliamentary democracy, which is what I have seen from this government.  In our system, constitutional and Parliamentary conventions are the glue that binds the system together.  In my view, the conventions are more important to our democracy than most laws that are passed by any given government.  But in order for the conventions to have hold, they must be internalized and respected by Parliamentarians, including members of the cabinet.  In the current government, I see a Prime Minister and Ministers who have utter disregard for constitutional and Parliamentary conventions.  This is the primary reasons why the Conservatives will not have my vote in this election.  It would be the same for any party that has acted this way.




There is an interesting bit in today's _Ottawa Citizen_ in which M Trudeau admits (to Peter Mansbridge on CBC TV) that his father, Pierre Trudeau, began the "rule by PMO" which, _I think_, is at the heart of most complaints.

Now, Altair says he doesn't care because it happened before he was born. I am very disappointed. _In my opinion_, if you want to understand the problem you must understand how and why (and even when) it came into being. 

M Trudeau promises to change that ... if you believe that then you must also believe in the tooth fairy.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Sep 2015)

I guess some people just can't stomach the fact that SH is no different that those that have gone before him.

As in days of old the witch will be either burned at the stake, or drowned, by the flaming faggot, pitchfork crowd stirred by hidden leaders and whispering malcontents.

Look hard as you may, you'll find no righteous messiahs in politics.

As I said above, I find it disheartening that many of the ABC persuasion aren't voting on policies and platforms. They are voting simply because they've been told SH is evil and has to be put down.


----------



## Altair (9 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There is an interesting bit in today's _Ottawa Citizen_ in which M Trudeau admits (to Peter Mansbridge on CBC TV) that his father, Pierre Trudeau, began the "rule by PMO" which, _I think_, is at the heart of most complaints.
> 
> Now, Altair says he doesn't care because it happened before he was born. I am very disappointed. _In my opinion_, if you want to understand the problem you must understand how and why (and even when) it came into being.
> 
> M Trudeau promises to change that ... if you believe that then you must also believe in the tooth fairy.


how far back do I need to go in history when deciding to vote for current parties and leaders?

John A Macdonald? Louis Laurent?  Pearson?Campbell? 

I judge current leaders on their current actions, promises and personalities.

And while I might be naive to vote for a guy who promises to change the problems with how parliament  is run, it's better than voting for the guy who doesn't even see it as a problem.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> And while I might be naive to vote for a guy who promises to change the problems with how parliament  is run, it's better than voting for the guy who doesn't even see it as a problem.



Perhaps your problem can be solved by reading up on the Parliamentary System, the British North America Act, and other books that will describe the Canadian Parliamentary System.  It will also clarify many of your misconceptions, perhaps total lack of knowledge, of the Senate, as well.


----------



## CougarKing (9 Sep 2015)

Elizabeth May making another impossible promise regarding university education all over Canada:  : 

CBC



> *Green Party platform promises to expand rail, eliminate tuition
> Elizabeth May wants to grow green jobs, tackle climate change and wean Canada's economy off oilsands*
> 
> *The Green Party wants to wipe out university and college tuition fees*, expand Canada's rail and urban transit systems and halt the use of fossil fuels by mid-century.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> _how far back do I need to go in history_ when deciding to vote for current parties and leaders?
> 
> John A Macdonald? Louis Laurent?  Pearson?Campbell?
> 
> ...




First: you don't _need_ to go back past last week. There is no need to understand when, why or how things came to pass, it is sufficient to just be dissatisfied with the way they are ... very, very few Canadians even know that there is a PMO, much less a PCO and fewer still know what they do and why they do those things.

Second: you are quite right to judge the current leaders on their (recent) records.

But, how, _I wonder_, do you judge the guy with no record at all? Those of us who listened to Preston Manning, back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when he promised to "do politics differently" and those of us who listened to Stephen Harper when _he_ promised to clean up the _Augean stables_ like mess that the Liberals left behind were sadly disappointed, weren't we? What makes you think that M Trudeau can, would or even wants to do things any differently from the ways the Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper did them?

     (Parenthetically: I can remember when the country was governed without the big, all powerful, all encompassing PMO that Pierre Trudeau built. I recall that Louis St Laurent was a much better prime minister than any who followed him,
      light years superior in every possible respect - intellectual, political, human - to Pierre Trudeau and Stephen Harper, and the country was better _managed_, too, because the civil service, the _Mandarins_ worked in tandem
      with ministers, they were not a separate, more powerful "hidden government" (and they, like Louis St Laurent vs Pierre Trudeau, were, generally, _superior_ to today's versions, too). 

Governing from the Centre is not just a Canadian disease: the UK Cabinet Office is just as bad as our PMO. The US have been at it much longer, although a US president does not have the advantage of a compliant parliament. It is also a problem, so I have read, in Australia, France, Germany and India, to name just a few. How on earth does Justin Trudeau plan to change it? The short answer is: he doesn't. He doesn't even, really, understand the problem and if he ever gets to sit behind the big desk in  the Langevin Block his _handlers_ will explain to him why this _system_ works better, for him than any other.


----------



## cupper (9 Sep 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Elizabeth May making another impossible promise regarding university education all over Canada:  :
> 
> CBC



But when you have no hope in hell of becoming PM, you can promise the moon and no one will expect that you will be in the position to deliver anyway.

Damn that was a cynical response. The bane of the political junkie.


----------



## Privateer (9 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Governing from the Centre[/url] is not just a Canadian disease: the UK Cabinet Office is just as bad as our PMO. The US have been at it much longer, although a US president does not have the advantage of a compliant parliament. It is also a problem, so I have read, in Australia, France, Germany and India, to name just a few. How on earth does Justin Trudeau plan to change it? The short answer is: he doesn't. He doesn't even, really, understand the problem and if he ever gets to sit behind the big desk in  the Langevin Block his _handlers_ will explain to him why this _system_ works better, for him than any other.



Hope springs eternal, and sometimes there is a Parliamentarian who will take a principled stand for the better: witness Michael Chong, who, in respect of Parliamentary convention, resigned his cabinet seat to make a principled stand on an issue contrary to government policy, and who drafted and championed the Reform Act.  Perhaps Mr. Trudeau would take steps in the right direction.  As Altair said, I'll take someone who at least acknowledges the problem and says that he intends to fix it, over someone who thinks that there is no problem.


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Sep 2015)

People like to hold up Germany as an example of free university tuition. Here's an article from the BBC that provides food for thought:

How Germany abolished tuition fees

Interesting bit this:



> In Germany, about 27% of young people gain higher education qualifications. In the UK, the comparable figure is 48%.



I think our rate is probably on par with the UK. I wonder how it would go down if we were to slash our seats by 50%.


----------



## McG (9 Sep 2015)

We probably should be sending more to college than university anyway.  We could maybe afford a reduced, more competitive university intake.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> We probably should be sending more to college than university anyway.  We could maybe afford a reduced, more competitive university intake.



True.  The Colleges are more likely to put young Canadians into a good Trade and into good paying jobs quicker than universities.


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> True.  The Colleges are more likely to put young Canadians into a good Trade and into good paying jobs quicker than universities.



Absolutely, but you can't tell the young that.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Sep 2015)

I'm sure the LPC and NDP would be very happy if the CPC said, "Oh, there's no hope" and dropped out, even though the time remaining is about as much as most prior elections.  I doubt anyone is going to win a majority.  That leaves a minority, and the prospect of having enough seats to form a second minority after the first loses confidence, to fight for.

For those who need to elect a NDP government to find out that the NDP is the most centrally, top-down controlled major party in Canada, fill your ballot accordingly.  Keep subsequent lamentations to yourself, please.  How far can you trust them?  A short while back I asked a NDP supporter - now candidate - what the policy was on a particular issue.  The response was basically: you'll have to elect us to find out.  Where does that rank for "secretive"?

You don't need to go back very far to understand that pretty much everything Harper does is based on lessons learned from predecessors from PET forward.  Given that knowledge, you can dismiss the fantasy that a different leader/party will make a difference to practices (the promises go by the board as soon as they get briefed in and start trying to do things) and focus on policy.

Understand: this is an election about nothing significant.  The strongest slogan the opposition parties have is "ABC" (really, "ABH").  Usually voters don't reward opposition parties for merely saying, "We'll do/be better than the incumbents.  We promise"; but sometimes they do.  It'd be a shame to reward such laziness.  The rest is basically "tax more, spend more" fly-sh!t issues and party quiffs; and, there are a lot of frustrated, organized, and vocal groups out there who lost their rice bowls and want them back.  The biggest issues the media wants to discuss are "Duffy is a poor senator" and "more refugees, please".  As immediately recent events demonstrated, in the internet age the proverbial lie is now orders of magnitude faster than the truth in getting out there.

We should be talking about whether "stimulus" works very well - if at all - in the Canadian federal context, and whether it is even appropriate for a commodities price slump.  (From announcements I read today, AB is going down the "stimulus" sinkhole.)

We should be talking about whether the economy has been constrained by consumer deleveraging (debt acquired during the 1997-2007 "boomlet"), and is about to be more constrained in the near future when deleveraging for the current round of low-interest debt acquisition comes due.  So much future spending (hence future taxation) is being pulled into the present that there is bound to be a big, hard recession (a true one: a demand shock).

I predict that if the next government is not fiscally conservative, Canada is going to be caught moving in the wrong direction (higher taxes, increased social spending commitments) when the recession strikes.  And, there are no cushions left: the dollar is low, interest rates are low, commodities prices are down, consumers are over-indebted, most of our trading partners' economies are lacklustre.


----------



## dimsum (9 Sep 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I wonder how it would go down if we were to slash our seats by 50%.



I'd guess that there would be more Canadians (who can afford it) going overseas to places like Australia, etc. for their degrees then.  I think we've discussed this before, but the cultural attachment to higher education, especially in Asian cultures, pretty much makes College a non-starter unless it's done after a Bachelor's degree.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Sep 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'd guess that there would be more Canadians (who can afford it) going overseas to places like Australia, etc. for their degrees then.  I think we've discussed this before, but the cultural attachment to higher education, especially in Asian cultures, pretty much makes College a non-starter unless it's done after a Bachelor's degree.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFKn1LgSwZk


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Sep 2015)

So I did a little fact checking, to see how the various parties would personally affect me with their income tax plans. The assumption is married couple, single earner $80,000 a year. No other deductions (kids, cpp, etc) federal and provincial tax payable for entire family:

Tories (Income splitting, no change): *$16,040*
Liberals (Scrap income splitting, middle tax bracket to 20.5%): *$19,583.65*
NDP (Scrap income splitting, no tax rate change): *$20,113.13*

These are my rough personal circumstances, and are likely common across the CAF for single income families. Voting anything other than CPC takes $3500-4000 from my pocket more every year. No real surprise that these figures aren't tossed around when the Liberals and NDP tout their "help for the middle class".


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Sep 2015)

It doesn't get clearer than this:  _"NDP Leader Tom Mulcair says his first acts as prime minister would include *pulling the Canadian Forces out of Iraq and Syria*, bringing in 10,000 Syrian refugees and reducing taxes for small and medium-sized businesses ...."_
To use the "house on fire" analogy some else brought up, an NDP Canada would move from helping put out the fire to manning more of the nets to catch folks jumping to safety.

Still more than 5 weeks to go, though - lots can still change ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> It doesn't get clearer than this:  _"NDP Leader Tom Mulcair says his first acts as prime minister would include *pulling the Canadian Forces out of Iraq and Syria*, bringing in 10,000 Syrian refugees and reducing taxes for small and medium-sized businesses ...."_
> To use the "house on fire" analogy some else brought up, an NDP Canada would move from helping put out the fire to manning more of the nets to catch folks jumping to safety.
> 
> Still more than 5 weeks to go, though - lots can still change ....




I am not opposed to a complete military withdrawal from the entire Middle East ... _IF_ M Mulcair uses the bully pulpit of his office to encourage all of the US led West to leave, too. (It's OK if Russia gets drawn in: _quagmire_ is the word I think we're all looking for ...)

I vehemently oppose settling any Syrian refugees in Canada ... I've explained why several times. But I would not oppose to sending tens, even hundreds of millions of dollars to aid agencies that are doing _effective_ work helping refugees _in_ the Middle East.

But, it seems to me, the choices, for the West, are stark: either _Simplify the problem_ as I described elsewhere ~ which requires concerted, US led, Western military action, or, as I have also discussed elsewhere, _isolate_ the region, nearly totally, until ~ the work of generations ~ the Arabs and Iranians and Israelis have found an acceptable _modus vivendi_ for themselves.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2015)

In this article, by the _Canadian Press_, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, it is reported that the "blame game" is going on, full force, within the CPC:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/blame-game-being-played-out-inside-lumbering-conservative-campaign


> Blame game being played out inside lumbering Conservative campaign
> 
> THE CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> ...




Why do the _internal_ problems of the CPC matter here? Because, _in my opinion_, they indicate two things:

First: The CPC's post-election leadership campaign is already underway; and

Second: This very necessary bit of _tactical_ soul searching could be happening at the right time, for the the CPC ~ when there are five plus weeks to go before the election ... the "right time" _if_ the CPC can resolve this dispute quickly and cleanly, but, _I doubt_ it can be resolved either quickly or cleanly because it involves personalities and _loyalty_ and Prime Minister Harper's deep seated personal foibles.

_On balance_: advantage NDP.


----------



## larry Strong (10 Sep 2015)

Anyone ever figure out what the campaign promises cost so far?


Cheers
Larry


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In this article, by the _Canadian Press_, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, it is reported that the "blame game" is going on, full force, within the CPC:
> 
> http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/blame-game-being-played-out-inside-lumbering-conservative-campaign
> 
> ...




Andrew Coyne, writing in the _Ottawa Citizen_ suggests that the "Tory campaign would be in a better place if it had any life in it."

Mr Coyne disagrees with me, he opines that, "governments [do not] die of old age ... after 10 years or so they [do not] simply wear themselves out,", rather, he suggests, "the party’s current woes were foreordained. What once were its strengths, in a narrow partisan sense — fierce loyalty, swaggering self-confidence, calculation and ruthlessness in equal measure — have in present circumstances become liabilities."
_
He offers a suggestion, one which you will not be surprised to learn I support_: "Activist government does not have to mean big government. The Conservatives could, if they chose, seek a new mandate to liberalize Canada’s cosseted, over-regulated markets, notably in agriculture, transportation, telecommunications and finance. They could campaign on a radical plan to reform and simplify the tax code, eliminating preferences and cutting rates for all. They could ask the public’s backing to eliminate, once and for all, corporate subsidies, and other forms of cronyism and rent-seeking."

But he suspects, and _I agree, again_, that it will not happen ... not unless there is a bit of a _coup_ in the CPC's ca,paign HQ, a _coup_ against Prime Minister Harper.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2015)

Too soon, I think, but many here will agree with Margaret Wente, writing in the _Globe and Mail_ that, "Stephen Harper is toast," because, in her words, what knocked him off "was one of those unknown unknowns, a random twist of fate that no one could have foreseen. A dead toddler washed up on a beach, and someone took a picture," what I refer to (over and over and over again) as:

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Maybe she's right, maybe this "event" wil persist in the front of the public's mind for weeks and weeks and maybe Prim e Minister Harper will not (cannot?) find an acceptable way to square the circle of helping refugees and prevents IS** terrorists from entering Canada as refugees ... or, maybe, the attention of the 21st century voter is easily manipulated and its span is short.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2015)

M Trudeau, when not reading from a script written by Gerald Butts and Kathleen Wynne, commits another "blooper" in his TV interview on CBC. There is a case to be made, a very bad case _in my considered opinion_, for raising corporate taxes, if nothing else it will appeal to the terminally f'ing stupid in Canada, but they vote Liberal/NDP anyway, but smearing "a large percentage" of small business owners as tax cheats is just plain stupid. _The young man is nothing more than an ill-educated, unprepared sock puppet for Kathleen Wynne._


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2015)

In my opinion, and according to this article in the _Toronto Sun_, Prime Minister Harper is doing the right (tactical) thing for his campaign: focusing on the _economic_ differences between his CPC and the LPC and NDP. He needs to change the channel away from Syrian refugees (a weak spot for him) and back to his strength: _low taxes_. He is also doing things right by campaigning against both Thomas Mulcair's NDP and Justin Trudeau's Liberals. His immediate aim, in this _phase_ of the operation (not the last phase, by the way), is to not fall any father behind. He wants to be leader of a minority government. (Of course his _strategic_ aim is to lead another majority, but, for now, the _tactical_ aim is to be a legitimate contender for a minority.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> M Trudeau, when not reading from a script written by Gerald Butts and Kathleen Wynne, commits another "blooper" in his TV interview on CBC. There is a case to be made, a very bad case _in my considered opinion_, for raising corporate taxes, if nothing else it will appeal to the terminally f'ing stupid in Canada, but they vote Liberal/NDP anyway, but smearing "a large percentage" of small business owners as tax cheats is just plain stupid. _The young man is nothing more than an ill-educated, unprepared sock puppet for Kathleen Wynne._



Maybe his campaign tacticians understand the problem ... they have sent this letter to Rudyard Griffiths, Chair of the Munk Debates:

http://blogs.canoe.com/davidakin/politics/trudeau-threatens-to-pull-out-of-foreign-policy-leaders-debate/


> Rudyard Griffiths
> Chair of the Munk Debates
> 
> Dear Mr. Griffiths:
> ...




The _Liberals_ _appear_ to be running scared. Maybe they know that M Trudeau cannot debate foreign policy with grown men when he and the moderator are not working off the same script. He's just a nice, pretty boy ... and that is all he will ever be, I'm afraid. I used to think that he would grow and mature on the campaign trail and in parliament, but not any more. He is, as I said above, just a pretty-boy sock puppet. It is time, past time, after this election, for a new, real leader for the Liberal Party of Canada, before it's too late. 

Edited to add: The second "objection" (paying for tickets) is a real beauty, considering it comes from the representatives of a guy who used to charge charities $20,000 for a speech.  :


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2015)

The _veterans against Conservatives_ (they seem to have several groups and names, including ABC) came out in support of Paul Dewar in Ottawa Centre:

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I have much more time for veterans who are _FOR_ a party than those who are just _against_ one.

     (Paul Dewar is my MP. I will be very, very surprised if he is not reelected. He is a very good constituency MP and a nice fellow. We don't agree on policy, and we have exchanged views in a couple of _uOttawa_ sponsored fora,
      but I like and respect him, personally. I plan to vote for a good, solid CPC candidate but I will not be unhappy when Paul Dewar is reelected.)


----------



## Lumber (10 Sep 2015)

Is it just me or has this thread become E.R. Campbell's personal blog?

He even quoted himself today...

 ;D


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (10 Sep 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Is it just me or has this thread become E.R. Campbell's personal blog?
> 
> He even quoted himself today...
> 
> ;D



If E.R. decided to run, I'd vote for him


----------



## Lumber (10 Sep 2015)

Many of you would probably disagree, but in this election, I really don't feel like voting for anyone. Each party has aspects that I support, while simultaneously having aspects that I not only disagree with, but vehemently oppose:


----------



## Rocky Mountains (10 Sep 2015)

I miss the point about the Syrian refugee crisis hurting Harper.  Is it likely that a potential Conservative voter would change his/her opinion to speed up immigration from an idealogical nut-house like Syria.  Has anyone seen poll results indicating that a large number of Canadians care?  Any Syrian is free to apply to immigrate to Canada on their own or as sponsored immigrants.  All people that want more Syrian immigration have to do is pay for it.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Sep 2015)

CTV is now showing the Tories up 4 points to 29 in a statistical tie with the Liberals and NDP, but the headline is "No movement on overnight polling". No bias what so ever


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Sep 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Is it just me or has this thread become E.R. Campbell's personal blog?
> 
> He even quoted himself today...
> 
> ;D



Mr. Campbell has a nasty tendency of just reposting those things that are found in the public domain.  Aggregating them in other words.  
And in doing so he performs a great service to members of this site.

He attributes his sources and posts all sides of the debate.   He allows himself the liberty of passing comment on the words of others.  And you enter into debate with him at your peril.

And, like Royal Drew, if he ran I would vote for him.  I particularly like the sound of "Senator E.R. Campbell".

There are two other individuals on this site that I would single out for approbation, Tony Midori - aka milnews.ca, and the owner of the site, Mike Babbitt.

If we could all emulate these gentlemen the tenor of debates round about here would be greatly improved.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (10 Sep 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> CTV is now showing the Tories up 4 points to 29 in a statistical tie with the Liberals and NDP, but the headline is "No movement on overnight polling". No bias what so ever



Isn't it about time for another Forum/Red Star poll showing the Conservatives at 23 % so we can have more headlines on how they are getting trounced.  They are getting trounced every week but their average hasn't seemed to have gone down significantly based on other polls.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Sep 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> There are two other individuals on this site that I would single out for approbation, Tony Midori Prudori - aka milnews.ca....


1)  FTFY, given my non-association with Japanese liqueurs  ;D
2)  Thanks for the kind mention, but I'm not even in the same _neighbourhood_ of the same ballpark as ERC for sharing commentary ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Many of you would probably disagree, but in this election, I really don't feel like voting for anyone. Each party has aspects that I support, while simultaneously having aspects that I not only disagree with, but vehemently oppose:




You're close to my position, Lumber. None of the leaders impresses me, but one, M Trudeau, is, _in my personal opinion_, "Just Not Ready" ... at all, for anything. Prime Minister Harper and M Mulcair have their own strengths and weaknesses; I rather wish there was a biography of M Mulcair that is as good (fair, balanced, thoughtful, reasoned) as John Ibbitson's _Stephen Harper_.

For those who think they like my views: _caveat lector_. I am not "included" in any party's platform. I support the CPC because it is cloer to me than the other two. My second choice, if they were a real political party, _might_ be a principled Libertarian Party. I self describe as a _classical_, 19th century _liberal_, influenced, mostly, by John Locke and John Stuart Mill, and a _utilitarian_, influenced by the same Mill and Jeremy Bentham. I am, therefore, a party of one, and I don't care, at all, if anyone agrees with me.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> 1)  FTFY, given my non-association with Japanese liqueurs  ;D
> 2)  Thanks for the kind mention, but I'm not even in the same _neighbourhood_ of the same ballpark as ERC for sharing commentary ....



And details again....  :










I don't see any difference.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> I miss the point about the Syrian refugee crisis hurting Harper.  Is it likely that a potential Conservative voter would change his/her opinion to speed up immigration from an idealogical nut-house like Syria.  Has anyone seen poll results indicating that a large number of Canadians care?  Any Syrian is free to apply to immigrate to Canada on their own or as sponsored immigrants.  All people that want more Syrian immigration have to do is pay for it.




I doubt the crisis has hurt him amongst reasonably committed _conservatives_, but I think the media fuss ~ some of which highlighted Prime Minister Harper's perceived "hard heart" ~ has influenced, for now, some (many?) undecided respondents.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2015)

:highjack:



			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And details again....  :
> 
> 
> 
> ...




When you say _Midori_ I, automatically, think ...

                             
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




                              ... the years have not been as kind to Midori Goto as they have to some other Asian musicians, but she is, still, a wonderful fiddler.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I doubt the crisis has hurt him amongst reasonably committed _conservatives_, but I think the media fuss ~ some of which highlighted Prime Minister Harper's perceived "hard heart" ~ has influenced, for now, some (many?) undecided respondents.



Some of the media still seem to want to dredge up the falsehoods behind the story about the little boy that drown.  They refuse to retract their incorrectly reported news, but continue to accuse the Conservatives of not acting on a refugee case, one that did not exist.  For the bleeding hearts that don't want to do their due diligence in researching the facts, that still hurts the Conservatives.


----------



## Jed (10 Sep 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Mr. Campbell has a nasty tendency of just reposting those things that are found in the public domain.  Aggregating them in other words.
> And in doing so he performs a great service to members of this site.
> 
> He attributes his sources and posts all sides of the debate.   He allows himself the liberty of passing comment on the words of others.  And you enter into debate with him at your peril.
> ...



Hear, Hear. Well stated.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... I self describe as a _classical_, 19th century _liberal_, influenced, mostly, by John Locke and John Stuart Mill, and a _utilitarian_, influenced by the same Mill and Jeremy Bentham. I am, therefore, a party of one, and I don't care, at all, if anyone agrees with me.



And there you have the conundrum for the politician on the right of the spectrum - that individualism thing.











The Libertarian-Anarchist interface and the Fascist-Communist interface: Where Left meets Right.

And ER - even I can spot the difference between Toni and your Midori 

Now if it wasn't for these brain farts.....


----------



## Altair (10 Sep 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> I miss the point about the Syrian refugee crisis hurting Harper.  Is it likely that a potential Conservative voter would change his/her opinion to speed up immigration from an idealogical nut-house like Syria.  Has anyone seen poll results indicating that a large number of Canadians care?  Any Syrian is free to apply to immigrate to Canada on their own or as sponsored immigrants.  All people that want more Syrian immigration have to do is pay for it.


All about optics.

 This is getting 24 hour news coverage. It was in every paper in the country. It was on twitter, Facebook,  instagram, tumbler,  and word of mouth during the long weekend.

Every person with a soul felt for that little boy, more so every parent and one of the first things they heard was that little boy wanted to come to canada. Even when  that turned out to be another member of that boys family,  the initial feeling of sadness with a Canadian connection.

Mayors across the country are trying to get more refugees here, premiers across the country are try as well, even harpers lone ally among premiers wants more refugees here, and it looks like for all of Canada that the one guy standing in the way of this wanting to do more for refugees is harper, talking about screening and bombing ISIL. 

Yes. Yes this is hurting him.  This is not good.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> ....
> Yes. Yes this is hurting him.  This is not good.



Your concern is touching.  I thank you.



> And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled



or in the modern idiom:


----------



## Altair (10 Sep 2015)

When 66 percent of voters are actively seeking change, kcco  might literally be the worst thing one can say.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> When 66 percent of voters are actively seeking change, kcco  might literally be the worst thing one can say.



66% of 1,000 people on a phone survey from polling companies who failed to predict a Conservative majority last time? Yep, panic over the numbers.


----------



## Remius (10 Sep 2015)

I think next week will be a more telling picture of the state of the campaign.  We'll be a month away, we'll have had 2 post labour day weeks of polling and the real gloves will be coming off.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Sep 2015)

66% against (I see how you lumped 'undecided' in there - interesting Def'n of 'active') sounds bad until you realize that full-on Majority Governments have been elected with 62% 'against' them...

*yawn


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (10 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> When 66 percent of voters are actively seeking change, kcco  might literally be the worst thing one can say.



The NDP in Alberta won with less than 50%... odd that that's not brought up


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I'm sure the LPC and NDP would be very happy if the CPC said, "Oh, there's no hope" and dropped out, even though the time remaining is about as much as most prior elections.  I doubt anyone is going to win a majority.  That leaves a minority, and the prospect of having enough seats to form a second minority after the first loses confidence, to fight for.
> 
> For those who need to elect a NDP government to find out that the NDP is the most centrally, top-down controlled major party in Canada, fill your ballot accordingly.  Keep subsequent lamentations to yourself, please.  How far can you trust them?  A short while back I asked a NDP supporter - now candidate - what the policy was on a particular issue.  The response was basically: you'll have to elect us to find out.  Where does that rank for "secretive"?
> 
> ...




Higher taxes can be fixed by the next government ... Stephen Harper proved that, but increased social spending is a rat hole from which there is no politically acceptable escape. A new government can "stop digging," as Denis Healey advised, but it is well nigh impossible to _backfill_ a social spending hole: the voters feel 'entitled to their entitlements,' like good Liberals everywhere.


----------



## Lumber (10 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Higher taxes can be fixed by the next government ... Stephen Harper proved that, but increased social spending is a rat hole from which there is no politically acceptable escape. A new government can "stop digging," as Denis Healey advised, but it is well nigh impossible to _backfill_ a social spending hole: the voters feel 'entitled to their entitlements,' like good Liberals everywhere.



This is a sad and frustrating truth. It's the same with salaries. You can't claw them back, but you can slow or halt their growth.


----------



## McG (10 Sep 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Many of you would probably disagree, but in this election, I really don't feel like voting for anyone. Each party has aspects that I support, while simultaneously having aspects that I not only disagree with, but vehemently oppose:


Have you engaged any independents in your riding to see if they might more closely represent your views?  There are options outside the big three parties.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Sep 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The NDP in Alberta won with less than 50%... odd that that's not brought up



And note none of the Tory supporters there were grandstanding to change first past the post. Seems like its a lefty thing to do: don't get elected, cry the system is unfair and change it so you can win easily next time.


----------



## Remius (10 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Have you engaged any independents in your riding to see if they might more closely represent your views?  There are options outside the big three parties.



More and more, I think that MY vote will be for the candidate that I think will best represent my riding.


----------



## Altair (10 Sep 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The NDP in Alberta won with less than 50%... odd that that's not brought up


Harper and the CPC also scores low in the second choice category,  much less than the NDP 52 percent and the LPC 49 percent.

He doesn't have much room to grow to get to the Rachel Notley levels of support.

Long time to go yet, but I strongly disagree with the nonchalant stance by many regarding the conservative campaign. While I'm obviously biased, and I am hoping for a CPC/harper loss, I don't think I'm miss reading things here. This had been a terrible campaign.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Sep 2015)

Rachel Notley levels of support will only last until her socialist budget hits the road (which she won't release until after the election to save Muclair), when she destroys whats left of the oil industry in the province with huge corporate tax increases. If Muclair doesn't get a majority, his budget will crash and burn, as will his support if he bows to the Union/Socialist back benchers.

The big difference between the NDP and the Tories, is that Harper has been able to marginalize his far-right side of the party but keep their support. The NDP unionists and hard lefties will be hands into the trough if he wins, and I strongly doubt he has the same gumption to say no, which will be disastrous for Canada.


----------



## Privateer (10 Sep 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> And note none of the Tory supporters there were grandstanding to change first past the post. Seems like its a lefty thing to do: don't get elected, cry the system is unfair and change it so you can win easily next time.



Not necessarily.  The British MP, Tony Benn, who was "old" Labour, made a strong speech against proportional representation in the British House of Commons.  He cautioned against the use of lists of potential MPs created by political parties, as opposed to MPs elected directly by their constituents, as he believed this would lead to a loss of independence in MPs.  The fear was that the party could remove the MP from future lists, if the MP followed his or her conscience and/or the best interests of his or her constituents, instead of voting the party line.  Interestingly, this evil has found its way into our system, through the requirement that the party leader sign off on the nomination papers for candidates.

Mr. Benn's speech on proportional representation, together with other speeches by Mr. Benn, was later set to ambient music by Charles Bailey, and released as "Tony Benn's Greatest Hits": http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tony-Benns-Greatest-Hits-Benn/dp/B0032N18YE

Yes, I have the album.  The quality of his speeches to the House makes you weep for the current quality of speech in our own House, regardless of whether you agree with his position.


----------



## McG (10 Sep 2015)

Privateer said:
			
		

> The British MP, Tony Benn, who was "old" Labour, made a strong speech against proportional representation in the British House of Commons.  He cautioned against the use of lists of potential MPs created by political parties, as opposed to MPs elected directly by their constituents, as he believed this would lead to a loss of independence in MPs.  The fear was that the party could remove the MP from future lists, if the MP followed his or her conscience and/or the best interests of his or her constituents, instead of voting the party line.  Interestingly, this evil has found its way into our system, through the requirement that the party leader sign off on the nomination papers for candidates.


There have examples where MPs, dumped by their parties for supporting the constituency, are rewarded in the next election when they are returned to Parliament as independents.  So the voters maintain an over-ride in first past the post or preferential ballot, but there is no such mechanism in proportional representation.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Harper and the CPC also scores low in the second choice category,  much less than the NDP 52 percent and the LPC 49 percent.
> 
> He doesn't have much room to grow to get to the Rachel Notley levels of support.
> 
> Long time to go yet, but I strongly disagree with the nonchalant stance by many regarding the conservative campaign. While I'm obviously biased, and I am hoping for a CPC/harper loss, I don't think I'm miss reading things here. This had been a terrible campaign.



Mate, do yourself a favour and stick to your knitting.  Rather than worrying about the CPC's campaign focus on your own candidate's.  Or is this your assigned task - trolling and sowing dissent?

Don't bother answering.  You have successfully reached my Ignore Quotient.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I wonder if there are lessons in the recent UYK election for the Conservative Party of Canada ... this aricle, about Prime Minister Cameron's campaign manager, Lynton Crosby, called the "Wizard of Oz" for his tactical acumen, is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Mail Online_:
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3073850/The-Wizard-Oz-Cameron-s-sweeping-success-Election-guru-Lynton-Crosby-credited-winning-campaign.html
> I also read that the centrepiece of Mr Crosby's campaign strategy was to focus on only those seats that were competitive (a two or three way race) and in which Tories had a fighting chance to win. He ignored the sure "losers" (bridge players will understand that) and paid scant attention ot the sure winners.
> ...




According to an article in Maclean's magazine Prime Minister Harper's campaign has called on Mr Crobsy, the _Wizard of Oz_, to back up Jenni Byrne (see my comments on trouble in the CPC campaign, made earlier today).


----------



## PPCLI Guy (10 Sep 2015)

Privateer said:
			
		

> Yes, I have the album.  The quality of his speeches to the House makes you weep for the current quality of speech in our own House, regardless of whether you agree with his position.



What a great find - thanks for that.  I too weep for what we currently have....


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> David Akin reports that, "The Conservative Party of Canada - Parti conservateur du Canada just lost another candidate: Tim Dutaud is out. Apparently he is YouTube's "Unicaller" (Watch below). Dutaud was running against NDP incumbent Craig Scott in Toronto-Danforth, a riding he had no hope of winning. He's the second candidate the Conservatives lost today. The other guy out is Jerry Bance, caught on a CBC program a couple of years ago peeing into a mug ... Well, scroll down to have this one explained. Bance, too, was running in a riding the Conservatives were almost certain to lose."
> 
> More on Tim Dutaud, here, and on Jerry Bance, here.




But it's not only Conservatives, as David Akin, again, reports: _"The Liberal candidate in South-Surrey White Rock, Joy Davies, has resigned. She argued pregnant women could not harm their baby by smoking pot and that smoking pot at home with children would not harm children. The Liberals say her views "in no way" reflect the values of the party."_

                                                  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                                                      The centrepiece of Liberal policy: 2015


----------



## Remius (10 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Long time to go yet, but I strongly disagree with the nonchalant stance by many regarding the conservative campaign. While I'm obviously biased, and I am hoping for a CPC/harper loss, I don't think I'm miss reading things here. This had been a terrible campaign.



Would you prefer it if they yelled and screamed and gouged their eyes out in despair?  I think they have done some subtle damage control moves.  People have moved.  Messages have been sent.

Now I agree that things are not going well.  Events and circumstances have aggravated things you have to admit that.

That being said there are things they are doing that are not helping and are likely compounding the things they can't control.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Sep 2015)

While I agree that Trudeau's comment about small business taxes constitutes a "blooper" if it is misunderstood, his remarks are accurate.  Small business incorporation is a tax mitigation measure used by wealthy people, and it is one not available to most people.  I'm not passing judgement for or against tax mitigation; I'm confirming that Trudeau is correct.

Tax mitigation is simply playing by rules as written.  Those who dislike the outcomes should change the rules and pass up the opportunity to comment on the moral stature of those who follow the rules.


----------



## Altair (10 Sep 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Would you prefer it if they yelled and screamed and gouged their eyes out in despair?  I think they have done some subtle damage control moves.  People have moved.  Messages have been sent.
> 
> Now I agree that things are not going well.  Events and circumstances have aggravated things you have to admit that.
> 
> That being said there are things they are doing that are not helping and are likely compounding the things they can't control.


Based purely on strategy,  if I could suggest anything for the conservative party to do at the moment would be to pivot. Especially on the refugee issue. While playing to his base he is more or less conceding the rest of the field on the issue. 

I don't believe his base would abandon him if he pivoted and came out with a plan to bring in more refugees. I do believe undecided voters or soft tories will seek other parties if he continues the stance he has taken.


----------



## Remius (10 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Based purely on strategy,  if I could suggest anything for the conservative party to do at the moment would be to pivot. Especially on the refugee issue. While playing to his base he is more or less conceding the rest of the field on the issue.
> 
> I don't believe his base would abandon him if he pivoted and came out with a plan to bring in more refugees. I do believe undecided voters or soft tories will seek other parties if he continues the stance he has taken.



And that is one of the problems I alluded to. The campaign isn't going beyond the base.  It is turning off soft Tories and undecided.


----------



## Remius (10 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Based purely on strategy,  if I could suggest anything for the conservative party to do at the moment would be to pivot. Especially on the refugee issue. While playing to his base he is more or less conceding the rest of the field on the issue.
> 
> I don't believe his base would abandon him if he pivoted and came out with a plan to bring in more refugees. I do believe undecided voters or soft tories will seek other parties if he continues the stance he has taken.



Looks like that pivot might be soon.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/harper-plans-to-speed-up-refugee-process-in-very-near-future-1.2556609


----------



## Remius (10 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> While I agree that Trudeau's comment about small business taxes constitutes a "blooper" if it is misunderstood, his remarks are accurate.  Small business incorporation is a tax mitigation measure used by wealthy people, and it is one not available to most people.  I'm not passing judgement for or against tax mitigation; I'm confirming that Trudeau is correct.
> 
> Tax mitigation is simply playing by rules as written.  Those who dislike the outcomes should change the rules and pass up the opportunity to comment on the moral stature of those who follow the rules.



I think i agree with your line of thinking on this.  The irony being that the media is reporting that Mr. Trudeau was incorporated when he was on the public speaking circuit...


----------



## Blackadder1916 (10 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But it's not only Conservatives, as David Akin, again, reports: _"The Liberal candidate in South-Surrey White Rock, Joy Davies, has resigned. She argued pregnant women could not harm their baby by smoking pot and that smoking pot at home with children would not harm children. The Liberals say her views "in no way" reflect the values of the party."_
> 
> 
> 
> ...




On first glance at the animated image you used in conjunction with your post about Ms. Davies, my immediate thought was "how did she get past the screening process; were they blind?".  And then I realized the young lady was not Ms. Davies.  Obviously Ms. Davies (though she may hold fairly liberal views about marijuana) can't be that much of a stoner.  This is a probably a more representative image of the former candidate.


----------



## Altair (11 Sep 2015)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Looks like that pivot might be soon.
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/harper-plans-to-speed-up-refugee-process-in-very-near-future-1.2556609


Good on him. Better late than never.

Does lead me to question why the CPC didn't just take this stance off the bat. Would have saved them a lot of grief. Not that I'm complaining.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Good on him. Better late than never.
> 
> Does lead me to question why the CPC didn't just take this stance off the bat. Would have saved them a lot of grief. Not that I'm complaining.



Look before you leap perhaps?


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> According to an article in Maclean's magazine Prime Minister Harper's campaign has called on Mr Crobsy, the _Wizard of Oz_, to back up Jenni Byrne (see my comments on trouble in the CPC campaign, made earlier today).




Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright At from the _Toronto Star_, is more about the decision to bring Mr Crosby on board:

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/09/10/harper-turned-to-friends-outside-his-trusted-circle-for-crucial-campaign-advice.html


> Harper turned to friends outside his trusted circle for crucial campaign advice
> *While Harper was insisting publicly he didn’t need to shift course on the campaign, sources with knowledge of a private Toronto dinner this week and the discussions that followed, said a shift had already begun.*
> 
> By: Tonda MacCharles Ottawa Bureau reporter
> ...




Campaign teams, in my opinion, need to be committed to winning for the party, not _just_ for their leader.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2015)

The _Globe and Mail_' Jeffrey Simpson, speaking for the _Laurentian Elites_, both compliments Prime Minister Harper and laments his fiscal policy success in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/even-if-the-tories-lose-they-win-on-key-issues/article26318678/


> Even if the Tories lose, they win on key issues
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Mr Simpson sums up the sad, confused response of the _Laurentian Elites_ to the 21st century: Canada changed and they don't like change.

Prime Minister Harper didn't change Canada; it was changing long before he came on the scene, the change has been constant, of course, but it has accelerated in the last 50 years, spurred on by better, faster flows of _information_ and _opinion_; Stephen Harper recognized the changes that were happening to Canada, changes Canadians were making in their own socio-economic views, and following Premier Ralph Klein's advice, when he saw the way the crowd was headed he just jumped out in front and led it there.


----------



## Remius (11 Sep 2015)

Neil MacDonald comments on why the CPC message control tactic may be back firing.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-s-message-control-backfiring-this-time-1.3223579

This is one of the main issues I believe that is not helping their campaign.  While it will appeal to the base it does nothing beyond that.  Limiting their presence in debates, not allowing anyone but the PM to speak beyond talking points and not adapting is problematic and likely won't help sway the undecided.

While I'm not sure it is responsible for outbursts by loyalists (we see them from every part of the political spectrum), it does damage the tight message control.

And while some may feel the media is unbalanced in it's coverage, one has to wonder how much of that is because of the tight message control.


----------



## Remius (11 Sep 2015)

So if we believe this poll (and many are believers when it suits their narrative) it would seem that the race is tight.  But it also reveals the NDP may be losing it's lead over the other two parties.  

Maybe making too many promises without backing it with HOW to pay for said promises is not the best thing to do.  I have heard though that the NDP might be unveiling their plan next week.


----------



## Scott (11 Sep 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> I have heard though that the NDP might be unveiling their plan next week.



Certainly to be backed by a full court press from the unions.


----------



## Altair (11 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright At from the _Toronto Star_, is more about the decision to bring Mr Crosby on board:
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/09/10/harper-turned-to-friends-outside-his-trusted-circle-for-crucial-campaign-advice.html
> 
> Campaign teams, in my opinion, need to be committed to winning for the party, not _just_ for their leader.


 Yet when I say this I get called a troll. :

Good on harper though. I think he learned something from the PC campaign in Alberta earlier this year, that with a short campaign you don't have time to even attempt to right the ship. Here he is with a last 40 days he would rather forget and he has another 38 or so to figure out what's been going wrong.

The NDP and the Liberals also have the issue of keeping up the momentum for this long. 

A most interesting election.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (11 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> While I agree that Trudeau's comment about small business taxes constitutes a "blooper" if it is misunderstood, his remarks are accurate.  Small business incorporation is a tax mitigation measure used by wealthy people, and it is one not available to most people.



Small business tax deduction is available to any incorporated small business.  If it could be used for wage earners, it would be irrelevant because the low tax rate only applies to profits left in the company and does not apply to more than incidental investment income.  The whole point is to allow companies to grow with a limited tax burden.  I would consider relatively few of the people using the small business deduction to be rich.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Sep 2015)

Actually I am glad the CPC did not react in a precipitous fashion when the picture was released. As you can see in the Syrian refugee thread, the father was a human smuggler and the events leading up to the capsizing are _not at all _what the Media narrative was made out for our consumption.

Basing important policy on forged media narratives created by criminal elements to further their criminal aims is irresponsible at best, and it speaks ill of any party or politician who would jump at that without first saying "just what is going on, here?". Of course it is also irresponsible of the media and the public to not pause and ask questions either....


----------



## Rocky Mountains (11 Sep 2015)

Drowned kid - the BS thickens:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/drowned-syrian-boys-father-says-blames-canada-tragedy-194648459.html

http://www.smh.com.au/world/migrant-crisis/aylan-kurdis-father-is-a-people-smuggler-woman-claims-20150911-gjkt2m.html

Maybe we shouldn't be overcome by guilt.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Sep 2015)

And another candidate about to bite the dust:  NDP candidate Katherine Swampy.

Katherine Swampy, an Alberta candidate for the NDP, is now under the microscope online for photos of her husband posing for photos "gangsta style" with a pistol supporting gang related tattoos, as well as some other photos of her online.  

I don't think I have ever seen an election with as much muck raking as this one.


----------



## Remius (11 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And another candidate about to bite the dust:  NDP candidate Katherine Swampy.
> 
> Katherine Swampy, an Alberta candidate for the NDP, is now under the microscope online for photos of her husband posing for photos "gangsta style" with a pistol supporting gang related tattoos, as well as some other photos of her online.
> 
> I don't think I have ever seen an election with as much muck raking as this one.



I would argue that this is the first election truly fought on and with social media.  We have a whole generation now that post before they think.  Imagine what a campaign in the 2020's will look like.  This is a new reality. When I look at some of the benign stupid things I said and did in my youth I'm glad that all we had were our memories of the moment.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Sep 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> I would argue that this is the first election truly fought on and with social media.  We have a whole generation now that post before they think.  Imagine what a campaign in the 2020's will look like.  This is a new reality. When I look at some of the benign stupid things I said and did in my youth I'm glad that all we had were our memories of the moment.



Paraphrasing a familiar line from the Royal Canadian Air Farce: "You got that right!"


----------



## Altair (11 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And another candidate about to bite the dust:  NDP candidate Katherine Swampy.
> 
> Katherine Swampy, an Alberta candidate for the NDP, is now under the microscope online for photos of her husband posing for photos "gangsta style" with a pistol supporting gang related tattoos, as well as some other photos of her online.
> 
> I don't think I have ever seen an election with as much muck raking as this one.


I would grab a bunch of 18 year olds, pay them whatever they wanted and tell them too go through all the social media of all the candidates. 

This is getting stupid.


----------



## cupper (11 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I don't think I have ever seen an *CANADIAN* election with as much muck raking as this one.



FTFY

You must not pay attention to US elections then.  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (11 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I would grab a bunch of 18 year olds, pay them whatever they wanted and tell them too go through all the social media of all the candidates.
> 
> This is getting stupid.



Well.  From what I have witnessed of the NDP so far, I am sure that Katherine Swampy's story will be swept under the carpet and forgotten.  I am not at all impressed with their ignoring their faults and mostly their Debts.  I am even less impressed with Mulcair's recent comments on not just the CAF participation in the war on IS, but matching Trudeau's comments to bring several thousand refugees into Canada before the end of the year.  Both prove to me to be very naive comments, and lacking in any concepts of National Security.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Sep 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> FTFY
> 
> You must not pay attention to US elections then.  ;D



 ;D

Thanks for the correction.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2015)

And just because we all *know* that the wheels have fallen off the CPC campaign ...

                                   
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



          Source: EKOS from _iPolitics_


----------



## Scott (11 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And just because we all *know* that the wheels have fallen off the CPC campaign ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ohhhh Altairrrrrrr!  

I'm kidding you. I know this can change pretty fast.


----------



## Altair (11 Sep 2015)

Scott said:
			
		

> Ohhhh Altairrrrrrr!
> 
> I'm kidding you. I know this can change pretty fast.


 Very interesting. Seems to go against everything we've been seeing for the past month or so. I'll be concerned if I see this becoming a trend.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (11 Sep 2015)

And the Forum/Red Star poll has the Conservatives up 4 % from last week and 5 % from a week before

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html#polls

I questioned whether anyone who would vote Conservative would want unrestricted immigration from Syria - I guess I now get my answer.  Unrestricted immigration from Syria scares the hell out of everyone but Mulcair and Trudeau.


----------



## Privateer (11 Sep 2015)

My hypothetical musing for the day:

If no party wins a majority, and the Conservatives remain in government and try to bring forward a budget, then:

1.  The NDP and Liberals band together to defeat it;

2.  Some sort of deal is struck between the NDP and Liberals whereby the party with the most seats forms government (assuming the Governor General gives them a chance);

3.  That party introduces a budget that the other party can support, so that the government can stay in power long enough to...

4.  Get legislation through to replace the first past the post election system with another system that will ensure that the Conservatives cannot form a majority government with their current level of support.

After which, the deal expires and the parties return to the usual power struggle.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (11 Sep 2015)

Or 

4) Hang on long enough to raise the 25M necessary for a normal length campaign....which the Conservatives will have the day after the election, given that they will spend 50M, and get half of that back from taxpayers after the election.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Sep 2015)

Privateer said:
			
		

> 2.  Some sort of deal is struck between the NDP and Liberals whereby the party with the most seats forms government (assuming the Governor General gives them a chance);



GG likely won't believe them now. Muclair is curiously silent on the issue, and Trudeau has publicly said no to a formal coalition. He'd have no reason to believe they'd work together, and we'd have another election right away.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Sep 2015)

Privateer said:
			
		

> My hypothetical musing for the day:
> 
> If no party wins a majority, and the Conservatives remain in government and try to bring forward a budget, then:
> 
> ...



OR

Heavens to Betsy - the Conservatives win a clear majority in the House.


----------



## Privateer (11 Sep 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> GG likely won't believe them now. Muclair is curiously silent on the issue, and Trudeau has publicly said no to a formal coalition. He'd have no reason to believe they'd work together, and we'd have another election right away.



While Trudeau has said no coalition, he has also said that he would support legislation of a minority government on a case-by-case basis.  In my hypothetical, I suspect that Mulcair/Trudeau would go to the GG with an assurance that the other party would support the budget (the main details of which would have been worked out beforehand).  I think that there is a good chance the GG would give them a chance.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Sep 2015)

Supporting case by case is significantly different than a formal coalition that the GG would support to allow them to form a government. The NDP has to prove they have the confidence of the house, and if Trudeau is only willing to support on certain issues, then they would not have a majority of MPs to be able to show that support.

I really doubt the Liberals would put their name to a NDP budget, especially if they're going to be second fiddle.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (11 Sep 2015)

It makes no sense for the Liberals to ever support an NDP government.  Once the NDP govern, the Liberals are dead.  Case closed.  Despite the fact that supporting an NDP government would likely kill the Liberals, Trudeau would do it.  Dad's name, mom's brain.


----------



## Privateer (11 Sep 2015)

But it does make sense if the budget is bland enough, and you get electoral reform.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (11 Sep 2015)

Privateer said:
			
		

> But it does make sense if the budget is bland enough, and you get electoral reform.



If the NDP was one of the top 2 parties, I suspect their memory may be short on electoral reform.  It would tie their hands.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> If the NDP was one of the top 2 parties, I suspect their memory may be short on electoral reform.  It would tie their hands.




_I think_ you're right. This has been studied several times, even I did a cheap and dirty analysis a few years back: it's true, FPTP rewards the most successful parties ~ see Singapore, today, just as an example ~ and it punishes the weak. As the NDP become stronger and stronger _I suspect_ that their affection for some sort of PR will grow weaker and weaker. PR is loved by the third place finishers; first and second place finishes want to ride FPTP to majorities.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2015)

The NDP has a good anti-Harper attach ad which parodies the CPC's "interview/Just Not Ready" ad. 

It's a back handed compliment, in its own way, to the original "Just Not Ready" ad from May of this year.


----------



## Remius (11 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The NDP has a good anti-Harper attach ad which parodies the CPC's "interview/Just Not Ready" ad.
> 
> It's a back handed compliment, in its own way, to the original "Just Not Ready" ad from May of this year.



That had coffee come out my nose.  Lol.  Pretty slick.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Sep 2015)

Proportional Representation is a stupid idea, just like abolishing the Senate is a stupid idea.  

Our country is too large and its different regions are too diverse for a proportional representation system to work.  Given the geographic and political layout pf pur country, FPTP is the best system of government.

Ditto the Senate.  The stated purpose of the Senate is to ratify bills but the real purpose is to protect smaller provinces from the larger ones.  

By all means reform the Senate but don't get rid of it.


----------



## Underway (11 Sep 2015)

Does it not require a constitutional change to alter the election rules from FPTP to something else or would it just be "wiser" to have an referendum on the issue like BC did...  As the devil is often in the details for some thing like that.  Just wondering as I was in a argument with a Green Party supporter regarding this very issue today.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Sep 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Ditto the Senate.  The stated purpose of the Senate is to ratify bills but _*the real purpose is to protect smaller provinces from the larger ones.*_



I think you meant "the real purpose is to prop up economically unviable outposts through transfers of wealth from west to east".


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Sep 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I think you meant "the real purpose is to prop up economically unviable outposts through transfers of wealth from west to east".



Some of those "economically unviable" outposts were killed off right after confederation by national policies that punished their economies for looking South and not East-West.  Nova Scotia and New Brunswick should have never joined, they got a crap deal.

Like crack addicts they are now "dependent" for a fix.



			
				Underway said:
			
		

> Does it not require a constitutional change to alter the election rules from FPTP to something else or would it just be "wiser" to have an referendum on the issue like BC did...  As the devil is often in the details for some thing like that.  Just wondering as I was in a argument with a Green Party supporter regarding this very issue today.



The constitution would need to be opened to change it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> And the Forum/Red Star poll has the Conservatives up 4 % from last week and 5 % from a week before
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html#polls
> 
> _I questioned whether anyone who would vote Conservative would want unrestricted immigration from Syria - I guess I now get my answer.  Unrestricted immigration from Syria scares the hell out of everyone but Mulcair and Trudeau._




And Greg Lyle, of the _Innovative Research Group_, a market research and public affairs firm, agrees with you in and article in _The Hill Times_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Sep 2015)

I find this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, a bit rich, coming, as it does, from the pen of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who was very like Mackenzie-King, in that he was, as the Canadian the poet FR Scott said, best remembered for his mediocrity because he would _"Do nothing by halves which can be done by quarters:"_ 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canada-must-reclaim-its-role-as-a-world-leader/article26337462/


> Canada must reclaim its role as a world leader
> 
> JEAN CHRÉTIEN
> Contributed to The Globe and Mail
> ...




I am posting this here, rather than in the Conservative Foreign Policy thread because this is Liberal campaigning, pure and simple.

Note, first of all, that Prime Minister Chrétien, with characteristic duplicity "cherry picks" the foreign policy "achievements" of himself and his predecessors ~ ignoring, as Pierre Trudeau's memory demands ~ that Prime Minister St Laurent was also instrumental in founding NATO (as well as the UN) and that he made Canada a leading middle power, something that Prime Minister Trudeau for his own, deeply held but totally misguided reasons, undid, and something that Prime Minister Chrétien continued to undo while he was in power.

The greatest, ever, failures in Canadian foreign policy were committed, successively, by three Liberal prime ministers:

     1. King, who kept us out of the councils of leadership (where we belonged and to which Churchill invited us) in World War II because of his mistrust of the British and his own personal insecurities;

     2. Trudeau, who, in act of policy vandalism, dismantled almost everything Prime  Minister St Laurent had accomplished, because of his own misguided mistrust of _nationalism_; and

     3. Chrétien, himself, who always, without fail, put the partisan political welfare of his _slice_ of the Liberal Party of Canada ahead of the good of the country.

But, this will resonate with the _Harper Haters™_ because they are, almost to person, blind to realism and Canada's national interests in foreign policy, and with the media, because Prime Minister Chrétien remains hugely popular with the _chattering classes_.


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...Note, first of all, that Prime Minister Chrétien, with characteristic duplicity "cherry picks" the foreign policy "achievements" of himself and his predecessors ~ ignoring, as Pierre Trudeau's memory demands ~ that Prime Minister St Laurent was also instrumental in founding NATO (as well as the UN) and that he made Canada a leading middle power, something that Prime Minister Trudeau for his own, deeply held but totally misguided reasons, undid, and *something that Prime Minister Chrétien continued to undo while he was in power*.



Rich indeed, coming from Jean Chrétien... 

A quick refresher: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors_archive.shtml

PM Kim Campbell hand's Parliamentary reigns to PM Jean Chrétien in 19993.

In 1992, France was the #1 UN Peacekeeping contributor with 6502 troops supporting worldwide UN missions.  Canada was #3 with 3285.

In December of 2003, when PM Chrétien handed over to PM Paul Martin, *under Chrétien's leadership, Canada had fallen from #3 to #38* in support of the UN...providing a mere 233 soldiers, down almost fifteen-fold from when Chrétien took power.

That Chrétien can utter such self-aggrandizing drivel is something that should turn one's stomach...apparently all too many buy into the continuation of these mis-truths...sad. :not-again:

Regards
G2G


----------



## McG (12 Sep 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Privateer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Greens are now campaigning that they would seek to mediate such a coalition (with PR being one condition of their support) ... and where opposition to coalitions seems to be party leaders not willing to work together (as opposed to parties themselves being unable to work together), there might be a coalition possibility if either (or both) of Mr Trudeau or Mr Mulcair are unsuccessful in winning their own seat.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> The Greens are now campaigning that they would seek to mediate such a coalition (with PR being one condition of their support) ... and where opposition to coalitions seems to be party leaders not willing to work together (as opposed to parties themselves being unable to work together), there might be a coalition possibility if either (or both) of Mr Trudeau or Mr Mulcair are unsuccessful in winning their own seat.


If we heard the same interview on the radio, Green Lizzie said they'd head to the GG if there was a Tory minority - methinks the PM, still being PM, would get the first crack.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (12 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If we heard the same interview on the radio, Green Lizzie said they'd head to the GG if there was a Tory minority - methinks the PM, still being PM, would get the first crack.



Speaking of Elizabeth May:

 64 Reasons NOT to vote for Elizabeth May and her "Green Party."


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright At from the _Globe and Mail_ is an analysis of the leaders' (parties') positions on selected economic issues:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/as-canadas-economy-takes-a-hit-heres-where-the-parties-stand-on-key-economic-issues/article26343277/


> As Canada’s economy takes a hit, here’s where the parties stand on key economic issues
> 
> BILL CURRY
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




On balance (no pun intended) I favour the CPC's proposals as being closest to economic/fiscal prudence in tumultuous times. I favour some, _limited_, well focused (on _productive_ things) _stimulus_ that can be financed with long term debt, while money is cheap. I oppose any and all new social spending.

Taxes are high enough. In fact, if we have some well placed spending cuts, they could be lowered: corporate taxes should be lowered, first.

We do not need and cannot afford, yet, any sort of "Green Shift," that is economic nonsense.

Manufacturing is an eternal problem for Canada. We are _unproductive_ for some, good, geographic reasons, but, mainly, because we have a weak business management culture.


----------



## Scott (13 Sep 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Speaking of Elizabeth May:
> 
> 64 Reasons NOT to vote for Elizabeth May and her "Green Party."



Seems like there is an ABE movement out west. Too bad a split vote would probably keep her coming back. Oh irony.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Sep 2015)

She just needs to hang around long enough for a Liberal government to be elected and then she can be be appointed to the Senate (which seemed to be her long term plan). I somehow doubt that this is going to be an option after this election, and is questionable in 18 months or 2019 either...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There are some further comments on the Léger poll in this article in the _Globe and Mail_ which is headlined: "Canadians want a new PM, poll suggests."
> 
> Now, _I still think_ it's too early to worry about polls, but _I suspect_ that the headline is correct. As I have said, earlier and more than once, _I believe_ that seven to 10 years is about the modern "limit" for a prime minister. _I doubt_ that we will, ever again, see PMs who _endure_ for 15+ (Trudeau) or 20+ (Mackenzie King) years. My _sense_ is that Prime Minister's Harper's "best before date" was in the Spring of 2015. He _*might*_ have given his party a better shot at remaining in power had he announced his resignation in late 2014, and handed over, after a two month leadership race, early in 2015. But late summer 2014, when he _might_ have made that decision, was a very, very different time: before the oil price collapse (Sep 14), before the Mike Duffy charges (Jul 14) and trial (Apr 15) and before the NDP victory in Alberta (May 15).
> 
> _My guess_ is that Canadians will vote against Prime Minister Stephen Harper, not because they actually oppose his policies (the vast majority will have little or no idea about any party's policies) and not because they think he's dishonest (Ialthough some do believe that) but, rather, because they are tired of him ~ sick and tired of him in some cases.




And the _Globe and Mail_'f Jeffrey Simpson agrees, in a column in that newspaper. He ascribes Canadians' inclination to think that seven to ten years is  about _enough_ to our "democratic instinct for change," but I'm not so sure. _I think_ we have simply picked up on another American notion: the two term (eight year) presidency being all that's allowed.


----------



## Altair (13 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And the _Globe and Mail_'f Jeffrey Simpson agrees, in a column in that newspaper. He ascribes Canadians' inclination to think that seven to ten years is  about _enough_ to our "democratic instinct for change," but I'm not so sure. _I think_ we have simply picked up on another American notion: the two term (eight year) presidency being all that's allowed.


Lets face it, most goverments accomplish what they wanted to do within two terms. Then they run on their record with little to no plans for the future other than stay the course.

New nanos poll has

CPC 32
NDP 31
LPC 31

The only thing I read into here is the NDP dropping outside their margin of error.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Lets face it, most goverments accomplish what they wanted to do within two terms. Then they run on their record with little to no plans for the future other than stay the course.




I've been saying for some time that governments, including this one, get tired and stale ~ they run out of good ideas. There's no fixed timeline for it: Jean Chrétien took power in 1993 and he had only two ideas: one deeply flawed and the other good. His "bad idea" was the national unity file which nearly destroyed if party (sponsorship scandal) and the country (his incredibly inept mismanagement ~ one cannot possibly ever call it leadership ~ of the referendum "no" side). His "good idea" was the 1995 budget that, under severe pressure from the bond rating agencies and his own civil service, began to reduce the budget deficits and even pay back some debt. But that was it: Prime Minister Chrétien wasn't about "ideas," good or bad, he was just about power, he had his big idea in 1995 and then stayed in power until 2003; Canadians elected and re-elected Jean Chrétien despite his dearth of ideas. They "liked" him, he was the "tough little guy," _"le 'tit gars de Shawinigan,"_ Canadians could _identify_ with him, and he played, very skilfully, on our emotions; his policies and ideas didn't matter. Ditto for both Mulroney and Trudeau, earlier: they had ideas but Canadians were not much interested, not even in free trade. It was one of Mulroney's good ideas, the GST, that cost him his personal popularity. In what remains to me an inexplicable act of good policy and dreadful politics, he made thew GST highly visible (in contrast to e.g. Europe, where a higher VAT is just part of the price of goods and services); Canadians hated, still dislike, the GST and they came to detest Mulroney, too. It was, again, personality, not ideas that cost him. Trudeau was full of ideas ~ uniformly bad ~ but, again,  no one cared because he both won and then lost on his own personality. Canadians loved him, for a while, then got bored and tired of him. 

_In my view_ the Conservatives are out of ideas, they are tired and stale ... but we will not vote about ideas, we, the vast majority of us, will vote because we like or dislike Prime Minister Harper and/or M Mulcair and/or M Trudeau.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (13 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> The only thing I read into here is the NDP dropping outside their margin of error.



Maybe what you read is only 1/3 of Canadians wanting more Syrian immigration while 2/3 of the party leaders want radical increases.  The conservatives are seriously increasing on all recent polls.  I wouldn't be quick to write it off as a statistical blip.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Sep 2015)

So will the LPC dragging out Martin and Chretien reinforce the "just not ready" angle?

I know that if I were fighting that characterization I wouldn't have the previous leaders anywhere near me.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I find this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, a bit rich, coming, as it does, from the pen of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who was very like Mackenzie-King, in that he was, as the Canadian the poet FR Scott said, best remembered for his mediocrity because he would _"Do nothing by halves which can be done by quarters:"_
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canada-must-reclaim-its-role-as-a-world-leader/article26337462/
> 
> ...




Prime Minister Harper responds to Prime Minister Chrétien's comments in this video; while I fully support the generous ($100 million) "matching" fund, I oppose bringing refugees from the Middle East to Canada on security, economic/productivity and moral grounds.


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Sep 2015)

Well, ER, you're right again as usual.  The longer this campaign goes on the more I am leaning towards the CPC.  I see the policies, or lack thereof, of the other flavours and, well, what choice do I have?  The devil that is the most rational is the best one.  The beard, the kid and the turnip, are it seems, hell bent on turning me off at an exponential pace.


----------



## McG (13 Sep 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Well, ER, you're right again as usual.  The longer this campaign goes on the more I am leaning towards the CPC.  I see the policies, or lack thereof, of the other flavours and, well, what choice do I have?


Is there an independent running in your riding who is a better candidate with a better platform than any of the parties offer? Such a candidate may not contribute to who becomes PM, but the votes in Parliament would be better reflective of your views.


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Sep 2015)

Ah, well there's the rub.  My riding is Central Nova, I'm here at Disneyland East and am hoping they'll be allowing some voting from afar.  I honestly, don't know any of the candidates who are running.  Only the usual four flavours I'm afraid.  At least I knew Peter MacKay and had dealings with him personally.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Sep 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So will the LPC dragging out Martin and Chretien reinforce the "just not ready" angle?
> 
> I know that if I were fighting that characterization I wouldn't have the previous leaders anywhere near me.


For the same reason you don't hear mentions of Trudeau Sr., either ....


----------



## McG (13 Sep 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Ah, well there's the rub.  My riding is Central Nova, I'm here at Disneyland East and am hoping they'll be allowing some voting from afar.  I honestly, don't know any of the candidates who are running.  Only the usual four flavours I'm afraid.  At least I knew Peter MacKay and had dealings with him personally.


For now, it looks like you only have the "big three" and the Greens.

http://www.elections.ca/Scripts/vis/candidates?L=e&ED=12002&EV=41&EV_TYPE=1&PC=&PROV=NS&PROVID=12&MAPID=&QID=8&PAGEID=17&TPAGEID=&PD=&STAT_CODE_ID=-1


----------



## Altair (13 Sep 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Maybe what you read is only 1/3 of Canadians wanting more Syrian immigration while 2/3 of the party leaders want radical increases.  The conservatives are seriously increasing on all recent polls.  I wouldn't be quick to write it off as a statistical blip.


I have no idea what to read it as. 

Was the CPC drop earlier accurate?
If it was, is this a bounce back up?
If it wasn't is this a more accurate reflection of their support?
And lastly,  is this rebound accurate? 

Either they dropped and bounced back or they never dropped and stayed steady. Or the drop is being masked by these current polling numbers. 

Regardless, its clear that the CPC isn't dead, the LPC rise looks to be over and the NDP is stalled at best and dropping at worst.

I would have to imagine that there will be a surge for one of the LPC or NDP in the final days as the anti harper voters break towards the party that can best defeat the CPC. 

Inside track to the NDP atm.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Sep 2015)

>Canadians elected and re-elected Jean Chrétien despite his dearth of ideas.

I argue that Chretien was re-elected (passive phrasing deliberate) only because of a split right.  In 1997 Liberals took 155 of 301 seats, with 38.46% of the popular vote compared to the combined 38.19% of PC and Reform.  The BQ took 44 seats in QC.  It's conceivable a united conservative party would have defeated the Liberals.

In 2000 the Liberals had a much stronger result (172 of 301 seats; 40.85% versus combined 37.68% for PC and Alliance), but Joe Clark was leading the PC and the BQ took 38 seats.  This is a stronger case for the Liberals "winning", but still it looks more like the conservative faction "failing to win" by not unifying and selecting better leadership.

For Chretien and Martin to be offering advice and admonishments is arrogant and amusing.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Inside track to the NDP atm.



I think you'll find that after the economic debate on Thursday (especially if the numbers released tomorrow show at or near surplus), that the NDP support is going to further start to dwindle. They sound like a great idea, until you realize they haven't costed out any policies yet, but claim to be able to run a balanced budget next year. Reality is going to catch up with them real quick.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2015)

_I think_ the key battle is between the LPC and NDP for the _strategic voters_: those _"Harper Haters™"_ who are not wedded, firmly, to either the LPC (about 20% of the electorate, _at a guess_) or the NDP (15%+ as _another guess_) or the Greens (less than 5%, _I think_). If you can agree with me that the CPC also has a pretty firm base of, say, 20% of the electorate then we have, after giving the BQ, say, less than 5%, about almost 35% of the electorate that _might_ be persuaded to vote _strategically_. Let's say, just for argument that now, in 2015, the CPC "floor" is 30% or, roughly, 100 seats, that means that the LPC and NDP are fighting for 25% of the "free" (available) votes or somewhere between 100 and 150 seats for the NDP and 75 to 125 for the LPC. 

So, CPC:   80 to 120 seats (the CPC, we must acknowledge, has less "growth" potential because, certainly, 50% pf Canadians are _"Harper Haters™_)
      LPC:   70 to 130 seats
     _*NDP: 100 to 150 seats*_
 Others:     8  to   18 seats
                                      ... based on recent polls and acknowledging that there are five weeks "event" filled of campaigning to go.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Sep 2015)

"New nanos poll has 

CPC 32 
NDP 31 
LPC 31"

So when people complain about the unpopularity of the CPC, or its arrogance in presuming to govern with less than 50% of the popular vote, or any of the usual misunderstandings and misconceptions advanced on the basis of vote share/popularity share, consider this additional fact: neither the LPC nor NDP is significantly more popular than the CPC, and neither should be considered more legitimate.


----------



## Altair (13 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "New nanos poll has
> 
> CPC 32
> NDP 31
> ...


 I believe people are bothered by the 62-32 percent split in left to right. 

Same way the right was angry that the NDP in Alberta won despite the right vote being about 60 percent.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I believe people are bothered by the 62-32 percent split in left to right.
> 
> Same way the right was angry that the NDP in Alberta won despite the right vote being about 60 percent.


To be fair, the split is about 63 "moderate" to 31 "Left".


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2015)

To be more accurate the "split" is probably much more like this:

                    
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




                    Hard left           Left                              Moderate middle                              Right          Hard Right


----------



## Altair (13 Sep 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> To be fair, the split is about 63 "moderate" to 31 "Left".


who is more to the right these days, LPC or NDP? 

It's hard to tell.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> who is more to the right these days, LPC or NDP?
> 
> It's hard to tell.



I think you're finding that the electorate (especially Blue Liberals) are having the same issues, hence why they're not polling as well as they thought they would at this point.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Sep 2015)

Funny thing happened today. 

Both my children, aged 21 and 23, did the MacLean's This or That. Before they started I asked them how they intended to vote. Both said "I don't know, except that I'm not voting Liberal". When I asked them why, they both stated that they felt that Justin Trudeau isn't ready to lead the country. Perhaps the campaign has reached it's target audience?


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> To be more accurate the "split" is probably much more like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think you're finding that the electorate (especially Blue Liberals) are having the same issues, hence why they're not polling as well as they thought they would at this point.


I think the liberal poll numbers are great considering how many thought that 

A) They were dead after 2011

B) The conservatives would squeeze them on the right and the NDP would squeeze them on the left leaving them with a ever shrinking middle

C) That the conservatives ad bombardment would decimate the liberal leader like it did to the two leaders previous.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2015)

Now, I don't know if it is complaints from the grassroots ...



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> ... the article goes on to state that: "While there has been a considerable drop in the forecast for 2015, the consensus projection for economic growth in 2016 is still roughly in line with the assumptions in the budget."
> 
> It _seems to me_ that this is a golden opportunity for the CPC to "change the channel" (away from the Duffy scandal and the PM's 'integrity') back to "safe" ground: the economy and Canadian's fear for their own financial security.
> ...



          ... or if it the impact of the _Wizard of Oz_ ...



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> According to an article in Maclean's magazine Prime Minister Harper's campaign has called on Mr Crobsy, the _Wizard of Oz_, to back up Jenni Byrne (see my comments on trouble in the CPC campaign, made earlier today).



               ... whatever it is, the Conservatives have a new video ad that is, _I think_, on the right track for (most of) this phase of the campaign.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2015)

But, there is one more opportunity to attack M Trudeau and, maybe indirectly, M Mulcair, too: the foreign policy debate hosted by the Munk Centre is in danger because, _in my opinion_, "Team Trudeau" is _afraid_ to put M Trudeau up against Prime Minister Harper and M Mulcair in an unscripted debate, because he's _"Just Not Ready."_

Further, as an aside, M Mulcair would like to focus on anything but foreign policy because it's not a strong suit for the NDP, he's afraid, of stirring up the NDP's _loony left_ base.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> ... the Conservatives have a new video ad that is, _I think_, on the right track for (most of) this phase of the campaign.




David Akin has collected all the new CPC ads here and they all _seem to me_ to be on the right track: generally, but not totally, _positive_ and focused, as they should be, on the economic/fiscal/pocketbook issues that matter most to Canadians.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Sep 2015)

I like the way this last one focused on the past record and future strategies. I could be wrong, most likely, but it's the first one I've seen that doesn't really attack the others. That should play well to those that are just starting to pay attention.


----------



## observor 69 (14 Sep 2015)

Éric Grenier ‏@308dotcom   

More agreement in today's polls:

Innovative: 31% NDP, 30% LPC, 28% CPC
Abacus: 31% NDP, 29% LPC, 29% CPC
Nanos: 31% NDP, 30% LPC, 30% CPC


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Abacus Data_, are two charts which, assuming they are accurate, are bad news for the CPC:

The mood of the country continued to deteriorate and the desire for change grew since our last wave of surveying. Today, just 32% say the country is
heading in the right direction, a drop of 18 points since last December and the lowest we have measured since we began tracking this item in March
2014. This is the first time since that tracking began that more people say the country is on the “wrong track” than say it is heading in the right direction





The desire for change in Ottawa has also hit a new high, with 61% saying they “definitely think it’s time for a change”, up from 50% in April of 
this year. Another 15% are inclined to want change meaning a total of 76% of voters would prefer to see a different party take office at the conclusion
of this election. Only 17% are sure that they want the Conservatives to remain in power, with another 7% inclined to want this outcome.





See more at: http://abacusdata.ca/desire-for-change-intensifies-2015election-canada/#sthash.N5CO0MIr.dpuf


----------



## Remius (14 Sep 2015)

This will likely be a good news week for the CPC unless something knocks them off message yet again.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/fiscal-year-ottawa-surplus-1.3226969

although I'm sure some are hoping that the Carson trial might derail teh CPC this week, I doubt that it will.  it is far enough removed from the CPC, and most people don't even know what it is about to care much.  I'm sure the opposition will tie it to Stephen Harper's judgement but I think the damage will be negligeable.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Sep 2015)

Polls.

Pretty tight right now.

However, the vocals (NDP, Liberals) are always very vocal when it comes to polls.

CPC supporters? Not so much. They show their opinions on voting day.

All this to say, I believe that the CPC support is higher than reported.

Just my  :2c:


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2015)

I admire Thomas Mulcair. I think he is a good politician: smart, enthusiastic, well attuned to what Canadians want.

I've also said that I like my local NDP MP, Paul Dewar, and I will not be surprised or sad when he is re-elected.

Why, then, can I not vote NDP?

Here, from an article in the _Globe and Mail_ is the answer:

     "Thomas Mulcair’s deliberate move to the centre of the policy spectrum has disillusioned some long-time, left-leaning elements within his party. But the prospect of an NDP government in Ottawa – one that will represent the voice of the
      Canadian labour movement – is preventing dissenters from abandoning ship ... The members of the socialist caucus are circulating a petition praising Mr. Mulcair for his efforts to bring in a national minimum wage and a national
      childcare plan, but demanding that much more from the traditional NDP playbook be incorporated into the party platform. They want national pharmacare, a ban on pipeline creation, more “progressive taxation” and solidarity with
      Palestinians over Israel."

Despite my admiration for the NDP's leader and for a few of its members, the NDP base, including some of the caucus, scares me ... they are economic barbarians and social radicals with firm, "party line" views that are dangerous for Canada and Canadians here at home and for our place in the world.

_I believe_ that M Mulcair can control his left wing _if_ he wins only a small minority _and if_ the Liberals do not elect many of their "loony lefties," _but if_ there is an NDP Majority or an NDP minority supports by a strong Liberal-Left caucus then _I think_ we're in trouble. There are too many _if_s when one considers the NDP ...


Edit: capitalization   :-[


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Sep 2015)

Comments on the CBC article about the 2014-15 balance are a treat, but I'll reserve my nose-thumbing until the numbers are formally included in the Fiscal Reference Tables (which should be shortly).

And I, too, doubt Mulcair can push off the preferences of his extreme supporters the same way Harper declined to engage issues important to social conservatives.


----------



## observor 69 (14 Sep 2015)

Very well written article on how minority election results could evolve:

When the votes are in, ball may be in the Governor-General’s court

The concept of strategic voting becomes more important in this election campaign as emotions rise and polarization grows. Increasingly, the question is whether you are for or against Conservative Leader Stephen Harper. Refugees, recession, perceived general nastiness – feelings are running high.

From Conservatives, you hear, “We have enough votes if the others split theirs.” From the others, “How best to get rid of him?” Go Liberal or New Democrat? Justin Trudeau or Thomas Mulcair?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/when-the-votes-are-in-ball-may-be-in-the-governor-generals-court/article26341743/


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2015)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Very well written article on how minority election results could evolve:
> 
> When the votes are in, ball may be in the Governor-General’s court
> 
> ...




And Mr Gibson, a long time Liberal insider, makes this key point, from the Liberal perspective:

     "... a Mulcair administration, conferring national governmental stature on the NDP, is the one thing the Liberal Party cannot have; it would threaten the party’s continuing existence. So the Liberals would support neither the NDP
      nor the Conservatives, but would not kill the Conservative government right away. From Mr. Trudeau would come something like, “The Governor-General has given Mr. Harper a chance to meet the House, the people don’t 
      want another election and we will listen. He’d better not do X or Y and he’d better do Z, but given that, we’ll wait and see.”

That's the Liberal dilemma and that's why I continue to insist that if M Trudeau's Liberals cannot, themselves, win power, they must not finish behind the NDP. The Liberal Party of Canada has _no principles_ at all save for gaining and holding power. If the NDP gain power then that party may, forever, reshape Canadian politics: splitting the electorate with the CPC and shutting the Liberals out, forever. M Trudeau cannot, for long, support an NDP government but he may, for much longer, backup a Conservative one. He doesn't care that Canadian might hate Stephen Harper; they, we, you are not part of his power calculus.


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And Mr Gibson, a long time Liberal insider, makes this key point, from the Liberal perspective:
> 
> "... a Mulcair administration, conferring national governmental stature on the NDP, is the one thing the Liberal Party cannot have; it would threaten the party’s continuing existence. So the Liberals would support neither the NDP
> nor the Conservatives, but would not kill the Conservative government right away. From Mr. Trudeau would come something like, “The Governor-General has given Mr. Harper a chance to meet the House, the people don’t
> ...


I respectfully disagree. 

Justin trudeau and the liberals cannot be seen to be propping up a harper lead conservative goverment. It would be political suicide. The NDP would have itself a field day. 

As it stands right now voters want change but are spilt on what kind of change they want and who is best to deliver it. The NDP and LPC voters each have each other as their second choice. The protest vote has yet to solidify around a single party or leader.

This will change if any of the two parties are seen as propping up the conservatives, especially the liberal party.

If the liberals prop up the CPC by the time the next election rolls around the Harper/CPC fatigue will be at a all time high, the electorate will most definitely be clamoring for change and the NDP will rightly be able to paint the liberals as the ones who stood in the way of change. 

There is absolutely nothing for the liberals to gain in supporting the CPC. Unless someone can point out something I'm missing where there is something about the LPC supporting the CPC that will help their electoral chances.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (14 Sep 2015)

Wrong - once an NDP government is in power handing out candies to the kiddies at no apparent cost, the Liberal Party collapses.  In the meantime the Conservatives bring in a new electable leader and the Liberals would be wise to do the same.  Trudeau simply can't let the NDP have a kick at the can.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I respectfully disagree.
> 
> Justin trudeau and the liberals cannot be seen to be propping up a harper lead conservative goverment. It would be political suicide. The NDP would have itself a field day.
> 
> ...




The Liberals will have two problems if they finish _behind_ the NDP:

     1. Relevance ~ the NDP can, for a while, for long enough ~ appeal to a broad enough spectrum of Canadians that they _might_ suck up almost all of the _red Liberal_ support, rendering the LPC politically irrelevant. This is the worst
         possible case for the Liberals; and

     2. Money ~ the CPC will be eager to have another election as soon as possible, in the event of an NDP minority win. My guess, based on recent reports, is that the CPC is flush with money, they will be able afford to fight two election campaigns
         back-to-back, the NDP, while not so rich, can, just barely, raise enough manage, but the LPC will be nearly broke and cannot afford another campaign. If there is a CPC minority it will be in the LPC's interests to support it until they have
         rebuilt their campaign war-chest.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Sep 2015)

The whole system is rotten to the core. That we have progressives posing as conservatives and a national party that supports a terror-ridden group over a free democracy sickens me.

Nobody wants to govern; they all want power.

And they all seem to think that raising tax rates on higher income earners is a good thing.

Stop. Wasting. My. Money!

/rant


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Wrong - once an NDP government is in power handing out candies to the kiddies at no apparent cost, the Liberal Party collapses.  In the meantime the Conservatives bring in a new electable leader and the Liberals would be wise to do the same.  Trudeau simply can't let the NDP have a kick at the can.


are you saying that the LPC propping up the CPC wouldn't backfire come election time? Especially a election that may come withing 2 years?





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Liberals will have two problems if they finish _behind_ the NDP:
> 
> 1. Relevance ~ the NDP can, for a while, for long enough ~ appeal to a broad enough spectrum of Canadians that they _might_ suck up almost all of the _red Liberal_ support, rendering the LPC politically irrelevant. This is the worst
> possible case for the Liberals; and
> ...


last I checked, which was a while ago, the LPC was second in fundraising?  Maybe this changed.

Regardless of finances ( and political parties can take out loans I believe) , would the electorate not run over to the NDP at the detriment of the LPC if the latter were just seen as the CPC lite?

Especially a electorate hungry for change? I would risk being broke and running broke rather than running flush with cash and being the target of Canadian frustrations. CPC voters aren't going to defect to the LPC on mass if the LPC props up the CPC but liberals voters would flock to the NDP if the LPC props up the CPC. 

I see no upside to the LPC propping up the CPC. Might as well enter a coalition with the NDP at that point. At least they can say they were a part of the "change" and hope for the best.


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/conservatives-still-on-top-as-parties-report-latest-fundraising-totals-1.3057522

As of this may, party fundraising for Q1

CPC 6.3 million

LPC 3.8 million

NDP 2.3 million.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com//news/canada/canadian-politics/federal-election-fundraising-race

Q2 results

CPC 7.4 million 

NDP 4.5 million

LPC 4 million

How is the LPC more broke than the NDP?  :facepalm:


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Sep 2015)

>would the electorate not run over to the NDP at the detriment of the LPC if the latter were just seen as the CPC lite?

The Liberals have always been centrist, not leftist.   "CPC lite" is what they are; or, if you prefer, the CPC is "LPC hi-test".  Why would the LPC try to be more like the NDP and compete on the NDP's long-established turf?  People who want NDP-like government will choose the NDP - real socialists rather than imitation ones.

NDP supporters would exert a great deal of energy to portray a LPC opposition supporting a CPC minority as lap dogs, or any other collection of servile-flavoured nouns and adjectives which come to mind.  But that would just be the politics of bitter frustration and defeat.  I suspect the Canadian concensus right now is "CPC minority held in check by LPC" or "LPC minority held in check by CPC" - in short, fiscally prudent government of the center exercising more classically liberal principles in search of the balance among justice, security, and liberty.  If so, Canadians would not object to the party holding the leash going along with the governing party while bending the trajectory of the government.

The NDP is basically a big tent of rent-seekers held together in search of power by an understanding that each sub-faction will receive its rice bowl at the expense of those outside the tent if the quest is successful.  Most Canadians are willing to work for their own rice bowls rather than lobby for one, and aren't particularly supportive of the rent-seekers.  As long as the NDP can plausibly conceal its true nature and muzzle its leftmost wing it is electable; otherwise, it is not.


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >would the electorate not run over to the NDP at the detriment of the LPC if the latter were just seen as the CPC lite?
> 
> The Liberals have always been centrist, not leftist.   "CPC lite" is what they are; or, if you prefer, the CPC is "LPC hi-test".  Why would the LPC try to be more like the NDP and compete on the NDP's long-established turf?  People who want NDP-like government will choose the NDP - real socialists rather than imitation ones.
> 
> ...


Of course the risk lies in campaigning for change and supporting the old. 

I personally hated the liberals for supporting the conservatives minority goverment of the late 2000s, hated them abstaining from votes so the goverment wouldn't fall, holding their noses and voting with the conservatives. I hated that so much I stayed home in 2011.

Canadians must have hated that as well, because they were dumped into third place and the LPC vote split apart. 

The conservatives weren't exactly grateful for the LPC support either, all but destroying ignatief. 

Looking at most LPC and NDP supporters, the LPC second choice is the NDP and the NDP second choice is the LPC. I believe that's the way Canadians want to go, a NDP or LPC minority propped up by a NDP or LPC third or second party. Don't see many LPC supporters wanting trudeau propping up harper.

So I hope for their sake that they don't go down that road or I'll hold my nose and vote NDP. I'm not voting liberal because I want a CPC minority propped up by the LPC. I'm voting LPC because I want the CPC gone. If the LPC can't do that, I'll vote NDP.


----------



## Privateer (14 Sep 2015)

Is Mr. Mulcair trying to take out the LPC and then morph the NDP into a new LPC?  I get the impression that he would be equally happy being leader of the LPC if he could somehow force NDPers into that tent and then shut down the NDP.  The NDP leadership seems more of an available stepping stone for his personal ambition than an ideological choice on his part.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2015)

Back to my bell curve analog ...

                                  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




                                         _Hard left                         Left                               Moderate, mushy middle                           Right                    Hard right _
Traditional,  until 2003:    Communists                 NDP                                 Liberals                            Conservatives          Reform 
New model, after 2003:    Communists                                                     NDP  Liberals                               Conservatives

                                                            <========================= NDP =========================>
Latest model, in 2015:      Communists                <=============== Liberals ==========================>
                                                                                             <======================= Conservatives ==========================>

The problem for the Liberals is that both the NDP, from the left, and the CPC, from the right, have moved into the "mushy middle" ground which was, traditionally, the LPC's base. They've been outflanked ... _on both flanks!_


----------



## dapaterson (14 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The problem for the Liberals is that both the NDP, from the left, and the CPC, from the right, have moved into the "mushy middle" ground which was, traditionally, the LPC's base. They've been outflanked ... _on both flanks!_



So, sort of like a pimple getting squished?


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2015)

Privateer said:
			
		

> Is Mr. Mulcair trying to take out the LPC and then morph the NDP into a new LPC?  I get the impression that he would be equally happy being leader of the LPC if he could somehow force NDPers into that tent and then shut down the NDP.  The NDP leadership seems more of an available stepping stone for his personal ambition than an ideological choice on his part.



You are looking, maybe, at new four party system:

A true _left wing party_, made up of the _Dippers_ who cannot tolerate Jack Layton's and Thomas Mulcairs' shift to the centre;
               A new _centre-left party_, led by M Mulcair, made up of many of the _Dippers_ and most _Liberals_;
                 A new _centre-right party_, led by prime Minister Harper's successor and made up of most Conservatives and some _Blue (Manley) Liberals_; and
                                 A new _right wing party_ made up of disaffeceted Conservatives for whom the new centre right party is too _socially and fiscally liberal_.


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Back to my bell curve analog ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Probably why we are seeing trudeau campaigning from the NDP left at this point.

Running deficits while the NDP promises to balance the budget

Talking about austerity while the NDP talks about fiscal prudence.

Wynne was able to do it in Ontario,  campaigning hard on the left while trying to discredit the right.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (14 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You are looking, maybe, at new four party system:
> 
> A true _left wing party_, made up of the _Dippers_ who cannot tolerate Jack Layton's and Thomas Mulcairs' shift to the centre;
> A new _centre-left party_, led by M Mulcair, made up of many of the _Dippers_ and most _Liberals_;
> ...



Lets see here for fun:

You could name those parties as follows:

The true left-wing party: The Socialist Party of Canada
The left-of-center party: The Liberal-Democrats Party of Canada
The right-of-centre party: The Progressive-Conservative Party of Canada 
and the true right-wing party: REFOOOOOORM!!! (dixit the Royal Canadian Air Farce  );


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

It's very odd to see. The NDP moving to the center, the liberals moving to the left. The NDP sheds some of its votes on the left while picking up in the center, the LPC responds by picking up those ndp leftists while shedding their voters in the center.

Might end up with a complete ideological flip if this continues. 

Probably why we see the tie that we do now.


----------



## Jed (14 Sep 2015)

'It's all about that Base, 'bout that Base, No quibbles'


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Lets see here for fun:
> 
> You could name those parties as follows:
> 
> ...




 :bravo: And _my guess_ is that the _Socialists_ and _Reform_ each have a solid base of about 10% of the electorate, about the same as the _BQ_, give 5% to the _Greens_ and that means that, election after election, the _Lib Dems_ and the _PC_s split the remaining 65%, but, because we have been smart enough to retain a simple, first past the post system ~ not some sort of silly arsed PR system ~ they alternate power every couple of elections, thus providing us with generations of generally acceptable, _centrist_, efficient majority governments with public policy oscillating (not too far) around the mushy middle.


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> :bravo: And _my guess_ is that the _Socialists_ and _Reform_ each have a solid base of about 10% of the electorate, about the same as the _BQ_, give 5% to the _Greens_ and that means that, election after election, the _Lib Dems_ and the _PC_s split the remaining 65%, but, because we have been smart enough to retain a simple, first past the post system ~ not some sort of silly arsed PR system ~ they alternate power every couple of elections, thus providing us with generations of generally acceptable, _centrist_, efficient majority governments with public policy oscillating (not too far) around the mushy middle.


I still doubt that. 

If the current voting intentions stay the same we might go straight back to the polls and the protest vote solidifies around one of the LPC or NDP.

We are far more likely to see CPC in power, one of the LPC or NDP in power followed by the CPC again. I bet this is a more sensible way forward.

Unless the NDP are too broke to go back to the polls that is.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Probably why we are seeing trudeau campaigning from the NDP left at this point.
> 
> Running deficits while the NDP promises to balance the budget
> 
> ...



Wynne may also be the worst premiere in Ontario's history and is wracking up unbelievable debt while still somehow managing to transition Ontario into a have not province. If this is what Trudeau is going to do than lord help all of us


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Wynne may also be the worst premiere in Ontario's history and is wracking up unbelievable debt while still somehow managing to transition Ontario into a have not province. If this is what Trudeau is going to do than lord help all of us


 Campaign strategy =/= how one governs?

Liberals usually campaign on the left and govern on the right.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Campaign strategy =/= how one governs?
> 
> Liberals usually campaign on the left and govern on the right.



With Mr. Trudeau I dont necessarily believe that he will do that. I think he is the classic "silk stocking liberal". He talks about the middle class but hasn't seen a day of it in his life and can't even define what "middle class" is. It doesn't fill me with confidence that he truly gets what I, as a middle class citizen, really need (or else why would he be so quick to get rid of income splitting? It helps me greatly as a middle class person). 

Dont get me wrong- I dont want the leader of the government to be a Sarah Palin type, "shucks" type. But that's where my issue with Mr. Trudeau is- he has led a privileged life amongst the top 1% of Canadians (likely close to the top .1% really). What I want is a leader who knows who they are and dont try to BS the country about their understanding of our challenges... it comes off being condescending


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> With Mr. Trudeau I dont necessarily believe that he will do that. I think he is the classic "silk stocking liberal". He talks about the middle class but hasn't seen a day of it in his life and can't even define what "middle class" is. It doesn't fill me with confidence that he truly gets what I, as a middle class citizen, really need (or else why would he be so quick to get rid of income splitting? It helps me greatly as a middle class person).
> 
> Dont get me wrong- I dont want the leader of the government to be a Sarah Palin type, "shucks" type. But that's where my issue with Mr. Trudeau is- he has led a privileged life amongst the top 1% of Canadians (likely close to the top .1% really). What I want is a leader who knows who they are and dont try to BS the country about their understanding of our challenges... it comes off being condescending


Seems odd to have an issue with something someone had no control over.

I don't think baby justin trudeau had a choice of what tax bracket he was born in.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Sep 2015)

Privateer said:
			
		

> Is Mr. Mulcair trying to take out the LPC and then morph the NDP into a new LPC?  I get the impression that he would be equally happy being leader of the LPC if he could somehow force NDPers into that tent and then shut down the NDP.  The NDP leadership seems more of an available stepping stone for his personal ambition than an ideological choice on his part.




Hmmm....now where has that happened before?



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> Seems odd to have an issue with something someone had no control over.
> 
> I don't think baby justin trudeau had a choice of what tax bracket he was born in.



That doesn't mean his jacketless, sleeves-rolled-up traipse up the hill with the Parliamentary Library in the background vowing his readiness makes him "one of us" or be able to get what it means being middle class.  A middle class family that didn't have the luxury of two professional incomes would very much appreciate the income splitting tax benefit when the time comes to spend some more time with the children and grand-children.  Trudeau wants to take that away from us.  It doesn't resonate with him because he has no comprehension of the concept...


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Hmmm....now where has that happened before?
> 
> That doesn't mean his jacketless, sleeves-rolled-up traipse up the hill with the Parliamentary Library in the background vowing his readiness makes him "one of us" or be able to get what it means being middle class.  A middle class family that didn't have the luxury of two professional incomes would very much appreciate the income splitting tax benefit when the time comes to spend some more time with the children and grand-children.  Trudeau wants to take that away from us.  It doesn't resonate with him because he has no comprehension of the concept...


Think what you wish, but Tom mulcair is even more middle class than Stephen Harper and he want to get rid of income splitting as well. So did the late Flaherty. 

So background has nothing to do with policy or empathy IMHO. Just my  :2c:


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Seems odd to have an issue with something someone had no control over.
> 
> I don't think baby justin trudeau had a choice of what tax bracket he was born in.




I don't believe anyone is blaming M Trudeau for an accident of birth. Some are _questioning_ what he did with the good fortune into which he was born. A list of his achievements is pretty short and very unimpressive. He is, I am sure, a very nice young man. I wonder if he is ready and "qualified" (however one wants to measure that) to lead a G7 nation.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Think what you wish, but Tom mulcair is even more middle class than Stephen Harper...



Mulcair, multi-degreed lawyer from McGill's elite and a long family lineage to early Quebec premiership (and his psychologist wife) is "more" middle class than Harper (an accountant's son and economist, with a college-diplomed rancher's daughter for a wife)?  Remind me again, how are you judging "middle-class?"


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Sep 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Mulcair, multi-degreed lawyer from McGill's elite and a long family lineage to early Quebec premiership (and his psychologist wife) is "more" middle class than Harper (an accountant's son and economist, with a college-diplomed rancher's daughter for a wife)?  So how are you judging "middle-class" again?



Same way Trudeau does, by not having any idea at what middle class actually is.


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

Stolen from WIKI



> Harper attended Northlea Public School and, later, John G. Althouse Middle School and Richview Collegiate Institute, both in Central Etobicoke. He graduated in 1978, and was a member of Richview Collegiate's team on Reach for the Top, a television quiz show for Canadian high school students.[6] Harper enrolled at the University of Toronto but dropped out after two months.[7] He then moved to Edmonton, Alberta, where he found work in the mail room at Imperial Oil.[7] Later, he advanced to work on the company's computer systems. He took up post-secondary studies again at the University of Calgary, where he completed a bachelor's degree in economics in 1985. He later returned there to earn a master's degree in economics, completed in 1991.[8] Harper has kept strong links to the University of Calgary, where he often lectured. Harper is the first prime minister since Joe Clark without a law degree.



Without a impressive career before politics, he is one of Canada's longest serving prime ministers.

If one were to run a just not ready campaign back in 2006 Harper would have been the subject of it. Which goes to show that incredibly impressive credentials and experience don't automatically translate into being a capable prime minister. Looking at Dion and Ignatief, both of whom had impressive credentials, it may actually be a detriment! ;D


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Mulcair, multi-degreed lawyer from McGill's elite and a long family lineage to early Quebec premiership (and his psychologist wife) is "more" middle class than Harper (an accountant's son and economist, with a college-diplomed rancher's daughter for a wife)?  Remind me again, how are you judging "middle-class?"



I have done a bit of research into tom mulcairs upbringing, he and his family were not wealthy.

He had a lot of siblings. He had to borrow money from family to go into law school. He worked in the trades as a roofer, which no wealthy person does voluntarily. I don't know how that isn't middle class. I am assuming of course that we are talking about upbringing, not current financial status.


----------



## Jed (14 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Stolen from WIKI
> 
> Without a impressive career before politics, he is one of Canada's longest serving prime ministers.
> 
> If one were to run a just not ready campaign back in 2006 Harper would have been the subject of it. Which goes to show that incredibly impressive credentials and experience don't automatically translate into being a capable prime minister. Looking at Dion and Ignatief, both of whom had impressive credentials, it may actually be a detriment! ;D



That's a pretty rough segue from which politician understands, and is from the middle class.  I think that Tom Mulcair having dual citizenship with France is not very indicative of middle class, as well.

It may be a bias of mine but Harper's educational / vocational bio / CV appears to show a much stronger work ethic than Justin's.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I have done a bit of research into tom mulcairs upbringing, he and his family were not wealthy.
> 
> He had a lot of siblings. He had to borrow money from family to go into law school. He worked in the trades as a roofer, which no wealthy person does voluntarily. I don't know how that isn't middle class. I am assuming of course that we are talking about upbringing, not current financial status.



And dropping out of university and working in a mail room makes someone upper class?  ???


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Seems odd to have an issue with something someone had no control over.
> 
> I don't think baby justin trudeau had a choice of what tax bracket he was born in.



Nope, but he does have a choice in how he portrays himself. He was born into incredible wealth and fame, and there's nothing wrong with that. I have a problem with how he tries to portray himself as the hero of the middle class, something he has only a passing understanding of. It'd be like if a NFL team hired a highly educated psychology grad who has never played football, but watched it, to  be a football coach... perfectly intelligent person but no understanding of the game.

If Mr. Trudeau wasn't portraying his understanding of my problems with no real way of understanding them than I would be more apt to listen- once again, I truly hope that that PM is one of the top 5% smartest people in the country... I dont believe he is anywhere near that number and condescending to boot


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> And dropping out of university and working in a mail room makes someone upper class?  ???


No. And nowhere did I say Harper was upper class.
 I said, and I quote, Mulcair is even more middle class than Harper.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Stolen from WIKI
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you insinuating that Trudeau has a Masters Degree in Economics or any other relevant subject?


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Without a impressive career before politics, he is one of Canada's longest serving prime ministers.
> 
> If one were to run a just not ready campaign back in 2006 Harper would have been the subject of it. Which goes to show that incredibly impressive credentials and experience don't automatically translate into being a capable prime minister. Looking at Dion and Ignatief, both of whom had impressive credentials, it may actually be a detriment! ;D
> 
> ...


I am not. I am saying that neither had a impressive career before politics.


----------



## GAP (14 Sep 2015)

> Are you insinuating that Trudeau has a Masters Degree in Economics or any other relevant subject?



But he teaches drama......


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> No. And nowhere did I say Harper was upper class.
> I said, and I quote, Mulcair is even more middle class than Harper.



to go back to the point... If Mr. Mulclair is from a middle class family, than great, he certainly has a basis to speak intelligently on the middle class. If Mr. Harper is middle class, great, he can speak about the middle class in the same manner. Mr Trudeau's exposure to the middle class was from the outside looking in, at best. As mentioned, it doesn't much matter who was poor and who was rich. Being rich, or poor, or middle class, doesn't make someone a better candidate or their ideas any less credible. What I said was that the fact the Trudeau poses as the hero of the middle class, a class he could not REALLY understand, is condescending. He's rich and should be well spoken and educated based on that background. He should focus on what he is, not fantasize about what he isn't.


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> But he teaches drama......


True. Lets all vote for the one guy with a law degree who actually had a career before politics then.


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> to go back to the point... If Mr. Mulclair is from a middle class family, than great, he certainly has a basis to speak intelligently on the middle class. If Mr. Harper is middle class, great, he can speak about the middle class in the same manner. Mr Trudeau's exposure to the middle class was from the outside looking in, at best. As mentioned, it doesn't much matter who was poor and who was rich. Being rich, or poor, or middle class, doesn't make someone a better candidate or their ideas any less credible. What I said was that the fact the Trudeau poses as the hero of the middle class, a class he could not REALLY understand, is condescending. He's rich and should be well spoken and educated based on that background. He should focus on what he is, not fantasize about what he isn't.


I see it as no different than Harper going around saying that he understands the military and has saved it from Liberal misdeeds while having never served a day in his life. That's just my opinion though, take it or leave it.


----------



## Jed (14 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I see it as no different than Harper going around saying that he understands the military and has saved it from Liberal misdeeds while having never served a day in his life. That's just my opinion though, take it or leave it.



We must be in your OODA loop. That's a cheap shot. A big difference from espousing support for the military, a rather small subset of society, to expressing in depth understanding of the 'middle class', a much larger subset of society.

Not that I appreciate pseudo military politicians from any party.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I see it as no different than Harper going around saying that he understands the military and has saved it from Liberal misdeeds while having never served a day in his life. That's just my opinion though, take it or leave it.



I wasn't aware that Harper went around saying that he "understood us" and our specific trades/jobs. He, through the MND, did implement policy and utilize the military. If Trudeau did the same for the middle class it would be fine...


----------



## Privateer (14 Sep 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> ... pseudo military politicians ...



You just described at least one Naval Reserve divisional system I have encountered...


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> No. And nowhere did I say Harper was upper class.
> I said, and I quote, Mulcair is even more middle class than Harper.



Then we both agree that Mulcair is higher in the middle class than Harper.


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Then we both agree that Mulcair is higher in the middle class than Harper.


I would give the edge to mulcair

Stephen Harpers father was an accountant. Tom Mulcairs father was in insurance. Don't know what Harpers mother did. Mulcairs mother was a teacher. Harper had two other siblings, mulcair had nine.

Pretty close, but with the large family I  would go with mulcair by a dollar.

Again, I'm basing this on upbringing.

This is all getting away from my point though. I said that mulcair was middle class and is wanting to get rid of income splitting, so people cannot say that the only reason Justin Trudeau is trying to get rid of income splitting is because he doesn't understand how it would effect the middle class.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Sep 2015)

I wasn't sold on income splitting, until I saw its effect on my family's tax return last year. Even with Trudeau cutting the middle tax rate to 20.5%, I still come out $3500 poorer. That, coupled with his rollback of the proposed EI rates, means I'll keep even less of my own money every year for absolutely no gain. Muclair is going to remove income splitting and not even give me a tax cut, adding another $500 or so to my payable. He'll give me daycare, that I don't need until he jacks up my taxes further, forcing my wife to go to back to work to make ends meet as a middle class family.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> ...This is all getting away from my point though. I said that mulcair was middle class and is wanting to get rid of income splitting, so people cannot say that the only reason Justin Trudeau is trying to get rid of income splitting is because he doesn't understand how it would effect the middle class.



No one here was saying that Trudeau's only reason to eliminate income splitting was due to his inability to understand the middle classes.  Many have pointed out that they feel Trudeau is unqualified to play the "I'm one of you, I understand the middle class" card.  

You were the one who actually brought specifics of income splitting into the "Trudeau-not-Middle-Class" discussion by linking eliminating income splitting with Tom Mulcair as well, then stating that he was middlier than Harper.

With a family of nine children and Mme. Mulcair staying at home to care for the family, M. Mulcair Sr., post-retirment income would have gone farther under an income-splitting regime.  I can only imagine that Tom Mulcair is basing his decision to eliminate income splitting for reasons other than his own childhood conditions.


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

While I'm happy income splitting works for you and your family, it doesn't work for mine and many others.

Single men and women get no benefit

Families with two people earning around the same amount get no benefit

Doesn't help me and my wife, since we both earn within a couple thousand of each other.

What would help me is and increase of the UCCB by making it means based. While I have yet to see the specifics on that, it would help me more under trudeau than it would under harper or mulcair, on top of a drop in my income taxes.

So vote according to your wallet by all means, but don't think that any party covers the needs of all Canadians, or one is vastly superior to anothers. At best its a wash.


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> No one here was saying that Trudeau's only reason to eliminate income splitting was due to his inability to understand the middle classes.  Many have pointed out that they feel Trudeau is unqualified to play the "I'm one of you, I understand the middle class" card.
> 
> You were the one who actually brought specifics of income splitting into the "Trudeau-not-Middle-Class" discussion by linking eliminating income splitting with Tom Mulcair as well, then stating that he was middlier than Harper.
> 
> With a family of nine children and Mme. Mulcair staying at home to care for the family, M. Mulcair Sr., post-retirment income would have gone farther under an income-splitting regime.  I can only imagine that Tom Mulcair is basing his decision to eliminate income splitting for reasons other than his own childhood conditions.





			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> That doesn't mean his jacketless, sleeves-rolled-up traipse up the hill with the Parliamentary Library in the background vowing his readiness makes him "one of us" or be able to get what it means being middle class.  A middle class family that didn't have the luxury of two professional incomes would very much appreciate the income splitting tax benefit when the time comes to spend some more time with the children and grand-children. * Trudeau wants to take that away from us.  It doesn't resonate with him because he has no comprehension of the concept...
> *



also, http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/would-opposition-parties-scrap-pension-income-splitting-1.3064910



> The facts
> 
> Both opposition parties have explicitly said they would not touch pension income splitting, which allows pensioners to allocate up to half their pension income to their spouses, resulting in significant tax savings.
> 
> ...



Conservative attack ads seem to be working their magic though...

The facts of the matter are, whether a senior votes for the LPC, NDP or CPC, none of the major parties will touch income splitting for seniors who want to spend time with their grandchildren.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> While I'm happy income splitting works for you and your family, it doesn't work for mine and many others.
> 
> Single men and women get no benefit
> 
> ...



You do know that what you are saying is all BS.


Of course the benefits being talked about will not apply to everyone.  Only and IDIOT would think that every benefit and tax break would apply to them.  They apply only to the persons who qualify.  You may not qualify for one while another person does; and vice versa.  

Stop talking nonsense.


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You do know that what you are saying is all BS.
> 
> 
> Of course the benefits being talked about will not apply to everyone.  Only and IDIOT would think that every benefit and tax break would apply to them.  They apply only to the persons who qualify.  You may not qualify for one while another person does; and vice versa.
> ...


I said it's a wash. Income splitting, tax cuts for middle class, 15 dollar a day daycare, means based UCCB, none is inherently superior to another.

I don't see the problem in what I said. :-\


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Sep 2015)

Or, instead of recursive anti-quoting of quotes, how about we take the other parties' positions directly from their websites?


http://*www.ndp.ca*/income-splitting


> Middle-class families are working harder but falling further behind.
> 
> Instead of helping, Stephen Harper is handing a big gift to those who already have the most.
> 
> ...





http://*www.liberal.ca*/realchange/cancelling-tax-breaks-and-benefits-for-the-wealthy/



> *CANCELLING TAX BREAKS AND BENEFITS FOR THE WEALTHY*
> 
> We'll cancel income splitting and other tax breaks and benefits for the wealthy.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Sep 2015)

Young Trudeau can't be middle class. He can't understand the middle class. He has no idea how to help the middle class and he doesn't understand what the middle class is telling him.

Why, you ask?

Quite simple really. At the start of the campaign, every time he mentioned the middle class, someone asked him to define it. To this day, he still can't say what constitutes the middle class. He simply parrots what his handlers tell him. Most of them being Laurentian Elitists, they can't define the middle class either.


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Or, instead of recursive anti-quoting of quotes, how about we take the other parties' positions directly from their websites?
> 
> 
> http://*www.ndp.ca*/income-splitting
> ...


Yes, for everyone else both the LPC and NDP would end income splitting, however all parties would keep income splitting for seniors.

Agreed?


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Sep 2015)

>Hard left  Communists  ...  Hard right Reform

Seriously?  Reform took 18-19% of the vote; the Marxist-Leninists took < 1%.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Sep 2015)

> We’ll start by reversing Harper’s tax giveaway to the wealthy—and invest in your priorities instead.



Of course, that means taxing the shit out of the working middle class, in order to use our money for social programs aimed at those that don't work.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Sep 2015)

How long does someone need to be out of his "lane" before skill fade shows?

How long does someone need to be a full-time nationally prominent politician before you acknowledge he is no longer middle class, and really has no clue what being middle class means in concrete terms unless he has been routinely shopping for groceries, living in a middle class neighbourhood, leading a middle class life.

My parents grew up working class, and sure as sh!t aren't working class anymore.  All of my grandparents grew up working poor, and two of them died very much middle class+.  People - especially reporters and political fartcatchers (well, forget them, it's what they do) - should stop peddling bullsh!t about how politicians' childhoods and upbringing are necessarily relevant to the pots and chickens they are promising today.

>I said it's a wash. Income splitting, tax cuts for middle class, 15 dollar a day daycare, means based UCCB, none is inherently superior to another.

Anything which leaves pure cash with no attachments in the pockets of families with children is superior to any targeted benefit.  Money for daycare, or tax credits for particular activities, are inherently inferior.  Someone has already cited relevant information; the LPC and NDP objection to income splitting is that it benefits people who already have some money.   But so too will their subsidized daycare plans.  The daycare scheme is critical to the NDP and LPC because each must win well in QC, and QC is starting to find its daycare scheme unaffordable.  QC wants more money from the RoC, and daycare is a vehicle to deliver it.  The NDP and LPC are hoping to create another net transfer into QC without RoC noticing.  So far the media are letting them get away with it.


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> How long does someone need to be out of his "lane" before skill fade shows?
> 
> How long does someone need to be a full-time nationally prominent politician before you acknowledge he is no longer middle class, and really has no clue what being middle class means in concrete terms unless he has been routinely shopping for groceries, living in a middle class neighbourhood, leading a middle class life.
> 
> ...


LPC doesn't have a daycare plan as far as I'm tracking.

As far as pandering to Quebec, the NDP has a lock on that.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Yes, for everyone else both the LPC and NDP would end income splitting, however all parties would keep income splitting for seniors.
> 
> Agreed?



Actually no.  I read their policies, and while they imply that seniors are not wealthy, their respective policies  (well, the NDP's is actually rather vague) use wealth as the elimination selection criteria, not age, so a wealthy senior couple with one penion income would have the splitting benefit eliminated.


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

> "This government brought in income splitting for Canadian pensioners. That (Liberal) party voted against it and that party has, in the past, threatened to take it away from our seniors."
> — Prime Minister Stephen Harper, April 22.
> 
> "We have introduced pension income splitting, which the opposition parties say they would revoke."
> ...



I'm not talking about this anymore. I'm leaving this here and you can believe whatever you want. I believe the Canadian press.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2015)

M Trudeau is not to blame for his birth.

But, _he is not qualified_ to be much of anything (because he squandered opportunities about which "middle class" and poor kids could only dream) ... he is especially not qualified to lead a G7 country.

In my (admittedly biased) opinion, he is nothing more than a human sock puppet for a team of Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne's political acolytes ... and I'm not sure he's sufficiently qualified for that role.

If you have a good, solid Liberal candidate in your riding ~ and there are plenty, over a hundred, of them ~ then, by all means, vote Liberal. If, however, you are going to vote Liberal based on M Trudeau's qualities then _I think_ you are either incredibly naive or terminally bloody foolish.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2015)

The only role for which I believe M Trudeau is adequately qualified.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> > ...
> > There is no truth to the Conservative assertion that the NDP and Liberals would scrap pension income splitting should they form government. *Both parties have explicitly said they would keep the measure*.
> > ...
> 
> ...



But the very links to their official websites show the above statement to be untrue.

How could you choose to "believe the Canadian press" when its quotations are factually counter to the parties' official positions?  ???


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> M Trudeau is not to blame for his birth.
> 
> But, _he is not qualified_ to be much of anything (because he squandered opportunities about which "middle class" and poor kids could only dream) ... he is especially not qualified to lead a G7 country.
> 
> ...


Very happy to be voting liberal for Mr Trudeaus attributes  ;D


----------



## Altair (14 Sep 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about this anymore. I'm leaving this here and you can believe whatever you want. I believe the Canadian press.
> 
> 
> But the very links to their official websites show the above statement to be untrue.
> ...


Both leaders have said they would keep income splitting for seniors, and Trudeau went as far as to assert that during the Maclean debate. 

But really, I have no more interest in this discussion. Believe what you will.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The only role for which I believe M Trudeau is adequately qualified.



Ironically, when I clicked on the link Mr Trudeau's escalator commerical came on....


----------



## George Wallace (14 Sep 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Ironically, when I clicked on the link Mr Trudeau's escalator commerical came on....



LOL!


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Quote from: E.R. Campbell on Today at 22:12:34
> 
> 
> > M Trudeau is not to blame for his birth.
> ...



I'm not surprised ...  :dunno:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Both leaders have said they would keep income splitting for seniors, and Trudeau went as far as to assert that during the Maclean debate.
> 
> But really, I have no more interest in this discussion. Believe what you will.



That was quick. Thought you weren't talking about it anymore.


----------



## Altair (15 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Very happy to be voting liberal for Mr Trudeaus attributes  ;D
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised ...  :dunno:


There are many things I think about Stephen Harper and those who would even consider voting for him. 

I usual try not to judge people on their choices however. But clearly I'm naive or terminally bloody foolish. 

Maybe we can keep the political discourse here relatively high.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> How long does someone need to be out of his "lane" before skill fade shows?
> 
> How long does someone need to be a full-time nationally prominent politician before you acknowledge he is no longer middle class, and really has no clue what being middle class means in concrete terms unless he has been routinely shopping for groceries, living in a middle class neighbourhood, leading a middle class life.
> 
> ...



Brad - based on my observations - largely from across the pond - the more radically left wing a politician is the more likely he has never had to work a day in his life.  And has never actually dealt with the consequences of their choices.  Corbyn is the latest to follow, after the Millibands, after the (Wedgewood) Benns.    Something to do with Fabian guilt?


----------



## biernini (15 Sep 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Brad - based on my observations - largely from across the pond - the more radically left wing a politician is the more likely he has never had to work a day in his life.  And has never actually dealt with the consequences of their choices.  Corbyn is the latest to follow, after the Millibands, after the (Wedgewood) Benns.    Something to do with Fabian guilt?


Let's not kid ourselves and think that this is only a symptom of the left.  It's prevalent in all extremists who tend to think in black and white and have little to no experience with the thousands of greys of day-to-day life.  GW Bush and Stephen Harper are just as disconnected and removed from consequences as anyone you care to mention on the left.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2015)

In this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from his _blog_, David Akin, of _Sun News_, asks if the Trudeau "war-room" failed the leader:

http://blogs.canoe.com/davidakin/politics/when-a-war-room-fails-a-leader-trudeau-truthiness-and-the-economy/


> When a war room fails a leader: Trudeau, truthiness and the economy
> 
> David Akin - September 14th, 2015
> 
> ...




So we have a young man ~ a nice young man, I hasten to add ~ who has been sent out "unarmed," in terms of talking points, by a "war room" that is, largely _I think_, staffed with veterans of the Kathleen Wynne campaigns (not amateurs). That war room must have known that the Department of Finance report would dominate the news, one way or another. So my question is: why did they let M Trudeau down? Are they, despite their fearsome reputation based on their success in Ontario, rank amateurs? Or did M Trudeau choose to ignore them?  Or did M Trudeau and his team decide that he is not intellectually "up" to handling a complex shift in message?

And, another question: will Team Trudeau start, now, to tell the truth about spending on veterans, aboriginals and seniors? Or, will they just continue to _lie_ because they believe enough Canadians are stupid enough?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_'s elections newsletter (sent ot subscribers by e-mail), are John Ibbitson's thoughts on the state of Prime Minister Harper's campaign:





Harper took a hit but still has a shot

CAMPAIGN NOTEBOOK

By JOHN IBBITSON (@JohnIbbitson)

After a perfectly dismal six weeks, the Conservatives are looking to reboot their election campaign. And you know what? They might succeed.

Having launched the election in August, Stephen Harper proceeded to underperform in the first leaders’ debate, face endless questions from reporters about who knew what in the Mike Duffy affair, fend off accusations that he had led the country into a surprise recession and mishandle – or so it seemed – the issue of Syrian refugees. The Conservatives fell into third place in the polls, albeit by only a point or two.

But the Mike Duffy affair has receded into the background. Recession or no, the Tories are always happy to talk about the economy, as their latest ads suggest.

We may be starting to see the first signs of a reaction from voters who aren’t sure it’s a good idea, as the NDP and Liberals demand, for Canada to rush through security checks in order to bring in far more refugees from Syria than most other anglosphere countries are taking.

And Mr. Harper will have a second crack at his opponents Thursday, when The Globe and Mail hosts a national leaders’ debate on the economy.

The latest Nanos numbers have the race back to a three-way tie. Hardly reason for champagne corks to pop in the Tory war room, but a distinct improvement from a week ago. Stay tuned.

DAILY TRACKING FROM NANOS RESEARCH

Nik Nanos: “Three-way tie continues for fourth night of tracking.”

     Conservatives: 30.2 per cent (up 4.0 from last week)
     NDP:                31.3 per cent (down 1.4 from last week)
     Liberals:          30.3 per cent (down 0.5 from last week)
     Green:              4.3 per cent (down 1.7 from last week)
     Bloc:                 2.6 per cent (down 1.1 from last week)
_The margin of error is 2.8 points._


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2015)

_Uh oh_, _I suspect_ CPC fortunes are looking up if even Lawrence Martin, dean of the Harper Haters™ is worried, as he appears to be in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-tories-may-have-been-down-but-theyre-not-out/article26361236/


> The Tories may have been down, but they’re not out
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




Of course, being Lawrence Martin, he has to repeat the old "majority" lie. It's true that a majority, by recent polling, wants someone other than Prime Minister Harper to be elected, but there is no majority in favour of either M Mulcair or M Trudeau, both, in fact, are (statistically) tied with the prime minister in support). _In truth_, about 90% of Canadians want, in about equal measure, one of Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair and/or Justin Trudeau to lead the government.


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Sep 2015)

Interesting piece about Harper's religious beliefs the role they place in his policies. His church is, shall we say, less than rational on most issues.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/09/14/Covert-Evangelism-Stephen-Harper/




> 'Smartest evangelical politician'
> 
> For starters, Christianity Today pegged Harper as "The Smartest Evangelical Politician You Never Heard Of" in 2006.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2015)

_Rational_ is not an adjective one ought to apply to the word_ religion_ ... any religion or any denomination thereof.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, there is one more opportunity to attack M Trudeau and, maybe indirectly, M Mulcair, too: the foreign policy debate hosted by the Munk Centre is in danger because, _in my opinion_, "Team Trudeau" is _afraid_ to put M Trudeau up against Prime Minister Harper and M Mulcair in an unscripted debate, because he's _"Just Not Ready."_
> 
> Further, as an aside, M Mulcair would like to focus on anything but foreign policy because it's not a strong suit for the NDP, he's afraid, of stirring up the NDP's _loony left_ base.




But, now, _CBC News Alerts_ has _Tweeted_ that _"#TomMulcair will participate in #MunkDebate. Had raised questions about whether Thursday's debate was fully bilingual."_ That _suggests_ that M Trudeau's team is still _frightened_ of the idea of an unscripted debate on an issue about which M Trudeau is ignorant. _I think_ a one-on-one debate on foreign policy between prime Minister Harper and M Mulcair would be interesting and informative for Canadians. _I think_ adding Justin Trudeau to the debate is about on a par with adding Elizabeth May: neither is consequential.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _I think_ adding Justin Trudeau to the debate is about on a par with adding Elizabeth May: neither is consequential.



Perhaps, but it could be entertaining.


----------



## cupper (15 Sep 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but it could be entertaining.



Entertainment and ratings.

That's the real reason Trump is in the US debates, not this leading in the polls BS. :nod:


----------



## Rocky Mountains (15 Sep 2015)

Always nice to get Hitler's opinion.  He thinks his socialist buddies, Mulcair and Trudeau, are blowing it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E-F201REWU


----------



## Jed (15 Sep 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Always nice to get Hitler's opinion.  He thinks his socialist buddies, Mulcair and Trudeau, are blowing it.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E-F201REWU



Hilarious!


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Sep 2015)

>Interesting Horsesh!t piece about Harper's religious beliefs the role they place in his policies.

More hand-waving, and bigoted intolerant insulting hand-waving at that.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (15 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Interesting Horsesh!t piece about Harper's religious beliefs the role they place in his policies.
> 
> More hand-waving, and bigoted intolerant insulting hand-waving at that.



Yes, I wonder where Kilo_302 found such intolerant hateful stuff.  Isn't this something the Human Rights Commission should have a look at?  I guess not, it's run of the mill socialist hate.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Sep 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Yes, I wonder where Kilo_302 found such intolerant hateful stuff.  Isn't this something the Human Rights Commission should have a look at?  I guess not, it's run of the mill socialist hate.



There's a reason why that member is on my ignore list and shall remain so.


----------



## larry Strong (15 Sep 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Yes, I wonder where Kilo_302 found such intolerant hateful stuff.  Isn't this something the Human Rights Commission should have a look at?  I guess not, it's run of the mill socialist hate.



The Tyee, Rabble.ca......same O\same O drivel as The Rebel and Fox News

Cheers
Larry


----------



## Altair (15 Sep 2015)

I see the CPC circle... love.... has started.

I'll just bow out and let you gents enjoy. :nod:


----------



## suffolkowner (15 Sep 2015)

I still think the Conservatives/Harper have the inside track on a minority government. The Syria question and budget are strong points in their favour. For myself I have not decided who I will vote for yet. There has been nothing brought forward by anyone that impresses me. I have read nothing that impresses me about my local candidates, and having not met them in person?? I have never been undecided this late in the game. I blame this on poor policy formations. A Conservative party that is not conservative. A Liberal party that is not liberal and well the NDP, not sure what they are.


----------



## Scott (15 Sep 2015)

So this:



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> Maybe we can keep the political discourse here relatively high.



Is followed by this:



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> I see the CPC circle... love.... has started.
> 
> I'll just bow out and let you gents enjoy. :nod:



Care to explain this one, bubs?

Scott
Staff


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Sep 2015)

Scott said:
			
		

> So this:
> 
> Is followed by this:
> 
> ...



Scott - let him rest.


----------



## Remius (15 Sep 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I still think the Conservatives/Harper have the inside track on a minority government. The Syria question and budget are strong points in their favour. For myself I have not decided who I will vote for yet. There has been nothing brought forward by anyone that impresses me. I have read nothing that impresses me about my local candidates, and having not met them in person?? I have never been undecided this late in the game. I blame this on poor policy formations. A Conservative party that is not conservative. A Liberal party that is not liberal and well the NDP, not sure what they are.



I'm on the same page as you.  And likely will not vote in advance polling due to this.  The NDP was starting to look like a government in waiting but then went full retard on spending promises I doubt they can keep without sending us into an economic downspin.  The Liberals, started to make me look at them twice when they started with the whole green energy thing, which was a key reason why I voted against the provincial counterparts.  I don't trust teh conservatives on some of the issues that matter to me, and despite not being a "Harper Hater", it's his many MPs I have an issue with.   All three main parties have given me plenty of reasons not to vote for them and very few reasons to actually vote for them.  

This will likely be a choice based on candidates for me.  Likely the incumbent candidate for me.


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Interesting Horsesh!t piece about Harper's religious beliefs the role they place in his policies.
> 
> More hand-waving, and bigoted intolerant insulting hand-waving at that.



Brad is there part of that piece that isn't factual? What exactly, is intolerant about examining a politician's religious beliefs and how they might influence policy? The question as to why our government seemingly wants LESS data upon which to base policy is an important one, and this article makes considerable strides towards answering it. 



			
				Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Yes, I wonder where Kilo_302 found such intolerant hateful stuff.  Isn't this something the Human Rights Commission should have a look at?  I guess not, it's run of the mill socialist hate.



I'm not seeing the "hate" in this piece. But I WOULD invite you to become familiar with the beliefs of the church that Harper belongs too. THAT is some hate.




			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> There's a reason why that member is on my ignore list and shall remain so.



Why don't you read the article and debate the points the author is making? This is election is important, and I fail to see how the rather extreme religious beliefs of our PM shouldn't factor in the discussion. Whatever you think about environmental science, our government has cut funding to science across the board. Last I checked, science wasn't a political football. Though facts DO have an inherent liberal bias.



			
				Larry Strong said:
			
		

> The Tyee, Rabble.ca......same O\same O drivel as The Rebel and Fox News
> 
> Cheers
> Larry



There is a definite left wing bias in Rabble and Tyee. BUT there is a difference between them and the likes of Fox News. Fox is regularly busted for dishonest reporting and getting facts wrong. Rabble is a collection site that often features columns from reputable papers and other outlets. So does Tyee. If you see issues with the facts as the author is presenting them, enlighten us. I'll be the first to admit this piece is gunning for Harper. But shouldn't the  "mainstream" and "reputable" media be held to account for NOT reporting on what should be a relatively important story? Don't you care that our PM might believe in the "end of days?" This is important.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Day after tomorrow is Labour Day, soon, sometime after Labour Day, the polls will actually start to matter.
> 
> That being said, here is David Akin's latest _Predictionator_:




And here is an updated _Predictionator_ from David Akin:






The race is getting closer ...


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Sep 2015)

And mostly prominent old guard NDP have just issued a manifesto sponsored by Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis that pretty well shoots down Mr Mulcair's attempt to move the party to the centre. This report by Joan Bryden of the Canadian Press (original can be found at National Newswatch) is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.

Manifesto backed by prominent NDPers calls for overhaul of capitalist economy
By The Canadian Press — The Canadian Press — Sep 15 2015Share on twitter Share on google_plusone_share Share on email
OTTAWA — Just as Tom Mulcair attempts to convince Canadians that the NDP is a safe, moderate choice in the Oct. 19 election, some of his party's highest profile supporters are issuing a manifesto calling for a radical restructuring of the country's economy.

The "leap manifesto," signed by more than 100 actors, musicians, labour unions, aboriginal leaders, environmentalists and other activists, aims to pressure the next federal government to wean Canada entirely off fossil fuels in as little as 20 years and, in the process, upend the capitalist system on which the economy is based.

The drivers of the manifesto are best-selling author Naomi Klein and her husband Avi Lewis. It echoes the theme of Klein's latest book: "This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate," which was turned into a documentary of the same name, directed by Lewis.

Today's release of the manifesto coincides with the debut of the documentary over the weekend at the Toronto International Film Festival.

The dramatic transformation envisioned in the manifesto is in stark contrast to the pragmatic platform Mulcair is offering: balanced budgets, an openness to free trade deals, sustainable development of Alberta's oil sands, no tax hikes except for a "slight and graduated" increase in the corporate tax rate.

Yet among the celebrity signatories are a number of prominent NDP supporters, including former Ontario NDP leader Stephen Lewis, father of Avi, who gave a rousing introduction for Mulcair at a campaign event in Toronto last month.

Others signatories who've declared their NDP sympathies include pop duo Tegan and Sara, singer-songwriter Leslie Feist, Canadian Labour Congress president Hassan Yussuf and Paul Moist, president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Stephen Lewis doesn't see his support for Mulcair as inconsistent with the manifesto, which he notes is also signed by people from other parties, including Roy McMurtry, a former Ontario chief justice and one-time provincial Conservative cabinet minister.

"For the New Democrats, it's an extension of the kinds of things they've been talking about," Lewis said in an interview.

"When Tom Mulcair talks about climate change and the importance of dealing with global warming in Canada and internationally, this is an extension — admittedly a dramatic and vivid extension — of the kinds of things that many of us yearn for."

Starting with the premise that Canada's record on climate change is "a crime against humanity's future," the manifesto argues the country needs to make the leap from fossil fuel dependence to getting 100 per cent of its electricity from renewable resources — a feat it maintains is feasible within two decades.

This means adopting a new "iron law" of energy development: "If you wouldn't want it in your backyard, then it doesn't belong in anyone's backyard," to be applied equally to pipelines, fracking, increased oil tanker traffic and Canadian-owned mining projects abroad.

In the process, the manifesto envisions a transformation of the entire capitalist system into a Utopia in which the economy is "in balance with the earth's limits," jobs "are designed to systematically eliminate racial and gender inequality," agriculture is "far more localized and ecologically based," and low-carbon sectors of the economy, like caregiving, teaching, social work, the arts and public-interest media, flourish.

The signatories declare their belief in "energy democracy," in which energy sources are collectively controlled by communities, rather than "profit-gouging" private companies.

They call for an end to "all corporate trade deals" that interfere with attempts to build local economies and regulate corporations.

In contrast to Mulcair's insistence that running deficits puts an unfair economic burden on future generations, the signatories declare that "austerity — which has systematically attacked low-carbon sectors like education and health care, while starving public transit and forcing reckless energy privatizations — is a fossilized form of thinking that has become a threat to life on earth."

The signatories assert that the money to pay for the transformation they envision is readily available. All it requires is for the federal government to end fossil fuel subsidies, cut military spending and impose financial transaction taxes, increased resource royalties and higher income taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals.

Other manifesto signatories include actors Ellen Page, Rachel McAdams, Sarah Polley, Pamela Anderson and Donald Sutherland, singers Bruce Cockburn, Neil Young, Gord Downie, Sarah Harmer and Leonard Cohen, novelists Michael Ondaatje and Joseph Boyden, environmentalist David Suzuki, anti-free trade activist Maude Barlow, artist Robert Bateman and film director Patricia Rozema.

Joan Bryden , The Canadian Press


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Sep 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Manifesto backed by prominent NDPers calls for overhaul of capitalist economy



I read that this morning.  :facepalm: is all I have to say. I'm sure this is the "loony left" base of the NDP that Mr Campbell was talking about.

Now, from the never say never category:

Tom Mulcair, Justin Trudeau confirm participation in Munk Debates 

op:


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Sep 2015)

>Brad is there part of that piece that isn't factual?

It's a bullsh!t article which relies chiefly on one common rhetorical tool: persuade the reader to impute unfavourable characteristics by association.

Example: the article discusses Mr Pew at length, and then jumps to this: "So Harper's low-key Christian fundamentalism (he doesn't discuss his religion in public) is not some inconsequential belief system but remains part of an ongoing Alberta political legacy where, as one U.S. scholar put it, "the forces of oil and evangelism have had a longer and more entwined relationship" than Ottawa journalists have ever reported."

The writer invites the reader to assign to Mr Harper the actions and beliefs of a third party (some of the claims are merely hearsay).  Do you see it?  Do you understand that people can share some things in common without sharing everything in common?

Example: the article discusses another third party's characterization of Harper as "the devout evangelical Christian prime minister".   That is someone else's opinion, not a fact.

Example: the article discusses end-times theology of some groups in Israel and the US, and then again tries to slide Harper into the mix.

Here is a simple question: Barack Obama is either a disciple of Jeremiah Wright and the beliefs of Jeremiah Wright by virtue of attending the latter's church, or he is not.  If he is not, can you explain why?  Because if you choose "not" and can explain why, you can probably identity the parts of the piece that are neither factual nor logically coherent.

>I'm not seeing the "hate" in this piece.

It's a passive-aggressive hit job.  Understand: when a person says - in essence - "Fu<k X", I take it as an affront if I am a supporter of "X".  I am not fooled by passive phrasing of "Fu<k X", and I do not accept, "Oh, but I didn't mean you" as an escape clause.   I've never had to push anyone's buttons very hard to get from "Fu<k X", to "Fu<k you, too".


----------



## Jed (15 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Brad is there part of that piece that isn't factual?
> 
> It's a bullsh!t article which relies chiefly on one common rhetorical tool: persuade the reader to impute unfavourable characteristics by association.
> 
> ...



Thank you Brad for putting words to my thoughts when I read such drivel as this a fore mentioned article.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2015)

This Federal Court of Appeal ruling appears to be another loss for the Conservatives but, in fact, it's a _political win_ because parts of the Conservative base have been wavering, _I'm guessing_, over a range of issues (Duffy, the economy, refugees) but many will now come back into the fold because this issue ~ the line between personal privacy (a right, _in my opinion_) and public participation (a duty) ~ matters to a lot of them.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Sep 2015)

>The "leap manifesto"

There is stupid and foolish, and then there is the Really Big Stupid and Foolish.  

I invite all supporters of the "leap manifesto" to move into an urban high-rise and remain there while we make the transition.  When the food riots begin and the mobs start sacking everything in sight for firewood, I invite them to become the first to kill themselves so that there will be a little more to share among those who had no hand in the decision to condemn everyone.


----------



## Remius (15 Sep 2015)

Another candidate dropped over online comments...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-blair-dale-newfoundland-cpc-1.3229260

We're going to need a thread just to track these lol.


----------



## cupper (15 Sep 2015)

I read the article and took it with a grain of salt. I cannot comment on the validity of the writer's comments, as I have not looked into Harper's religious background. Frankly I couldn't give the south end of a north facing rat whether he's Evangelical Christian, Catholic, Closet Muslim or a follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He keeps his religious views private.

But many of the things the writer opines (yes, that's why it is found in the opinion section) can be explained by other stances that Harper has more fully expressed. The staunch Pro Israel / Anti Palestinian stance could be credited to the stance on terrorism Harper has taken. Same with the examples listed about Bill C-51.

What I have found interesting in contrasting views between Canada and the US since moving south is the difference in the view and approach to Separation of Church and State. In the US it is an explicit part of the Constitution, the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. In Canada it is not. However, it seems to be a constant issue in politics and society in general down here, where as Canadians don't generally wear their religious affiliation of their sleeve along with their politics. We seem to have found the balance unlike our neighbors to the south.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And mostly prominent old guard NDP have just issued a manifesto sponsored by Naomi Klein and Avi Lewis that pretty well shoots down Mr Mulcair's attempt to move the party to the centre. This report by Joan Bryden of the Canadian Press (original can be found at National Newswatch) is reproduced under the Fair Dealings provision of the Copyright Act.
> 
> Manifesto backed by prominent NDPers calls for overhaul of capitalist economy
> By The Canadian Press — The Canadian Press — Sep 15 2015Share on twitter Share on google_plusone_share Share on email
> ...




There is a video and more on rabble.ca's website ... it is astonishing in the depths of its economic ignorance. I'm sure these people are sincere, but they are completely divorced from reality ...  :facepalm:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >The "leap manifesto"
> 
> There is stupid and foolish, and then there is the Really Big Stupid and Foolish.
> 
> I invite all supporters of the "leap manifesto" to move into an urban high-rise and remain there while we make the transition.  When the food riots begin and the mobs start sacking everything in sight for firewood, I invite them to become the first to kill themselves so that there will be a little more to share among those who had no hand in the decision to condemn everyone.



If the NDP is elected I plan on stocking up on good toilet paper, seems to be one of the first things that disappears in a utopia  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And here is an updated _Predictionator_ from David Akin:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The Liberals see hope in sever al ridings.

I have said, several times, that I believe the Paul Dewar is very likely to be re-elected here in my own riding of Ottawa centre, but the LPC candidate, Catherine McKenna, does have a chance and this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_ examines her chances:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/reevely-why-liberals-say-they-think-they-can-win-ottawa-centre


> Why Liberals (say they) think they can win Ottawa Centre
> 
> DAVID REEVELY
> 
> ...




The Liberals have a good many viable, attractive, solid candidates in ridings across Canada. They also have some flakes ... starting, _in my opinion_, with the parry's leader.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2015)

I wonder where the NDP's "star" candidate Linda McQuaig stands on the "Leap Manifesto." It strike me as the sort of nonsense that she very often spouts. The big saving grace of Ms McQuaig's candidacy is that she _might_ beat Liberal "star" (and even bigger flake) Chrystia Freeland in the (rather posh) riding of University-Rosedale.


----------



## suffolkowner (15 Sep 2015)

But ERC that's the rub isn't it. What is a good candidate? What is a good party leader? What are these qualifications? How are they measured?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2015)

More on the Conservative campaign strategy for this phase of the operation in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/conservatives-aim-to-redirect-voters-attention-with-focus-on-economy/article26349820/


> Conservatives aim to redirect voters’ attention with focus on economy
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...



I remain convinced that the economy and fiscal policy is the _"key terrain"_ for the Conservatives. This is where they _can_ win despite Canadians broadly held dislike for Prime Minister Harper and many of his decisions, especially about people, like Senator Duffy.

For good reasons (or ill) Canadians _fear_ the deficits M Trudeau promises and, now, the "Leap Manifesto" will give them reasons to have second thoughts about the NDP. It's a good time for the CPC to "change the channel."


----------



## a_majoor (15 Sep 2015)

Things like the Leap Manifesto are simply extentions of the sort of thinking that says we can "tax the rich". The people who signed the manifesto or support it are insulated from the "real world" and generally live in relative ease and comfort (usually at the taxpayer's expense) and have no conception of what it takes to make or earn that money in the first place.

The "helping the middle class by taxing the rich" mantra is similar if even more dishonest; which social and political "class" is has the ability, means and incentives to shelter their wealth? Since much wealth is in the form of accumulated assets, it is not as much on the tax deparment's radar as earned income (which is much harder to shelter, especially if you don't have a lot to begin with). Trust fund kids and silk stocking socialists simply don't encounter these issues in life, but can count on the poor to be eager to support the idea of punative taxes to fund "freestuff". Since spending (the true source of the problem) is not coming down and the "rich" can evade higher taxes, who does the burden fall upon....?


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Brad is there part of that piece that isn't factual?
> 
> It's a bullsh!t article which relies chiefly on one common rhetorical tool: persuade the reader to impute unfavourable characteristics by association.
> 
> ...



*wipes froth from eyes* All valid points. It's an opinion piece. However, it's worth noting again that the mainstream media has not reported on this at all, and there are many comparable opinion pieces and editorials posted on this thread attacking NDP and Liberal politicians that hover around the same standard, if they're not worse. I don't think you're offended by the author's line of reasoning, I think you're offended by his point of view. Which is fair.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _Rational_ is not an adjective one ought to apply to the word_ religion_ ... any religion or any denomination thereof.


I disagree. Ratio et Fides are not exclusive of each other.  I find them complimentary.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Sep 2015)

So does the Leap Manifesto count as Mulcair's (no so) hidden agenda?


----------



## Scott (15 Sep 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So does the Leap Manifesto count as Mulcair's (no so) hidden agenda?



I think it counts as a big old kick in the nuts to his chances with people who wanted a change from the CPC but cannot stomach the drama guy.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I disagree. Ratio et Fides are not exclusive of each other.  I find them complimentary.




_I guess_ I understand what John Paul II was saying in _Fides et Ratio_ (1998), but I respectfully disagree. I tend to find more comfort in Dawkins _et al_ ...


----------



## cupper (15 Sep 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> If the NDP is elected I plan on stocking up on good toilet paper, seems to be one of the first things that disappears in a utopia  ;D



I'd recommend a good hemorrhoid cream too, 'cause you know things are gonna get pretty rough in the end. ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Sep 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I disagree. Ratio et Fides are not exclusive of each other.  I find them complimentary.



And some find them complementary too.


----------



## Jed (15 Sep 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> And some find them complementary too.


And some, me included, haven't got a clue what you guys are talking about.  ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Sep 2015)

>I don't think you're offended by the author's line of reasoning, I think you're offended by his point of view. 

I'm offended by his reasoning, because too few people can understand why it is invalid.

Trudeau flat-out lied during the press conference featured in the Akins article posted earlier.  Do you think people believe those lies or not?  Check the comment threads at CBC.

One of the supposed roles of a professional "Fourth Estate" is to ensure we are accurately- and well-informed when we step into poll booths.  Too many of the occupational media are dodging that while still wrapping themselves in the "professional" mantle.  "Opinion piece" is not an excuse for "lies and fallacies"; even an opinion must be factual and logically coherent when emitted by the media who presume to be more privileged and professional than mere pamphleteers.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Sep 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> And some, me included, haven't got a clue what you guys are talking about.  ;D



Don't worry - It is just the Catholics of Rome doing what they have always done - make sure that nobody understands what they say so they they can never be challenged on it.  Heck, they even invented their own langwidge.   >  Isn't that right TV?

By the way, as a good going Presbyterian I was raised to think of myself as a member of the catholic church.  But we talked Doric Scots so everybody could understand the debate.


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Sep 2015)

Well, if you can point out a lie or a fallacy in this piece please do. The author has done nothing wrong by drawing a link between evangelism and the oil sector in Alberta and Mr. Harper's religious background and policies. 

I doubt you apply this same standard of what is your understanding of the proper opinion piece to articles you agree with. Being well informed is great, but how many Canadians are aware of Mr. Harper's religious background? This editorial goes a long way in explaining what are often incomprehensible policy decisions.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (15 Sep 2015)

CBC poll-tracker (308.com) has:

Conservative    122
NDP                113
Liberal             102
Green                 1

Of any church, I cannot understand criticism of the Christian and Missionary Alliance.  The whole founding purpose of the church was missionary work, largely overseas where the people are black, brown , or yellow.  They do considerable work overseas helping with the physical and spiritual well being of countless millions.  I am not a member of this church but know several people who are and they are all more morally upstanding than me.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> ...but how many Canadians are aware of Mr. Harper's religious background?



Who fracken cares? Personally I think the PM has done well to keep his personal and professional views separate, despite the claims from his opponents that we were headed for a Christian theocracy.


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Sep 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Who fracken cares? Personally I think the PM has done well to keep his personal and professional views separate, despite the claims from his opponents that we were headed for a Christian theocracy.



I should hope most people would care if his beliefs are having a direct impact on policy. You know, science is a good thing and all that. Someone who believes the end of days is nigh is less likely to think about investing in the future. He hasn't mentioned his beliefs on purpose, because he knows the average Canadian would view them as being off the wall. His goal is not a theocracy overnight, he knows Canadians aren't ready to regress that much socially. But he's been very successful at incremental changes that reflect his world view. 

If he was a Muslim, even a moderate one, would we care then? His church is literally as fundamentalist as the Taliban is. Does he believe this stuff, or is he just playing for votes?

More reading on the subject:

http://thewalrus.ca/stephen-harper-and-the-theo-cons/



> Buitenwerf’s sermon is no barn-burner. Occasionally during a hymn, scattered worshippers lift their arms skyward, palms raised in praise, but this isn’t some emotive, revival-style service, studded with ecstatic sobs and hallelujahs. East Gate is a member of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, founded in 1887 by a Prince Edward Island–born preacher named Albert Simpson. Infused with a zeal for faith healing and more aggressive evangelizing abroad, Simpson’s breakaway sect was part of what divinity scholars call the holiness movement, which agitated for a return to Methodism’s reformist roots. Now, with more than four hundred thousand members in two thousand churches across the continent, it’s considered squarely in the evangelical mainstream. According to its Statement of Faith, adherents believe the Bible is “inerrant” and the Second Coming is “imminent.” Women are still not accepted for ordination, and a position paper on divorce does not mince words on a related matrimonial subject. “Homosexual unions are specifically forbidden,” it decrees, “and are described in Scripture as manifestations of the basest form of sinful conduct.”
> 
> Buitenwerf admits that the prime minister isn’t a regular attendee these days, but for many the surprise is that he shows up at all. For more than a decade, the man who remains an enigma to all but a trusted inner circle has kept his religious identity largely under wraps. Then last year, Lloyd Mackey, the Ottawa correspondent for a Christian news service, blew his spiritual cover. In a slim, rambling volume entitled The Pilgrimage of Stephen Harper, Mackey traced the Conservative leader’s odyssey from the blithe stolidity of the United Church in suburban Toronto where he grew up to East Gate’s makeshift metal pews.
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (15 Sep 2015)

Kilo: I'm Roman Catholic, but I can assure you I don't believe in everything my church says or what's written in the bible.  If I did I'd have stone half the city for various transgressions.

Just like I don't believe all Muslims are jihadists.


----------



## Jed (15 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I should hope most people would care if his beliefs are having a direct impact on policy. You know, science is a good thing and all that. Someone who believes the end of days is nigh is less likely to think about investing in the future. He hasn't mentioned his beliefs on purpose, because he knows the average Canadian would view them as being off the wall. His goal is not a theocracy overnight, he knows Canadians aren't ready to regress that much socially. But he's been very successful at incremental changes that reflect his world view.
> 
> If he was a Muslim, even a moderate one, would we care then? His church is literally as fundamentalist as the Taliban is. Does he believe this stuff, or is he just playing for votes?
> 
> ...



OK, Kilo. Now you are just insulting me and others who have a strong spiritual belief of some sort.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> His church is literally as fundamentalist as the Taliban is.



I'm pretty sure that convert or die is not one of their tenets.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2015)

A lot of politicians, not all, to be sure, go to church or temple or synagogue or mosque or whatever. Some believe, others probably don't. Some, from both groups, listen and think about what they hear; others probably ponder the poll results.

I have no idea what Prime Minister Harper believes, neither do any of you or any journalist; maybe Mrs Harper does ...

I don't care what Prime Minister Harper (or M Mulcair or M Trudeau) believe about gods or creation or sin. I do care about their brains, abilities, ethics and values and I care about what they promise to do and what they have done ~ good and bad.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Well, if you can point out a lie or a fallacy in this piece please do. The author has done nothing wrong by drawing a link between evangelism and the oil sector in Alberta and Mr. Harper's religious background and policies.
> 
> I doubt you apply this same standard of what is your understanding of the proper opinion piece to articles you agree with. Being well informed is great, but how many Canadians are aware of Mr. Harper's religious background? This editorial goes a long way in explaining what are often incomprehensible policy decisions.



Ooooh!! 

Can I play join the dots too?







I think I see......


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Sep 2015)

PS  Alinsky was right.  It is so much more fun to focus on ridiculing people than actually having to deal with their message.  Assuming they actually have a message.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Sep 2015)

Here is an interesting article on the stand some have against Harper.  It cuts it to pieces.

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act 




> What the Case Against Stephen Harper Is Really About
> The Atlantic
> David Frum
> 12:55 PM / September 13, 2015
> ...




More on LINK.

So?  It would appear that this is not Harper being against scientists, but Luddites not complying with a policy to digitize our resource libraries.   Seems that some collective tried to play "chicken" and lost, and are now upset that their incompetence or vindictiveness cost them.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Sep 2015)

Interesting link there George.

I especially found this quote from another article that David Frum referenced interesting:\



> As a young political staffer in the 1980s, he witnessed the destruction of the 1984-1993 Conservative government resulting from then-Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s indulgent attitude toward the mistakes and misdeeds of his caucus and cabinet. Some observers believe Harper has over-corrected—that his discipline is too severe and unforgiving. That’s a reasonable point of view. The next prime minister of Canada will probably over-correct in the opposite direction.



I wonder if this is one of the indulgent mistakes to which David Frum was referring?



> As Meech accord withered, Mulroney told cabinet Lucien Bouchard would never seriously impact politics after leaving Tories



And a general question - I wonder if all those who opposed Meech and Charlottetown are happier with no deal at all.  That would certainly be a good anarchist-libertarian position (as is the lack of a position on abortion in this country).  But it certainly doesn't seem compatible with a well structured communitarian society as espoused by the Liberals and New Democrats.  


But I am wandering - again.


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Sep 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> OK, Kilo. Now you are just insulting me and others who have a strong spiritual belief of some sort.



But would you have said the same thing if we were talking about a different religion? I was raised a Presbyterian (the so-called "thinking man's church") and I am now an atheist. I'm often to blame for threads being split off onto other tangents. But this is worthy of discussion no? But this form of politicized religion is a strategy. It's meant to convince people that socially progressive ideas are what is to blame for our current situation. I would argue that it's more to do with economic structure. All of our 3 parties agree on economic policy. The disagreements are minor. 

I think that religion has a crucial part to play in what we would broadly call "civil society." The sense of community etc. But we can't allow these issues to be passed by because it might offend someone. Western religious fundamentalism DOES exist. Openly? No. But again, I would argue that Harper's inexplicable opposition to science and data is LIKELY in part due to his religious beliefs. I agree that one's personal belief's shouldn't be questioned in public, but to a point. There are many intelligent and inquisitive minds on this thread and site at large. I AM biased, because I think that certain ideas are more valid than others. So are the rest of us. BUT, the absolute resistance to discuss this issue is indicative of a resistance to critique the CPC. 

I am further left than most if not all of you. That much is clear. But I still will rag on the NDP, the Liberals, AND the Conservatives. None of us should be happy with the options before us. My aim is not to offend anyone, but to further the debate. I think we can all agree it's relatively narrow thus far, both on this thread and nationally. For example, the "fear" of an NDP majority is laughable. Even if they won, it's quite clear that Mulcair agrees with Harper on the economy, outside of a few new social window dressing programs. Don't you see? You've won! There's so little to discuss as far as the big three are concerned, it's depressing. 

The "loony left" that was referenced above is only loony given their chances of changing things. All of you military guys, think back to times when doctrine had to suddenly shift, based on new technology or new realities on the battlefield. Or maybe it changed more slowly. How are we now SO resistant to new ideas, to the acceptance that our current way of doing things is not a net benefit? The embedded interests have done their work well.  We're only so happy to point these faults out in other nations. Most of us are realists, politically speaking. If that's the case, how can we believe our own bullshit?


----------



## JesseWZ (16 Sep 2015)

This has nothing to do with the ongoing discussion, but I thought it was an excellent read. Props to Mr Akin for an enjoyable and easy to understand read.
Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act 



> When a war room fails a leader: Trudeau, truthiness and the economy
> David Akin - September 14th, 2015
> 
> Last Friday, every newsroom and, one would assume, every campaign war room in the country, would have seen the following advisory from the Department of Finance:
> ...


  

Remainder continued here:
http://blogs.canoe.com/davidakin/politics/when-a-war-room-fails-a-leader-trudeau-truthiness-and-the-economy/


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Sep 2015)

But Kilo - can you not perceive of the lack of religion as being a religion and equally at risk of being co-opted as a rallying point as any other religion - One Presbyterian to another (and I have never heard it referred to as the thinking man's religion - most Presbyterians I knew were at pains to hold their beliefs to themselves - it is a tendency one picks up when Bonnie Dundee (Bloody Clavers) shows up at your services intent on slaughtering you and your kin).

There are few people more religious than Laicete French and atheist Communists.  Thou shalt not have a religion.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Sep 2015)

>Well, if you can point out a lie or a fallacy in this piece please do. The author has done nothing wrong by drawing a link between evangelism and the oil sector in Alberta and Mr. Harper's religious background and policies. 

Try this explanation.

Evidently the author of that piece hooked, landed, and gutted you like a trout.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Sep 2015)

Here, courtesy of David Akin, are a couple of interesting local polling results:

Spadina-Fort York (671 responses)
A new ridingn(2012) created from part of Toronto Centre and the old Trinity-Spandina riding
	     New Democrat, Olivia Chow:   45%
        Liberal, Adam Vaughan:	       39%
        Conservative, Sabrina Zuniga: 13%
        Green, Sharon Danley:              3%
_Not as close as many pundits predicted ..._

Calgary Confederation (697 responses)
Another new riding (2012) created from parts of Calgary Centre-North Calgary West and Calgary—Nose Hill
        Conservative, Len Webber:     37%
        Liberal, Matt Grant:               38%
        New Democrat, Kirk Heuser:   19%
        Green, Natalie Odd:                 4%
_Much closer than many pundits predicted ..._

If these local results are any indication then it is a tight three way race.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Sep 2015)

Two _Globe and Mail_ reporters appear to have some inside information about how the Liberal platform was constructed which they share with us in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-decisions-behind-the-scenes-of-the-liberals-infrastructure-plan/article26375251/


> The decisions behind the scenes of the Liberals’ infrastructure plan
> 
> DANIEL LEBLANC AND BILL CURRY
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




This single sentence, _"Mr. Trudeau has been telegraphing his thirst for a more activist government for years,"_ is one of my fundamental areas of concern with him as a leader (the other being his lack of "bottom," or _gravitas_ ~ a résumé that goes beyond ski-instructor and drama teacher). I want less and less intrusive government ... I agree, wholly, with those who say that government is necessary and that some steady government spending, rising and falling _against_ economic cycles, is a good thing, but I oppose much of the modern, "culture of entitlement" that has existed (in North America, Europe and Australia) since about 1970, even though, being a "senior" I enjoy some of its benefits.

I agree with Nick Nanos that "the Liberals face a significant challenge in selling their platform to the country now that the government has confirmed that it was $1.9-billion in the black last year" and, _I suspect_, as he says, that “it’s not playing out very well because we have a surplus.”

It is wrong to say that government should be "run like a business" or that the national budget should be managed like your or my household budget, but _I sense_ that many Canadians are afraid of deficits that _seem_ unnecessary. It, proposing deficit financing for infrastructure, is another sort of _beau risque_, and I commend M Trudeau for taking it, but _I doubt_ that M Trudeau's plan is well enough conceived (wrong kinds of spending in two out of three cases) and _I am sure_ it would be badly delivered if we had a Liberal government.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Sep 2015)

Is Kathleen Wynne hedging her bets when she disputes "this notion . . . that I won’t be able to work with (NDP Leader Thomas) Mulcair or (Conservative Leader Stephen) Harper — that I will only be able to work with Justin Trudeau" and says that "it is my job as a premier of Ontario to work with whoever is the prime minister and I will do that?” 

It should be obvious, of course, that a premier will work with whomever has power in Ottawa, but it sounds a bit like backfilling.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Sep 2015)

There is more bad news, more of those pesky "events," for the Conservatives. The _Globe and Mail_ reports that the Trans Pacific trade deal, which would have been a very nice, shiny bauble to have in the last part of the election camapaign, is stalled, again, this time over Japanese rigidity on auto manufacturing. Advantage: NDP.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Is Kathleen Wynne hedging her bets when she disputes "this notion . . . that I won’t be able to work with (NDP Leader Thomas) Mulcair or (Conservative Leader Stephen) Harper — that I will only be able to work with Justin Trudeau" and says that "it is my job as a premier of Ontario to work with whoever is the prime minister and I will do that?”  ....


Depends on what she was asked - from the article:


> .... “It is my job as a premier of Ontario to work with whoever is the prime minister and I will do that,” she told the Star Friday.
> 
> “No matter who is the prime minister, I will stand up for the people of Ontario on Oct. 20.”
> 
> In her interview, Wynne would not say whether she would like to see Mulcair’s New Democrats and Trudeau’s Liberals topple Harper if the Conservatives fail to secure a majority in the 338-member Commons ....


In these situations, a question like "Could you work with the NDP or Conservatives if they win?" can be asked to see if anything _OTHER_ than the "right" answer is given.  She's no more hedging her bets than any other Premier comitting to work with whoever won. 

That said, if this is the _newest_ information they could glean from an interview with the Premier, it's not a huge story - consider it the journalistic "goat" being fed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Sep 2015)

David Akin, _Sun News_, continues to hammer M Trudeau for outright dishonesty is his response to the budgetary surplus news, in a column in the _Sun_ chain in which he (Akin) says:
     
     "... he [Justin Trudeau] continues to insist, despite evidence to the contrary, that the surprise surplus for 2014-2015 that we learned about Monday is bogus because it came from cuts to funds earmarked for veterans,
     aboriginal Canadians and seniors.

     NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair had the good sense to respond to news of the surprise surplus by simply noting it would make things all that easier for a government he hopes to be leading after October 19.

     Not Trudeau. He wanted to argue for his own version of reality.

     “Mr. Harper has put us in deficit this year,” Trudeau said Monday when told of the surprise surplus. He said as much again Tuesday arguing that that silly Mulcair fellow was wrong for the job because all he would do would be to eliminate Harper’s deficit.

     Except Harper’s deficit is already gone."


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Sep 2015)

Quite predictably, the _Laurentian Elites_' favourite spokesman, Jeffrey Simpson, tries to _spin_ the budget surplus announcement into a deficit and recession because, he suggests, that's what it really should be in his column in the _Globe amd Mail_.

One thing about which he is correct: "The size of the Canadian economy is about $2-trillion. In that context, whether the federal budget shows a small deficit or a small surplus is almost totally irrelevant. Politically, the party leaders invest the budget number with inflated importance; economically, it doesn’t matter  [and] What does matter is what, if anything, the federal government intends to do over the longer haul about structural challenges to the Canadian economy and the federation."

Prime Minister Harper promises "more of the same" ~ some _stimulus_ spending on infastructure, especially urban mass/rapid transit, no tax hikes; M Mulcair promises to roll back some Conservative tax breaks and spend on e.g. affordable childcare; and M Trudeau, bravely, promises roll back the tax breaks and deficit financing to provide even more (than Harper) _stimulus_. The bigger difference is in trade and investment _promises_. On the record, the NDP are _protectionist_ (which, as many of you know, I equate with stupid), the Conservatives are, generally, "reluctant free traders" and the Liberals are "neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring," they campaign on whatever they think will win votes and then govern according to whatever the _Mandarins_ say.


----------



## Remius (16 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There is more bad news, more of those pesky "events," for the Conservatives. The _Globe and Mail_ reports that the Trans Pacific trade deal, which would have been a very nice, shiny bauble to have in the last part of the election camapaign, is stalled, again, this time over Japanese rigidity on auto manufacturing. Advantage: NDP.



That fell off my radar.  Yes, I suppose it will be a bit of a setback.  Most people I know aren't even aware of this.  I suspect it will add some fuel for the upcoming debate and allow the opposition to attack PM Harper on something (seeing how there is now a surplus).  This deal is important to teh CPC and Harper in particular, I'm not so sure it is that important to the average voter (it should be but I doubt they know enough to care one way or the other)


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Sep 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> That fell off my radar.  Yes, I suppose it will be a bit of a setback.  Most people I know aren't even aware of this.  _I suspect it will add some fuel for the upcoming debate_ and allow the opposition to attack PM Harper on something (seeing how there is now a surplus).  This deal is important to teh CPC and Harper in particular, I'm not so sure it is that important to the average voter (it should be but I doubt they know enough to care one way or the other)




Indeed, the _Globe and Mail_'s debate, focused on the economy, is being broadcast tomorrow. You will be able to see/hear it on the _Globe_'s "website at tgam.ca/debate, on The Globe and Mail iOS and Android apps, and on YouTube – The Globe’s channel as well as the YouTube Canada Election 2015 Hub."

But, I agree with you, this is not "top of mind" for 90% of Canadians ... pity.


----------



## Remius (16 Sep 2015)

And another one gone...http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-chris-austin-sturgeon-river-parkland-nomination-1.3230350

I wonder if we're seeing a record here.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Sep 2015)

You can bet your bottom dollar that the various parties will be doing a more thorough electronic scan of their numpties history in future elections.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Is Kathleen Wynne hedging her bets when she disputes "this notion . . . that I won’t be able to work with (NDP Leader Thomas) Mulcair or (Conservative Leader Stephen) Harper — that I will only be able to work with Justin Trudeau" and says that "it is my job as a premier of Ontario to work with whoever is the prime minister and I will do that?”
> 
> It should be obvious, of course, that a premier will work with whomever has power in Ottawa, but it sounds a bit like backfilling.



While one should hope that any preimier should be able and willing to work with the Federal Government, the fact that _this_ premier has been pretty openly in the tank for the Young Dauphin makes what she says a bit problematic. Of course there are plenty of _other_ reasons to be cautious or disbelieving about what this premier says....


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Sep 2015)

A few months ago the PBO predicted a small deficit for FY 16, and it was Very Grave Important News used to flog the CPC for poor fiscal stewardship.  Now we have an equally small (magnitude) reported surplus for FY 15, and it is No Big Deal.  The NDP - as predicted - welcome the balance shift as a font of new funding to meet their election bribes, and Liberal supporters are either downplaying its significance or attacking it as something achieved "on the backs of <favourite cause here>".

First prize should go to Don Pittis at CBC for trying to argue that a $2B surplus in a $2T economy during a "recession" is some sort of incompetence.  If Stephen Gordon the economist is right about the nature of the current weak economy and how the Canadian economy responds to stimulus and austerity programs, then Pittis and others arguing the same points are very wrong.

Some people (mostly supporters of Trudeau's proposed deficit-financed spending) are back to arguing that perpetual deficit financing is OK, as long as it is below the rate of growth (ie. so that debt as a % of GDP does not increase).  What is left out is that GDP growth can slump, whereas public spending is difficult to turn off, and things can get out of hand in a hurry.  Also left out is that public spending can simply displace private spending, so that it amounts to economic mobilization.  Generally, economic mobilization - the direction of resources away from where people would choose to use them, in order to achieve a particular aim - is less efficient.

Re: Wynne and "it is my job as a premier of Ontario to work with whoever is the prime minister and I will do that".  "Work with" has to be more than "insult and beg money from".


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2015)

In anticipation of tonights's Leaders' Debate (focused on the economy) hosted and sponsored by the _Globe and Mail_, the _Ottawa Citizen_, in this article which is reproduced, without further comment because I think it's pretty fair and balanced, under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, takes a look at the state of the economy and the three leaders' key claims:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/how-canada-compares-economically-with-other-countries


> How Canada compares economically with other countries
> 
> JASON FEKETE, OTTAWA CITIZEN
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2015)

The _Globe and Mail_ reports that, "Voters in favour of Liberals' economic plan, but unsure on Trudeau: poll."

The article, reporting on a _Nanos_ poll says that the polling firm "found strong support for the kind of looser fiscal policy Mr. Trudeau has proposed, with voters preferring stimulus spending to boost the economy even if it means deficits over balancing the books. And many like the Liberal proposal to make the affluent pay more taxes, too ... but when Canadians are asked who they trust to manage the economy, the poll found 26 per cent chose the Liberal Leader, behind Conservative Leader Stephen Harper (31 per cent) and in a statistical tie with NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair (28 per cent.) ... That suggests popular economic policies have so far not overcome questions about Mr. Trudeau’s experience and competence ..."

Further, according to the article, amongst respondents "about half, 49 per cent, think it is time to increase spending, even if means running deficits. That is the position Mr. Trudeau has taken. A smaller group, 42 per cent, believe the government should focus on balancing the budget to avoid increasing debt," and "when asked what would have the largest positive impact on the economy, 45 per cent choose the building of infrastructure, the big-ticket item at the centre of Mr. Trudeau’s stimulus proposal. That beats out spending on social programs (19 per cent), cutting taxes (17 per cent), or paying down national debt (16 per cent.)"

I'm not opposed to long term borrowing when, as now, money is _cheap_ to fund equally long term _infrastructure_, _of the right sort_, and I commend M Trudeau for proposing that, but ⅔ of the elements of his deficit spending plan - social housing and "green" energy projects - do not, in anything but the wildest leaps of imagination, qualify as "right;" both are likely to saddle provincial utilities and cities with unsupportable long term debt burdens. M Trudeau's proposal is brave, but ill conceived and _certain_ to do more harm than good.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2015)

I know I'm probably  :deadhorse:  because many of you, like most Canadians, probably think that corporate taxes are "good ...."

In my opinion, this is all the reason you need to not support your NDP candidate: "NDP seeks to fund spending plans with corporate tax hike."

Corporate taxes are:

     1._Inefficient_, corporations are able to hire very good lawyers and accountants who, in their turn, help the corporations to _shelter_ some (much?) of their profits from the taxman, meaning that we spend too much to get too little;

     2. Unfair, because, essentially, corporations pay the taxes they must by passing the taxes on, as part of the price, to the customers, you and me, regardless of our ability to pay. The poor pay an equal share with the rich; and

     3. _Job killers_ because money spent on taxes cannot be spent on expansion which would create new jobs.

Political parties that favour raising corporate taxes are counting on the fact, _*and I believe it is a fact*_, that your greed and envy will outweigh your good, economic, common sense.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> An article in Britain's _Daily Mail_ shows just how easy it is for IS** to get phoney passports to pass terrorists off as refugees.



And, in this vein, the _Globe and Mail_'s John Ibbitson suggests, in this article that is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper, that Prime Minister Harper's hard line stance on Syrian refugees is not hurting him in the ridings he can and needs to win:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/conservatives-refugee-crisis-response-far-from-fatal-for-harper/article26378498/


> Conservatives’ refugee crisis response far from fatal for Harper
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




_I suspect_ that the refugee _crisis_ has, nearly, run it course as a "top of mind" issue.

At a _guess_, about half those who agree that the prime minister is "right" on refugees, i.e. 10 to 15% of all Canadians, are _afraid_ that we will import terrorists while we try to help the poor, threatened, real refugees. _I think_ they're right: I fully support spending hundreds of millions of dollars to help refugees in camps in the Middle East, but I oppose bringing any refugees to Canada, other than women, children and senior citizen males.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Sep 2015)

I said this once, further up the thread, and I see no reason to change my assessment. The public is stupid, lazy, and greedy. The party that best manages these characteristics will carry the day.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2015)

David Reevely, writing in the _Ottawa Citizen_, _suggests_, in this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper, that those nomination disputes that have bedevilled the Liberals _might_ come back to haunt them in close election races:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/reevely-in-a-close-election-those-ugly-nomination-spats-matter


> In a close election, those ugly nomination spats matter
> 
> DAVID REEVELY
> 
> ...




M Trudeau, by dint of a combination of good campaign tactics, his own, pleasant personality and _"events"_ like the Duffy trial and the refugee crisis, has brought his party into a close three way race; it would be a pity, for him, if his party's old habits did him in on election night.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In anticipation of tonights's Leaders' Debate (focused on the economy) hosted and sponsored by the _Globe and Mail_, the _Ottawa Citizen_, in this article which is reproduced, without further comment because I think it's pretty fair and balanced, under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act, takes a look at the state of the economy and the three leaders' key claims:
> 
> http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/how-canada-compares-economically-with-other-countries




And David Akin, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Sun_, provides his own "fact sheet" for use in tonight's debate:

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/16/a-pre-debate-economic-fact-check


> A pre-debate economic fact check
> 
> BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF
> 
> ...



I have no comment on this, either.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2015)

In this video report the _Globe and Mail_'s Jane Taber compares the three party leaders' _infrastructure_ promises, also a topic for tonight's debates.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2015)

I expect we will hear more of this sort of thing from both Prime Minister Harper and M Mulcair tonight. Small business is a HUGE and vital segment of the Canadian economy ~ the lady in the bookstore is right about jobs ~ and M Trudeau gave himself a self inflicted wound when he told Peter Mansbridge that small business owners are just rich folks looking for tax breaks.

(It is true that some (many) small businesses are incorporated to provide tax shelters, I suspect that's what M Trudeau meant when he hinted that he, too, had used that route to shelter e.g. his speaking fees. But the majority of small business are legit and most small business owners are working/middle class folks, the very people he is trying to court, instead he pissed some of them off and gave the CPC and NDP fodder for their attack ads.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2015)

More on tonight's debate in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-rise-means-more-at-stake-for-trudeau-in-economy-debate/article26389593/


> Liberals’ rise means more at stake for Trudeau in economy debate
> 
> ADAM RADWANSKI
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I agree with Mr Radwanski on three points:

     1. This debate is crucial for M Trudeau because, as noted above, Canadians may like _some_ of his fiscal policies but they still harbour grave doubts about his ability to manage the economy;

     2. We should watch for M Mulcair to attack M Trudeau on both his abilities and his programme. There is, indeed, a risk of alienating some left wing voters, but _the key battle_ in this election is between M Mulcair and M Trudeau; and

     3. "The scary part for the Liberals is that it might take just one such mistake to define Mr. Trudeau’s performance."


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Sep 2015)

>The article, reporting on a Nanos poll says that the polling firm "found strong support for the kind of looser fiscal policy Mr. Trudeau has proposed, with voters preferring stimulus spending to boost the economy even if it means deficits over balancing the books.

I doubt the Conservatives can overcome this common misconception - that increased government spending is a magic bullet for all kinds of weak economic growth.  I am persuaded that more government spending in current circumstances will just displace private spending, but the Liberals and their faction of supporters in the media have been plastering the walls with "stimulus == growth" claims since Trudeau broke the no-deficit concensus.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Sep 2015)

Just one? If Prime Minister Harper had said even _one_ of the nonsensical things the Young Dauphin has spouted over the course of his political career there would never have been an end to the constant repetition of the gaffe until he was literally hounded out of office.

No, the Legacy Media has worked long and hard to ignore the gaffes and stupidities coming from the Young Dauphin's mouth, and the only difference here is there is a larger chance of "foot in mouth" disease escaping the filter. Even so, you know already that there will be no mention of the moment in the next day's press, and it will be religiously overlooked and ignored until (hopefully) people forget or distracted by the next "Cecil the lion" story.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2015)

Heather Mallick, of the _Toronto Star_, has a go a Prime Minister Harper in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Harper's_, a prestigious US magazine:



> The Nixon of the North
> *How Stephen Harper ruined Canada*
> 
> By Heather Mallick
> ...




There are, as one might expect from someone like Mallick, a few egregious errors like making John Baird "in charge of the budget," which implies he was Minister of Finance. For the record Mr Baird was  Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, Minister of the Environment and President of the Treasury Board before becoming Canada's Foreign Minister. As President of the Treasury Board Mr Baird was in charge of "Financial and Expenditure Management," but that's not quite the same thing.

Beyond that it's just a mean spirited hatchet job ... but then, Ms Mallick really defines _Harper Hater™_, doesn't she?


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Sep 2015)

> ...In 2014, a mentally troubled man was killed after shooting at the security guards in Parliament Hill’s Centre Block building, where Harper’s caucus had gathered...



You know when someone builds the lead-up to the PM being hustled by his RCMP close-protection detail into the nearest safe spot during a shooting event, thusly...the writer's piece is trash.  

Yes, poor Zehaf-Bibeau....  : At least have the decency to acknowledge Cpl. Nathan Cirillo by name... :not-again:


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Sep 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> You know when someone builds the lead-up to the PM being hustled by his RCMP close-protection detail into the nearest safe spot during a shooting event, thusly...the writer's piece is trash.


That's how the Heather Mallick's of the world roll  :facepalm:


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Sep 2015)

And she trots out the 53.9% of the seats with 39.1% of the vote trope. I'm sure she wasn't so offended when Chretien performed the same miracle.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (17 Sep 2015)

> That was Canada for you: eager to meet kindred souls such as draft dodgers and conscientious objectors. We were peacekeepers rather than bomb droppers, environmentally aware, urban, gun controlling, laughably snowbound, and apologetic to a fault.



That paragraph alone shows that Ms. Mallick, and her fellow travelers, have no sense of Canadian history and have never ventured outside of their little Evian-sipping, big-city cliques and have had no contact with your average Canadians, especially rural Canadians.


----------



## Underway (17 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I doubt the Conservatives can overcome this common misconception - that increased government spending is a magic bullet for all kinds of weak economic growth.



That's probably due to the massive number of blue "Economic Action Plan" signs.  With so much roadwork and construction in my neighbourhood just seeing the sign induces a response in me that would make Pavlov smile.

It's not like the Conservatives haven't been selling us this EXACT message in some form since 2008!


----------



## Bass ackwards (17 Sep 2015)

Just caught a goodly part of the debate.
At one point, Mr Mulcair was accusing Mr Harper of "admitting" something during "a secret meeting with the media in Vancouver".
That went right over my head (I really suck at debating).
When Mr Harper finally got his turn he started off by pointing out that it's pretty hard to have a _secret_ meeting with the media.
It got a good laugh from the audience.

I was kinda wishing Mr Harper would just ask: "Who's going to pay for it?" to all the grand plans of national minimum wages and day care (especially since I'm one of the ones who will be paying for it) and maybe hammer home the point of trying to keep money in Canadians' pockets so we can make our own decisions.

But, again, I suck at debating so maybe he did OK. I eagerly await commentary from Mr Campbell.


----------



## dimsum (18 Sep 2015)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> Just caught a goodly part of the debate.
> At one point, Mr Mulcair was accusing Mr Harper of "admitting" something during "a secret meeting with the media in Vancouver".
> That went right over my head (I really suck at debating).
> When Mr Harper finally got his turn he started off by pointing out that it's pretty hard to have a _secret_ meeting with the media.
> ...



I actually laughed out loud at the "secret meeting" quip.  

If Mr. Harper did ask, Mr. Trudeau would say "3 years of deficits" and Mr. Mulcair would point to the corporations and rich people.  I don't think their camps would have budged and no swing voters would really go over to another side, so I'd think "what's the point?"


----------



## Bass ackwards (18 Sep 2015)

Yeah, you're right. 
I never considered that.
Further proof of my debating skills.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2015)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> Just caught a goodly part of the debate.
> At one point, Mr Mulcair was accusing Mr Harper of "admitting" something during "a secret meeting with the media in Vancouver".
> That went right over my head (I really suck at debating).
> When Mr Harper finally got his turn he started off by pointing out that it's pretty hard to have a _secret_ meeting with the media.
> ...




Sorry to disappoint, but I didn't watch a second of the debate, didn't follow it on _Twitter_, etc, either. I had something much more important to do: drinks with my lovely wife and some of her (many beautiful and charming) friends.

Debates can, as we have discussed before ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




   With one line, _"You had an option, sir,"_ Brian Mulroney knocked
        then Prime Minister John Turner out of office and politics.

          ... and I would have been happy to have heard that one (or more) such verbal KO punches had been thrown last night (at any of the "combatants") but ...

Beyond that faint hope I expected little and the media reports, this morning, suggest I wasn't disappointed.


----------



## GAP (18 Sep 2015)

Harper was basically calm and pointed....stable......

JT sent up the shiny birthday balloon of inspiration and hope, with just a little help from his very rich 1% friends......and lots and lots of your $$

Mulclair tried to sound calm and stable, constantly pointing out how good of a job he did when he was in QC politics, but still came across as a used car salesman, with your money of course....

 :2c:


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_ are the opinions of three observers:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/highlights-and-lowlights-from-the-second-debate


> Three pundits pronounce: Highs and lows from the economy debate
> 
> OTTAWA CITIZEN
> 
> ...




_I think I agree_ with Prof Watson: our own biases get in the way when doing this sort of analysis.


----------



## Kilo_302 (18 Sep 2015)

No one really stood out to me last night, though I thought Trudeau's performance had improved quite a bit from the last debate. Harper was smooth and confident as usual, he's just far more polished than the other two.

Harper DID make what I thought might turn out to be a significant gaffe when he referred to "old stock Canadians" while discussing the refugee situation. There were already memes going around last night of the "lying shithead" incident re-labeled "old stock Canadian." Haven't seen much on the mainstream media on that yet, aside from a few blurbs, but they're always slow on the uptake. My Facebook feed was full of comments about it this morning, as was Twitter.

Aside from the immediate impact, the comment underlines how Harper views Canada. What is an "old stock Canadian" exactly? Stock would seem to suggest an ethnic identity, so would descendants of Chinese railroad workers in the 1870s count (as one meme has asked)? Is he referring to primarily Scottish-English Canadians? 

It was definitely a slip, but given Harper's enthusiasm for red coats, the Queen and Empire and all that it certainly fits.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> No one really stood out to me last night, though I thought Trudeau's performance had improved quite a bit from the last debate ...




John Ivison, on the other hand, says that Thomas Mulcair was the clear winnder in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-ivison-a-little-angry-tom-goes-a-long-way-as-mulcair-outpoints-rivals


> A little Angry Tom goes a long way as Mulcair outpoints rivals
> 
> John Ivison | September 18, 2015
> 
> ...




So, Mr Ivison says that_ "The improvement in his_ (Trudeau's) _performance in recent months is marked. He has proven wrong the critics who believed he is too dumb to master the economic file."_ But I wonder: did he "master" the economic file? Or did he, as a high school drama teacher should be able to do, just memorize Gerald Butt's script?


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> ...
> Harper DID make what I thought might turn out to be a significant gaffe when he referred to "old stock Canadians" while discussing the refugee situation. There were already memes going around last night of the "lying shithead" incident re-labeled "old stock Canadian." Haven't seen much on the mainstream media on that yet, aside from a few blurbs, but they're always slow on the uptake. My Facebook feed was full of comments about it this morning, as was Twitter.
> 
> Aside from the immediate impact, the comment underlines how Harper views Canada. What is an "old stock Canadian" exactly? Stock would seem to suggest an ethnic identity, so would descendants of Chinese railroad workers in the 1870s count (as one meme has asked)? Is he referring to primarily Scottish-English Canadians?
> ...




_I think_ there are two kinds of "new Canadians:"

     1. Those who will be mightily offended at those remarks. _I suspect_ we will find those people concentrated in a few large urban centres and I am guessing that most of them were not ever thinking of
         voting for Prime Minister Harper's Conservatives anyway; and

     2. Those, somewhat more successful and better _integrated_ "ethnics" who are more affluent and live in suburbs and who really want their kids and grandkids to be "old stock Canadians." _I suspect_ that those people
         already agreed with the Conservatives' stand on refugee health care; they "waited in the "queue" and they expect everyone else to do the same.


----------



## CougarKing (18 Sep 2015)

One take on last night's debate: Is it just me or Mulcair's forced smiles on camera at both debates so far were just plain creepy?
 :blotto:

Reuters




> *Canadian PM, on campaign offensive, bashes rivals over economy*
> Thu Sep 17, 2015 10:56pm EDT
> 
> By David Ljunggren and Randall Palmer
> ...


----------



## Remius (18 Sep 2015)

So will the debate have an effect?  I doubt it.  Nothing new was presented and to be honest I think there were some missed opportunities.  We'll see what the polling data says, but I suspect that if the conservatives don't pull ahead after this week (good news week for them), then I think that the momentum for change will start to grow and will benefit the other two parties.


----------



## Privateer (18 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Harper DID make what I thought might turn out to be a significant gaffe when he referred to "old stock Canadians" while discussing the refugee situation. There were already memes going around last night of the "lying shithead" incident re-labeled "old stock Canadian." Haven't seen much on the mainstream media on that yet, aside from a few blurbs, but they're always slow on the uptake. My Facebook feed was full of comments about it this morning, as was Twitter.




My first association was to Jacques Parizeau's "money and the ethnic vote" statement.  It was like an Anglo version of "pure laine".

This morning, I found this interesting commentary on _pure laine_ in Wikipedia:


> The French term pure laine literally meaning pure wool (and often interpreted as true blue or dyed-in-the-wool) refers to those whose ancestry is exclusively French-Canadian. Another similar term is de souche (roughly in English, old stock).


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> _So will the debate have an effect?  I doubt it._  Nothing new was presented and to be honest I think there were some missed opportunities.  We'll see what the polling data says, but _I suspect that if the conservatives don't pull ahead after this week _(good news week for them), then I think that the momentum for change will start to grow and will benefit the other two parties.



_I agree_ with your first assertion.

_I'm not so sure._ My _guess_ is that the key period is 8-18 Oct, which includes the Thanksgiving long weekend and the last week of the campaign. I'm sure the CPC doesn't want to fall (farther?) behind in this week, but I'm not sure that just staying locked together in a very tight three-way race isn't good enough, for the moment.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _I think_ there are two kinds of "new Canadians:"
> 
> 1. Those who will be mightily offended at those remarks. _I suspect_ we will find those people concentrated in a few large urban centres and I am guessing that most of them were not ever thinking of voting for Prime Minister Harper's Conservatives anyway; and
> 
> 2. Those, somewhat more successful and better _integrated_ "ethnics" who are more affluent and live in suburbs and who really want their kids and grandkids to be "old stock Canadians." _I suspect_ that those people already agreed with the Conservatives' stand on refugee health care; they "waited in the "queue" and they expect everyone else to do the same.


I'm OK being an "new" Canadian by your definition, and far closer to an Article 2 New Canadian than Article 1  ;D

For those looking for signs of "us vs. them", though, the PM's comments confirm that in his world view, there is more than one kind of Canadian.

The lovers will say, "so what - we're all Canadians, full stop, right?"   

The haters will say, "if many object to being (insert ethnic group here)-hyphenated-Canadian, who's the PM to create his own pigeon holes, and why?".   :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Sep 2015)

>Beyond that it's just a mean spirited hatchet job ... but then, Ms Mallick really defines Harper Hater™, doesn't she?

I enjoyed reading it.

    Khitan General: Wrong! Conan, what is best in life?
    Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Sep 2015)

>It's not like the Conservatives haven't been selling us this EXACT message in some form since 2008!

Sure.  But the 2008 crisis was exactly the kind that Keynesians claim "increased government spending is a magic bullet for".


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >It's not like the Conservatives haven't been selling us this EXACT message in some form since 2008!
> 
> Sure.  _But the 2008 crisis was exactly the kind that Keynesians claim "increased government spending is a magic bullet for"._




Actually, _I think_, 1929 was the "crisis for which _Keynesian_ economics was designed." _Aggregate demand_* was Meynard Keynes watchword and I'm still not persuaded that, in either the Canada or the USA, _aggregate demand_ ever fell low enough to merit the sort of _massive_ stimulus that was applied. I agree with Bernanke and Paulson that emergency action was necessary to restore _credit_, but I think the drop in _demand_ required far less reaction than was applied.

I think there is a role for government in the application of a _*steady*_ level of public spending on the right sorts of (productive) _infrastructure_, spending which can be, quickly but temporarily, "ramped up" when _aggregate demand_ slows too much and "ramped down" again, equally quickly, when demand picks up in the normal course of economic cycles.

_____
*_*Aggregate Demand*_ (AD) = C + I + G + (X-M) where: _C_ = Consumers' expenditures on goods and services. _I_ = Investment spending by companies on capital goods. _G_ = Government expenditures on publicly provided goods and services. _X_ = Exports of goods and services. _M_ = Imports of goods and services.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Sep 2015)

This is what I was able to find (on CBC.ca): 

"The fact of the matter is we have not taken away health care from immigrants and refugees ... The only place we have refused it is for bogus refugee claimants who have been refused and turned down, we do not offer them a better health care plan than the ordinary Canadian can receive," Harper said during the debate.

"I think that's something that both new and existing and old-stock Canadians can agree with."

I read it as an acknowledgement that while people who followed the rules to become Canadians recently might feel differently on any given issue than Canadians whose ancestry goes back a few generations, on this particular issue there is a concensus favouring fair-but-firm.

I also see how some people could choose to interpret it as some sort of "dog-whistle" - as it turns out, many flavours of dog-whistle; an amazing amount of competing information in a couple of words.  If you want "old stock" to mean "white", or "white and Anglo-Saxon", or anything else, then that's what it means to you.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2015)

Perhaps readers will not be surprised, given the source, but this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Calgary Sun_, says that M Trudeau lost the debate last night:

http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/09/17/justin-trudeau-the-big-loser-in-debate


> Justin Trudeau the big loser in debate
> 
> BY ANTHONY FUREY, POSTMEDIA NETWORK
> 
> ...




Since I didn't see the debate I have no opinion. But other observes do.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> This is what I was able to find (on CBC.ca):
> 
> "The fact of the matter is we have not taken away health care from immigrants and refugees ... The only place we have refused it is for bogus refugee claimants who have been refused and turned down, we do not offer them a better health care plan than the ordinary Canadian can receive," Harper said during the debate.
> 
> ...




Very true, and who you are might colour your opinion (pun intended), as _Globe and Mail_ reporter Tu Thanh Ha points out in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/intentional-or-a-slip-old-stock-canadians-is-always-a-message-to-the-others/article26424488/


> Intentional or a slip, ‘Old-stock Canadians’ is always a message to the _*Others*_
> 
> TU THANH HA
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




The last sentence is the crux of it all: "those who already didn’t like the Conservatives weren’t going to give them the benefit of the doubt." Conversely, _I suppose_, those who already did like the Conservatives will think it's a non-issue.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Sep 2015)

>I'm still not persuaded that, in either the Canada or the USA, aggregate demand ever fell low enough to merit the sort of massive stimulus that was applied

Maybe; but, while aggregate demand may not have been low enough, political pressure was strong enough.  The opposition forced the government to agree to a massive spending program, but could not force the government to accept the political damage (deficits) without mitigation (advertising).

Chalk it up as another example: some of the grudges people hold against the actions of Harper and his government were consequences of pressure applied by some of those people.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Perhaps readers will not be surprised, given the source, but this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Calgary Sun_, says that M Trudeau lost the debate last night:
> 
> http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/09/17/justin-trudeau-the-big-loser-in-debate
> 
> Since I didn't see the debate I have no opinion. But other observes do.




Further to this, Campbell Clark, writing in the _Globe and Mail_ provides his analysis and concludes that "Mr. Mulcair, a sharp debater, scored most of his points against Mr. Trudeau on the volley, arguing that Mr. Trudeau used to favour balanced budgets, just a few months ago. “When your advisers tell you one thing and another that’s totally contradictory, pick one,” he said ... [and] ... Mr. Trudeau probably overplayed his hand. He pushed at the same button throughout much of the debate. He turned a question on a possible housing bubble into an issue of incomes, and then started talking about stimulus spending and economic growth again."


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Sep 2015)

>The last sentence is the crux of it all: "those who already didn’t like the Conservatives weren’t going to give them the benefit of the doubt." Conversely, I suppose, those who already did like the Conservatives will think it's a non-issue.

Yep.  And since my mother is an immigrant, people who think it's all about them because they have brown skin can go fu<k themselves.


----------



## Valhrafn (18 Sep 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> One take on last night's debate: Is it just me or Mulcair's forced smiles on camera at both debates so far were just plain creepy?
> :blotto:
> 
> Reuters


Not just you...


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Sep 2015)

Wayne Gretzky:  Vote for Stephen Harper (even if I can't vote)!


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Sep 2015)

Valhrafn said:
			
		

> Not just you...



I got the impression he was on the verge of exploding a couple of times. The muscles in his face looked tight and the smile was forced. Trudeau may have been trying to provoke him.


----------



## Kilo_302 (18 Sep 2015)

Another damning report on our government's quest to rid itself of the burden of accurate data. I get physically ill reading this stuff. The effects of these policies extend into the environment, social services, the economy, research and development, just about every silo you can think of. In a time of "big data" equating to big advantages, Canada is shedding as much data as it can, and we're less competitive because of it. I would hope even Conservative Party supporters can see the insanity here.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/vanishing-canada-why-were-all-losers-in-ottawas-war-on-data/



> Economic considerations are cited routinely to justify cutbacks in collecting, analyzing and digitizing information. A closer look at recent data erasure, however, suggests it runs counter to sound economic strategy. The glaring example is the elimination of the mandatory long-form census, a detailed survey of Canadians taken every five years. Its replacement, the voluntary National Household Survey, added $22 million to the cost of the 2011 census; the response rate dropped from 94 per cent in 2006 to 69 per cent, which makes the data totally unreliable. “A response rate of 75 per cent is the minimum required for sample accuracy,” says StatsCan’s former chief statistician, Munir Sheikh, who famously resigned in 2010 after Tony Clement, then industry minister, stated publicly that the decision to cut the long-form census came from within StatsCan. “The federal government misrepresented my advice,” Sheikh told Maclean’s, adding that ongoing cuts to the agency have undermined its credibility. StatsCan stands by the data: “The results for the 2011 census are of very high quality, as in previous censuses,” says Peter Frayne of StatsCan.
> 
> Five years later, we are seeing the effects. Without the baseline provided by the long-form census, says statistician Doug Elliott, who runs Regina consultancy QED Information Systems, “when an employment rate or CPI [consumer price index] doesn’t make any sense, your immediate suspicion now is that the number is wrong, rather than trying to figure out why.” Voluntary surveys also create biased data, says Sheikh: Response rates from the very rich, the very poor, rural areas, immigrants and Aboriginal communities tend to be far lower—so these groups are not well-represented. “People who do not respond well to a voluntary survey are the very people social policy tries to help,” he says. “So if you were to base policy on data received, you’d say, ‘Gee, we don’t have a poverty problem in this country.’ ”
> 
> ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Sep 2015)

Physically ill? 

 :

Do you realize that I have never read one, not one positive post out the hundreds you have written on this site?

Is your life so devoid of meaning that all you can do is to hate things?

Hell- even when Chrétien was PM (an believe me, I am no fan of him or his party), I found plenty that I could St least live with, if not like?

You do realize that when you treat every single subject equally as the end of civilization as we know it (if not the end of the world itself), most of us here just think you lack perspective, judgement and maturity?


----------



## dimsum (19 Sep 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Physically ill?
> 
> :
> 
> ...



For the love of Allah/God/Xenu/Flying Spaghetti Monster, thank you.  I was going to say just that.  

There are many things we as private citizens (or government/military folks) can't control.  Firing up the outrage bus for everything will a) get you a hernia and b) make you seem crazy to others.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Sep 2015)

Is he still nattering?

I'll check back in next Friday.    ???


----------



## Kilo_302 (19 Sep 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Physically ill?
> 
> :
> 
> ...





			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> For the love of Allah/God/Xenu/Flying Spaghetti Monster, thank you.  I was going to say just that.
> 
> There are many things we as private citizens (or government/military folks) can't control.  Firing up the outrage bus for everything will a) get you a hernia and b) make you seem crazy to others.





			
				Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Is he still nattering?
> 
> I'll check back in next Friday.    ???



So rather than addressing the issue, you're accusing me of being overly negative. This is a new one. Because I don't want to offend a bunch of positive-thinking Oprah devotees, here are some things I like. I like raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens, brown paper packages tied up with strings. Oh and I LOVE Trudeau's hair. AbFab. :nod:

Back to the matter hand, yes this policy of trashing data upsets me. It should upset anyone who is concerned with how our economy is performing, concerned with the efficacy of public programs, concerned with municipal budgets, concerned with our basic understanding of world, the list goes on. 

Now, back to the vacuum.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2015)

The BQ is also going after the NDP in this TV/internet ad (in French).

According to _iPolitics_ the ad, "literally turns a black drop of oil into a niqab to drive the point home [and, then] the ad goes after the NDP for their support of both the Energy East pipeline, which is actually very much undecided, and Muslim womens’ right to wear the niqab when they testify, swear the oath of citizenship and vote."


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> So rather than addressing the issue, you're accusing me of being overly negative. This is a new one. Because I don't want to offend a bunch of positive-thinking Oprah devotees, here are some things I like. I like raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens, brown paper packages tied up with strings. Oh and I LOVE Trudeau's hair. AbFab. :nod:
> 
> Back to the matter hand, yes this policy of trashing data upsets me. It should upset anyone who is concerned with how our economy is performing, concerned with the efficacy of public programs, concerned with municipal budgets, concerned with our basic understanding of world, the list goes on.
> 
> Now, back to the vacuum.



So just because some journalist wrote that the Government is destroying records, you believe them?  All the records go to the archives.  As well, anyone who suggest that a new algorithm had made all the old data useless clearly has no understanding of data processing.  The knowledge of the 70's/80's hasn't been lost, we're just using a new algorithm on the data we collect from this point forward.

Hey, on some of your earlier posts you provided op ed pieces on how Harper's religion is leading to Canada's downfall in the international community.  How about you put of some publicly-available references to even who that to be the case?

À vous...


----------



## GAP (19 Sep 2015)

Gee, I hope they didn't wipe out the Creataeuos period too..... so much depended on that....


----------



## Scott (19 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> So rather than addressing the issue, you're accusing me of being overly negative. This is a new one. Because I don't want to offend a bunch of positive-thinking Oprah devotees, here are some things I like. I like raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens, bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens, brown paper packages tied up with strings. Oh and I LOVE Trudeau's hair. AbFab. :nod:
> 
> Back to the matter hand, yes this policy of trashing data upsets me. It should upset anyone who is concerned with how our economy is performing, concerned with the efficacy of public programs, concerned with municipal budgets, concerned with our basic understanding of world, the list goes on.
> 
> Now, back to the vacuum.



Hatred ain't healthy, bubs.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Sep 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> Gee, I hope they didn't wipe out the Creataeuos period too..... so much depended on that....



They were responsible for eliminating the entire Mesozoic Era, not just the Cretaceous Period.  Furthermore, as though to add insult to injury, they continue to make light of the dinosaur's demise by bringing its multi-million year-old life blood up from beneath the ground where they have rested in peace for so long.  They just don't respect others.   :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> They were responsible for eliminating the entire Mesozoic Era, not just the Cretaceous Period.  Furthermore, as though to ad insult to injury, they continue to make light of _the dinosaur_'s demise by bringing its multi-million year-old life blood up from beneath the ground where they have rested in peace for so long.  They just don't respect others.   :nod:




You mean the original _"old stock Canadian"_ ...

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




               Albertosaurus was an earlier relative to the better-known Tyrannosaurus. Both are examples of large, late Tyrannosauridae family separated
               on two groups during the early Creataceous period - Albertosaurinae and Tyrannosaurinae. As you can see from its name, Albertosaurus was
               one of basal and most common Albertosaurines. Albertosaurinae had much more gracile and aerodynamic body design than Tyrannosaurinae.
               Also, their skulls are far more thin and flexibile, so their bite force was a little bit weaker. [size=14pt]Albertosaurus lived in Canada during the
               Maastrichtian, 71-65 mya.[/size]

A real "red meat" Conservative, that one ...


----------



## Rocky Mountains (19 Sep 2015)

Killo - So all of Canada's problems were caused by eliminating the long form census.  And I thought it was all about the liberal concern about privacy of individual information.  Why are the Conservatives now small government liberal and the lefties are goose-stepping fascists who want to control every aspect of our lives?  Something is bass ackwards.


----------



## Kilo_302 (19 Sep 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So just because some journalist wrote that the Government is destroying records, you believe them?  All the records go to the archives.  As well, anyone who suggest that a new algorithm had made all the old data useless clearly has no understanding of data processing.  The knowledge of the 70's/80's hasn't been lost, we're just using a new algorithm on the data we collect from this point forward.
> 
> Hey, on some of your earlier posts you provided op ed pieces on how Harper's religion is leading to Canada's downfall in the international community.  How about you put of some publicly-available references to even who that to be the case?
> 
> À vous...



I'm not sure how to address this outside of asking if you read the article. It's well sourced and many of the citations are in link format (so you can read those too). I'm not going to argue the point the author is making, you can read it for yourself (and the sources) and decide if your point about algorithms still makes any sense.



> A months-long Maclean’s investigation, which includes interviews with dozens of academics, scientists, statisticians, economists and librarians, has found that the federal government’s “austerity” program, which resulted in staff cuts and library closures (16 libraries since 2012)—as well as arbitrary changes to policy, when it comes to data—has led to a systematic erosion of government records far deeper than most realize, with the data and data-gathering capability we do have severely compromised as a result.




To your second point, that author wasn't explaining our downfall in international standing so much as trying to explain some of the stranger policies from this government (including the hostility to science and the purging of records and data). What's so curious about these policies in particular is that they don't reflect traditional conservative values. Conservative governments in the past have championed research and science etc as tools to help us economically. I've made this point several times, but is it not strange that our government wants LESS information rather than more upon which to base policy? It follows that such a government will make BAD policy. The problem here is that the Conservatives have gone so far, they're also hobbling future governments in their attempts to make sound policy based on sound data.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You mean the original _"old stock Canadian"_ ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think we're seeing the presence of Lynton Crosby and his "dog whistle" politics here. If you look at the strategies he's used in Australia and elsewhere (with no small degree of success), this fits the bill. I don't think however, that Harper expected such a reaction.

Interesting to see the "internationalization" of election campaigns. The NDP and Liberals have used strategists that worked with Obama, and of course the Republican strategists have made their presence felt in Canada as well. I for one don't think this is a good development, regardless of who wins a given election. A cookie cutter approach, be it on the left or right only serves to dumb down a campaign and make it less likely issues will be addressed in any meaningful way. Strategies and tactics should always take a back seat to debate, but alas this is politics.


----------



## Kilo_302 (19 Sep 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Killo - So all of Canada's problems were caused by eliminating the long form census.  And I thought it was all about the liberal concern about privacy of individual information.  Why are the Conservatives now small government liberal and the lefties are goose-stepping fascists who want to control every aspect of our lives?  Something is bass ackwards.



Where did I say all of our problems stem from the elimination of the long form census? You're putting words in my mouth. I think it's definitely a very serious problem and it shouldn't be a partisan issue. Facts are not partisan. Wouldn't you agree it's better to understand more about our economy, demographics, health of Canadians etc etc ? The long form census helps our government make effective policy in just about every arena.

Some do argue that the census is an invasion of privacy. This makes little sense to me, as the government has no way to track who has given the answers. Ironically, supporters of the termination of the census point to Sweden and Denmark as the way to go. In fact these nations have far more intrusive practices to replace their census. Everyone in those countries gets a personal ID code that is used to track all of the information previously gathered in our *anonymous* long form census.

Now if you want to talk invasion of privacy, look no further than big data being used to profile consumers. We seem to be ok with so far, and big box stores now know more about us than our own goverment ever will. 

Unless...what about Bill C-51? This allows government security agencies to share and track data on any Canadian (including tax information sourced from the CRA). C-51 does far more to erode Canadians' privacy rights than anything found in our (once again) *anonymous* census.  The trend of government security agencies working with the likes of Google and Amazon is also concerning, as it amounts to an outsourcing of big data analysis. Combine this with greater powers for our security agencies and it's not hard to see how this is again far more intrusive than the census.

If you're actually worried about government intrusion into our lives, you won't vote Conservative or Liberal as they passed it. So yes, something is definitely "bass ackwards."


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Sep 2015)

Gee....if I can't vote Conservative or Liberal, who would that leave left? Let me think....


----------



## George Wallace (19 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Another damning report on our government's quest to rid itself of the burden of accurate data. I get physically ill reading this stuff. The effects of these policies extend into the environment, social services, the economy, research and development, just about every silo you can think of. In a time of "big data" equating to big advantages, Canada is shedding as much data as it can, and we're less competitive because of it. I would hope even Conservative Party supporters can see the insanity here.
> 
> http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/vanishing-canada-why-were-all-losers-in-ottawas-war-on-data/



Yup!  Sure!  It is all Harper's fault that all these people DID NOT follow the direction to digitize all their libraries, to become more efficient, cost effective and save space.  It is all Harper's fault the the various organizations feared for jobs, so they sat on their asses and did not follow direction.  It is all Harper's fault that "dinosaurs" in the Government scientific community rebelled in an organized fashion to ignore or sabotage the digitizing of said libraries.  Of course, it is all Harper's fault the they did not follow the directive given.  

http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/09/parker-donham-response/405067/



> People have gone pretty far over the cliff when they can believe that an update to modern technology constitutes a war on science. The truth of the matter was less far-fetched and more squalid. Demand for materials-on-paper from the Lethbridge library had plunged by more than 80 percent over recent years. Digitization of the library threatened public-sector jobs. What was at issue here was not know-nothingism. It was unionized Luddism.



But....the ABC crowd don't want the TRUTH.


----------



## Kilo_302 (19 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yup!  Sure!  It is all Harper's fault that all these people DID NOT follow the direction to digitize all their libraries, to become more efficient, cost effective and save space.  It is all Harper's fault the the various organizations feared for jobs, so they sat on their asses and did not follow direction.  It is all Harper's fault that "dinosaurs" in the Government scientific community rebelled in an organized fashion to ignore or sabotage the digitizing of said libraries.  Of course, it is all Harper's fault the they did not follow the directive given.
> 
> http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/09/parker-donham-response/405067/
> 
> But....the ABC crowd don't want the TRUTH.



George you do understand who David Frum is right? Did he interview the dozens and dozens of academics, scientists, statisticians, librarians for this _*opinion*_ piece?


----------



## George Wallace (19 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> George you do understand who David Frum is right? Did he interview the dozens and dozens of academics, scientists, statisticians, librarians for this _*opinion*_ piece?



Did you?  Did Stephen Marche who wrote the original op-ed that David Frum replied to?


----------



## Kilo_302 (19 Sep 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Gee....if I can't vote Conservative or Liberal, who would that leave left? Let me think....



Well that's the thing. I don't like the NDP either. But C-51 is a serious enough issue that I can discount the other two right off the bat.


----------



## Kilo_302 (19 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Did you?  Did Stephen Marche who wrote the original op-ed that David Frum replied to?



But we're discussing this article:

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/vanishing-canada-why-were-all-losers-in-ottawas-war-on-data/

Stephen Marche's *opinion* piece is borne out by the research done for this _investigation. _


----------



## George Wallace (19 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> But we're discussing this article:
> 
> http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/vanishing-canada-why-were-all-losers-in-ottawas-war-on-data/
> 
> Stephen Marche's *opinion* piece is borne out by the research done for this _investigation. _



NO!  Stephen Marche's *opinion* piece only matches your opinion.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (19 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Well that's the thing. I don't like the NDP either.



Seriously?  I smell Bovine Stuff.


----------



## Kilo_302 (19 Sep 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Seriously?  I smell Bovine Stuff.



Well if you've read any of my previous posts I've been highly critical of the NDP.


----------



## dimsum (19 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Well that's the thing. I don't like the NDP either. But C-51 is a serious enough issue that I can discount the other two right off the bat.



Ok, so you won't vote Conservative, Liberal or NDP.  Are we to assume you'll be voting Green in this year's election?  If not, then who will you vote for?


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure how to address this outside of asking if you read the article. It's well sourced and many of the citations are in link format (so you can read those too). I'm not going to argue the point the author is making, you can read it for yourself (and the sources) and decide if your point about algorithms still makes any sense.



That is your MO, accuse people of not having read the article.  I have, others have --  the author does not provide proof that any such destruction has taken place.

In her article, Anne Kingston uses, by way of example, Dr. Raymond Hoff, as proof of PM Harper's policy of records destruction.  She quotes Dr. Hoff as stating, "Nothing comes up when I type my name into the search engine on [Environment Canada’s] website.”  Environment Canada's search engine does not specifically list authors of its reports because the reports are produced by The Crown.  If Dr. Hoff provided titles of his reports, one could then refute or support Ms. Kingston's Maclean's investigative assertions.  

By way of my own example to see what destruction of records had taken place under PM Harper's mandate (and, because unlike your questioning my integrity of having actually read the article, I did read it; in fact, I read it several times), I searched Environment Canada's website publication search page for a term of interest: "polychlorinated biphenyls report" also known as PCBs.

https://www.ec.gc.ca/rs-mn/default.asp?lang=En&n=0525D4AD-1 

So, from a quick perusing of the 215 reports and documents listed, I picked one: Determination of Level of Quantification for Measuring PCBs in stack Emission and Ash Samples (2001).  Hmm, first of all, it should have, by Ms. Kingston's reckoning, been expunged in Harper's 'Fahrenheit 451-like' records burning. A 2001 report still available to the public?    Anyway, I read the selected report and referred to the Environment Canada author's name, "Chung Chiu," then re-searched the EnviroCan publication search site for Chung Chiu under the 'Author' field, and no links came up.  I attribute that to my earlier point about Government documents being authored by "The Crown" or "Her Majesty, in Right of Canada."  What would Chung Chiu say?  That his name has been expunged from EvironCan's records?  Or any of the reports he authored?  Clearly that is not the case.  If I spent enough time reading through each of the 215 results for "polychlorinated biphenyls report" I may even come upon Dr. Hoff's name.

Not satisfied with you/Ms. Kingston/other conspiratorialists accusations, I wondered to myself if EviroCan would at least refer to externally published and refereed publications, providing credit to its scientist in the process, particularly in regard to Dr. Hoff's work at EnviroCanada?

Ah-ha! After an EnviroCan site search for "peer reviewed publications" I get to this page: 
Home>Air>Air Science and Research>Monitoring Networks and Data>Monitoring Networks>IADN>Research Publications and I scroll down to find *35* (of approximately 100) matches for Dr. R. Hoff in a multitude of EnviroCan-linked peer-reivewed publications.  




			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> To your second point, that author wasn't explaining our downfall in international standing so much as trying to explain some of the stranger policies from this government (including the hostility to science and the purging of records and data). What's so curious about these policies in particular is that they don't reflect traditional conservative values. Conservative governments in the past have championed research and science etc as tools to help us economically. I've made this point several times, but is it not strange that our government wants LESS information rather than more upon which to base policy? It follows that such a government will make BAD policy. The problem here is that the Conservatives have gone so far, they're also hobbling future governments in their attempts to make sound policy based on sound data.



Pure drivel.  Dr. Hoff is indeed is referred to by Environment Canada's website, where contributor-specific involvement is provided.  I noted in my investigative research that records still exist of hundreds of EnviroCan reports, and that its indexing system is such that credit of such reports is retained by The Crown, to wit Mr. Chung Chiu's particular case.

Furthermore, if I had the time, I would even consider doing an ATI request to Environment Canada for all reports written by, or contributed to by, Dr. Raymond Hoff, while he was a scientist on staff at AES (Atmospheric Environmental Services) or any other Government of Canada element of what is now Environment Canada.  Did Ms. Kingston conduct any such ATI requests in her research?  If she did and received declination or refusal, that would serve to reinforce her story.  If not, then I would question the depth to which she researched the issue, other than in taking purported facts of convenience, without the rigour that one should reasonably expect to be taken by a truly investigative reporter...

I await your rebuttal asking me once again if I actually read the article.   :


QED.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Sep 2015)

Data are just data.  Most of the complaints are not about data loss.  Other than the long firearms registry - which is supposed to be truly purged - there does not seem to be any genuine data loss by intention of policy.    If data are lost because of passive-aggressive resistance to change (dumb insolence), that's a problem with the people managing the data.  Some organizations have a "make it happen" ethic, and some do not.

Most of the complaints are:
1) Fewer data are being collected.
2) It isn't as easy to access data as it used to be.  (A methodology change doesn't erase data, but it does force the consumer to do his own homework if he wants a consistent measurement across a change.)


----------



## Kilo_302 (19 Sep 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> That is your MO, accuse people of not having read the article.  I have, others have --  the author does not provide proof that any such destruction has taken place.
> 
> In her article, Anne Kingston uses, by way of example, Dr. Raymond Hoff, as proof of PM Harper's policy of records destruction.  She quotes Dr. Hoff as stating, "Nothing comes up when I type my name into the search engine on [Environment Canada’s] website.”  Environment Canada's search engine does not specifically list authors of its reports because the reports are produced by The Crown.  If Dr. Hoff provided titles of his reports, one could then refute or support Ms. Kingston's Maclean's investigative assertions.
> 
> ...




So just to be clear, you're suggesting that all the sources quoted in the article are "conspiracy theorists"? None of this happened?

The fact that you can find "hundreds" of EnviroCan reports doesn't mean anything beyond that hundreds of reports still exist. The author, and her sources never claimed everything was gone. 

The reason I feel it necessary to ask if people have read the article is that they so rarely address the content, or make points that make it obvious they did not. You have, and I appreciate that. 

But you've taken two examples, and seemingly arrived a conclusion that goes something like "I can find some articles online, therefore the government hasn't destroyed anything." This doesn't make sense.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Sep 2015)

When I came across this article (The Coddling of the American Mind) at www.theatlantic.com a short while back, the list of cognitive distortions (most of which in moderation are common human failings) at the bottom struck me as a checklist for people suffering from "<politician> Derangement Syndrome".


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Sep 2015)

>But you've taken two examples, and seemingly arrived a conclusion that goes something like "I can find some articles online, therefore the government hasn't destroyed anything." This doesn't make sense.

Fine.  Burden of proof lies with accusers.  Let the people making the accusations identify all the reports, data, whatever, that have been destroyed (no longer exist in any form).


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Sep 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ..."Nothing comes up when I type my name into the search engine on [Environment Canada’s] website.”  Environment Canada's search engine does not specifically list authors of its reports because the reports are produced by The Crown.



G2G  apropos of little perhaps but once upon a time policemen didn't have names they only had numbers.  In public the Crown would be represented by "A. Spokesman", identified at the podium with a placard stating such instead of presenting "Timmy MacPherson".

Civil Service was not a profession for those that sought fame although it often resulted in a lot of public exposure.


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> So just to be clear, you're suggesting that all the sources quoted in the article are "conspiracy theorists"? None of this happened?
> 
> The fact that you can find "hundreds" of EnviroCan reports doesn't mean anything beyond that hundreds of reports still exist. The author, and her sources never claimed everything was gone.
> 
> ...



...and this is the other half of your _modus operandi_ -- when your personal position, or your proponency for someone else's position that aligns closely or perfectly with yours, is questioned, you back-track with a "I/they/it never said 100%......[insert issue at hand here]" and try to pick holes in a logical and factually reference rebuttal.  

Weak. :not-again:

Specifically, you 'fake-quote' me above saying that I said the government hasn't destroyed anything.  

I said nothing of the sort, only that the one of the specific persons that the author referred to in her article as having all their material destroyed and no longer identified by his previous employer is patently false.  Did you actually follow the links I provided?  It seems not. Otherwise, you would have seen Dr. Hoff's referred papers there, categorically contradicting what Ms. Kingston writes in her article.

Hey, I'll make this even easier...you don't even have to click on the link I provided: https://www.ec.gc.ca/rs-mn/default.asp?lang=En&n=0525D4AD-1#2.  Here are a few examples (where Hoff is the lead author, there are others he co-wrote or supported) of the 'feeling-underappreciated" Dr. Hoff, from the ENVIRONMENT CANADA PEER REVIEW LINKS PAGE. (I'll be somewhat lazy and not copy over the hyperlinks for each of Dr. Hoff's referenced publications...they're still at the aforementioned link.)



> Hoff, R. M.; Muir, D. C. G.; Grift, N. B. 1992. The annual cycle of PCBs and organohalogen pesticides in air in southern Ontario: I. Air concentration data, Environmental Science and Technology 26, 266-275.
> 
> Hoff, R. M.; Muir, D. C. G.; Grift, N. B. 1992.The annual cycle of PCBs and organohalogen pesticides in air in southern Ontario: II. Atmospheric transport and sources, Environmental Science and Technology, 26, 276-283.
> 
> ...




So what is it Kilo?  Good enough for you that a few publications may no longer be available directly, instead referred to on sites for associations that support peer review?  Your treasured reporter said in part that Harper and his direction over the Government had caused "_*a systematic erosion of government records far deeper than most realize, with the data and data-gathering capability we do have severely compromised as a result.*_"  

Heck, three very specific search words and I found over two hundred publications from the very period that the Maclean's investigative reporter said Harper and his acolytes had, as portrayed above, destroyed so many records.


So, you have repeatedly demonstrated the habit of:
- throwing out a link to a reference that conveniently fulfils all your desires, 
- people fact check your references and point out contradictions, 
- you accuse them of not having read the reference, 
- then when they provide even greater detail to their analysis of said reference, 
- you then say they are taking the rebuttal far further than you made the original case for consideration to be.

As I said before, _*weak*_...

QED


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2015)

:bravo:G2G, and, Kilo_302, I haven't put you on   :ignore:  yet, because I think you represent a significant point of view in Canada.

I understand that a great many Canadians _hate_ Prime Minister Harper; I think Heather Mallick and Lawrence Martin, whose work I have posted here, represent that faction well. Other Canadians, some of whom are members here, still believe that Prime Minister Harper is a very good PM. Many of us are disappointed in the prime minister, on many different levels, but we cannot, on balance, find any leader or any party that is any better not worse.


----------



## Kilo_302 (19 Sep 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...and this is the other half of your _modus operandi_ -- when your personal position, or your proponency for someone else's position that aligns closely or perfectly with yours, is questioned, you back-track with a "I/they/it never said 100%......[insert issue at hand here]" and try to pick holes in a logical and factually reference rebuttal.
> 
> Weak. :not-again:
> 
> ...



You're focusing on this one specific example involving the one scientist. I replicated your search results, and yes there are many publications with his name attached (I found 36). That still does not explain the numerous other cases the author mentions. Nor does it explain the statements of the US and Australian statisticians lamenting Canada's approach to data under this government.

Again, being able to find a few hundred articles online does not mean there is not a problem. I don't know how to make this more clear. 

I would add that Maclean's is a right of center publication, you seem to be suggesting that this author and her sources have created some sort of hack job by not accepting that the story has any veracity whatsoever. That notion simply does not fit with the political leanings of the Maclean's editorial board. 

I would be curious to get your take on the other examples, the other scientists interviewed, the fellow from QED Information System and so on. 

I'll ask you again, do you think this entire piece is a fabrication? The Maclean's editorial board just accepted it? That seems to be what you're suggesting.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2015)

On the _celebrity_ endorsement front, Prime Minister Harper has the Great One on his side, but Pamela Anderson says she would never vote for him because he's wriong on climate change. Even Stephen, I guess ...


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You're focusing on this one specific example involving the one scientist. I replicated your search results, and yes there are many publications with his name attached (I found 36). That still does not explain the numerous other cases the author mentions. Nor does it explain the statements of the US and Australian statisticians lamenting Canada's approach to data under this government.
> 
> Again, being able to find a few hundred articles online does not mean there is not a problem. I don't know how to make this more clear.
> 
> ...



You say Maclean's is a right-of-center publication so that means we shouldn't question the veracity of the reporter?   ???  You accuse me and others of not making sense?  

I would say that the Maclean's editorial board needs to do a better job, as does Ms. Kingston with their fact checking.  The premise of one entire portion of her story is faulty.  I will consider that 'fabrication' is a strong word, so I'll graciously provide her writing with a characterization of "poor and lacklustre quality."

That was the only section of her op-ed piece I fact-checked and it failed.

I would consider fact-checking the rest of it, but it is clear that no matter how much principled fact-checking people conduct, you have a convenient excuse and dismiss it without logical foundation, and apply a parochial evasive method to redirect away from the fundamental fault of the argument.  MY further efforts would be wasted.

Bring on the next issue and carefully-selected article(s), please...


----------



## George Wallace (19 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You're focusing on this one specific example involving the one scientist. I replicated your search results, and yes there are many publications with his name attached (I found 36). That still does not explain the numerous other cases the author mentions. Nor does it explain the statements of the US and Australian statisticians lamenting Canada's approach to data under this government.
> 
> Again, being able to find a few hundred articles online does not mean there is not a problem. I don't know how to make this more clear.
> 
> ...




Once again.  





Back peddle.  Ignore.  Call BS to anything that is not of your beliefs.  Your MO is so predictable and frankly very tiring.


----------



## GAP (19 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> On the _celebrity_ endorsement front, Prime Minister Harper has the Great One on his side but Pamela Anderson says she would never vote for him because he's wriong on climate change. Even Stephen, I guess ...



Gretzky has turned out to be a fair businessman....but the opinion of someone who's claim to fame is flaunting her T & A, I'll pass.....


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Sep 2015)

>That still does not explain the numerous other cases the author mentions.

Cases of what?  The article dances around trying to make the inference that information is permanently lost or destroyed (stories of excess or obsolete print copies being garbaged, burned, recycled etc is not evidence of intent to destroy information), but what it talks about are claims that some information is harder to find than it used to be, and some information is no longer collected or sought.

The article repeatedly misuses the term data erasure.  I assume the misuse is deliberate or ignorant, but failure to collect new data is not erasure of anything.  Regardless, either malicious or misinformed misrepresentation lessens credibility and reliability.

"Your denial of the importance of objectivity amounts to announcing your intention to lie to us. No-one should believe anything you say." - John McCarthy

A lack of sufficient objectivity is ironic in an article dealing with information integrity.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Sep 2015)

Kilo, you may want to take a read of this article.  It may help you come across with some credibility.  You appear to be operating currently somewhere near the bottom of the disagreement pyramid.  Even some counter-argument would be refreshing.  Refutation would actually help the case you try to make.

How to disagree.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Sep 2015)

Nice find.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (20 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I would add that Maclean's is a right of center publication.



No it's not.  Have they ever been accused of this heresy before?


----------



## Scott (20 Sep 2015)

Holy shit, I haven't seen someone get so thoroughly owned in a very long time. 

Kilo, change your posting style or keep your wor and quit posting. I'm getting too many complaints to keep letting it slide. 

That's not picking on you. It's a response to inquiries about why you're permitted to post in this manner. 

Scott
Staff


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Sep 2015)

Liberals' just-released defence platform:



> A NEW PLAN TO STRENGTHEN THE ECONOMY AND CREATE JOBS WITH NAVY INVESTMENT
> https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/09/A-new-plan-to-strengthen-the-economy-and-create-jobs-with-navy-investment.pdf



Stupid stuff (p. 2 pdf at link above)--like Conservatives in 2006 election--about Navy icbreakers:
http://www.casr.ca/ft-harper1-2.htm 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway (20 Sep 2015)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/why-defence-matters-in-this-election/article26020439/

Globe and mail on defence policy and what the NDP need to do to move some voters.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (20 Sep 2015)

As far as defence goes, we have the Liberal record.  Trudeau Sr. and Chretien together reduced the armed forces from around 120,000 down to less than 60,000, perhaps closer to 50,000.  What is a promise worth when we have the record?

NDP have always had a strong pacifist commitment so don't look to them for any re-investment in things military.  At best look to be the world's social workers.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Sep 2015)

I just had Pierre Poilievre come to the place I'm boarding at.  My landlord, who's a friend and also in the military, and I had an enjoyable 10 minutes or so chewing him out on their military support record.  He started with the decade of darkness stuff and tried to impress on how much they've done for us in their time so far, it didn't go well for him especially when he tried the new ships tack on us.  He looked extremely uncomfortable by the time he left and quite thankful he could scurry off too.  Still, being a good sport I did wish him luck with his campaign.  I wish a dipper or a Liberal would come sniffing around too.   :nod:


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Sep 2015)

Neither Libber nor Dipper past my place.  CPC only, and it sounds like he got the same treatment Poilievre got.  I think he was lulled into a false sense of complacency looking at the Support the Troops decal in the car windows.  That said, at least he is out on the beat, so to speak.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Sep 2015)

Latest from Nanos - still neck & neck & neck ....


> *Conservative*    31.0% 	+0.2
> *Liberal* 	        29.4% 	-0.9
> *NDP* 	           29.1% 	NC 	-
> *Green* 	        5.5% 	+0.4
> ...


----------



## suffolkowner (21 Sep 2015)

Trudeau's plan to axe the F-35 pretty much cancels the Liberals as an option in my book. We've seen this script before


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Sep 2015)

Interesting approach to trying to get into a debate ....


> The federal Greens have filed a complaint with the Canada Revenue Agency in a last-minute bid to use the law to get their leader into an election debate this month.
> 
> “Not inviting Elizabeth May, in the view of our counsel, is breaking the law,” Green Party spokesman Jim Harris said in a Sunday news release.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Quote from: Remius on 2015-09-18, 12:19:11
> 
> 
> > So will the debate have an effect?  I doubt it.  Nothing new was presented and to be honest I think there were some missed opportunities.  We'll see what the polling data says, but I suspect that if the conservatives don't pull ahead after this week (good news week for them), then I think that the momentum for change will start to grow and will benefit the other two parties.
> ...




And, in this bit, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, John Ibbitson also looks to Thanksgiving weekend as the time when Canadians, _might_, finally, make up their minds:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/incoming/will-any-party-take-the-lead-before-thanksgiving/article26450648/


> Will any party take the lead before Thanksgiving?
> 
> The Globe and Mail
> 
> ...




As to the CPC's "ground game," it seems to me that the first challenge is to appeal to the disaffected part of the Conservative base that isn't for "law and order," thinks "security" is probably just about good enough, even before C-51, and wants fewer _boutique tax breaks_.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Sep 2015)

> Who knows? I don't think I've ever seen an election that's this hard to call.



Must be a bugger that, being limited to being an observer and unable to influence events.


----------



## McG (21 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Interesting approach to trying to get into a debate ....


Is this a debate between party leaders or potential prime ministers?  The Greens have already acknowledged that they will not even be seated in the official opposition seats.  I don't think they can lay claim to discrimination for being exluded from a debate of potential PMs (hell, the next guy to throw his name in for leader of the Liberal Party has more right to a place in such a debate).


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Is this a debate between party leaders or potential prime ministers?  The Greens have already acknowledged that they will not even be seated in the official opposition seats.  I don't think they can lay claim to discrimination for being exluded from a debate of potential PMs (hell, the next guy to throw his name in for leader of the Liberal Party has more right to a place in such a debate).



So if she wins, what's the outcome? Does it mean that the debates now have to be open to every registered party? That's a cluster *&%$ of the worst order. If they had kept their complaint to the narrow scope of parties with sitting members, she might have an argument. As it stands, if a decision goes her way, either debates are shut down, or some sort of clown show ensues. You can bet that other smaller parties will be watching this case with close attention in the hope of mounting the stage during the next election.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Is this a debate between party leaders or potential prime ministers?  The Greens have already acknowledged that they will not even be seated in the official opposition seats.  I don't think they can lay claim to discrimination for being exluded from a debate of potential PMs (hell, the next guy to throw his name in for leader of the Liberal Party has more right to a place in such a debate).


Good question - here's what the page on the debates themselves says:


> Be part of the Munk Debates’ first-ever federal election debate on Canada’s foreign policy and watch *the three federal party leaders recognized in Parliament* debate the major international challenges and opportunities facing the country.


If they had better wordsmithing, it would be clearer whether they meant "party leaders who are recognized as such" or "leaders only of parties recognized in the House of Commons."  The current wording could mean both, so if Lizzie's a recognized party leader, she should be there.  Then again, if THAT's the case, so should the "Bloc Head", too  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Sep 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So_ if she wins, what's the outcome?_ Does it mean that the debates now have to be open to every registered party? That's a cluster *&%$ of the worst order. If they had kept their complaint to the narrow scope of parties with sitting members, she might have an argument. As it stands, if a decision goes her way, either debates are shut down, or some sort of clown show ensues. You can bet that other smaller parties will be watching this case with close attention in the hope of mounting the stage during the next election.




My _guess_ is that IF  she found a judge silly (or malicious) enough to even hear her complaint and then rule in her favour that Prime Minister Harper would, immediately, withdraw, and M Mulcair would be just minutes behind, and then a really _deep pockets_ private donor would step forward to organize, quickly, a one-on-one, _Harper : Mulcair_ debate on foreign policy to be _broadcast_ online.

_Edited to add_: 

I think we need to realize that both Prime Minister Harper and M Mulcair have _issues_ with the media: both think that too much of it is _fawning_ over M Trudeau and, in many cases, the Liberals, in general. They both want to wrestle control of the debate process out of the hands of the TV networks (the so-called Consortium) and into the hands of groups and media outlets they can both agree are more likely to give both the right and the left a fair_er_ shot.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Sep 2015)

I'm a bit surprised this article, by a well known _"right wing fanatic"_, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Sun_, or something very like it, hadn't appeared, already. It is, of course, very much in tune with the thesis presented by Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson in _The Big Shift_ which contends that the so-called _Laurentian Elites_ are fighting a rearguard action against a "New Canada" which is Western, _conservative_, "ethnic," and not impressed with the old, Toronto-Montreal _Laurentian Consensus_:

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/20/why-the-elites-hate-harper#.Vf84MJ7RUfY.facebook


> Why the elites hate Harper
> 
> GERRY NICHOLLS
> 
> ...




This is, by now, old ground, but it is, I think, still fertile in most rural areas, in small towns and cities, and in the middle class suburbs around Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto and Ottawa. It is, of course, the cry of those who, despite nine years of Conservative (Harper) government in Ottawa, still feel ignored or disdained by the "ruling classes" in the media, academe and, especially, the big, glass office towers in the city centres. The perception from the small towns and suburbs is that those _elites_ are, generally, _Liberal_, and they, the _silent majority_ still want change. It is, now, still an inchoate cry, but watch out if it ever catches on ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Sep 2015)

Polls will be coming thick and fast now. Here is the Forum Poll, published today:

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





It is still a tight race, but, in its analysis, _Forum_ says:

     "The Conservatives have one third of the vote (33%), compared to just fewer than 3-in-10 votes for the Liberals and the NDP (29% each). Few will vote Green or for the Bloc Quebecois (4% each) or for other parties (1%).
     More than one quarter of those who voted NDP in 2011 will vote Liberal this time (26%) and the reverse is true for those who voted Liberal last time, and will vote NDP this election (28%). Just more than one tenth of past
     Conservatives will vote Liberal this time (13%) but few New Democrats or Liberals from 2011 will be voting Conservative."

And

     "If these results are projected up to a 338 seat House of Commons, the Conservatives would form a minority government with 145 seats, 25 fewer than required for a majority, while the Liberals and the New Democrats
     would split the rest of the House with 97 and 95 seats, respectively. The Greens would seat their leader, and no other parties would be represented ... Voters expect the Conservatives to win the election (31%) more than
     they do the New Democrats (27%), a reversal of findings in recent weeks on this measure. The Liberals are not seen to be the victors by as many (23%) ... After a number of weeks where Tom Mulcair was seen to be the
     best potential Prime Minister, Stephen Harper now occupies that spot (28%) and the other two leaders are matched at about one quarter of the votes (24% each)."

     Copyright ©Forum Research Inc.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (21 Sep 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So if she wins, what's the outcome? Does it mean that the debates now have to be open to every registered party?



There is no such thing as a win.  She did the equivalent to calling 911 reporting a crime in process.  She could try to undo it if she gets her way but would likely be ignored.  Accusing someone of a crime and agreeing to drop the charges is normally called extortion and highly illegal.  The lady called the tax department on someone.


----------



## thehare (21 Sep 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> As far as defence goes, we have the Liberal record.  Trudeau Sr. and Chretien together reduced the armed forces from around 120,000 down to less than 60,000, perhaps closer to 50,000.  What is a promise worth when we have the record?
> 
> NDP have always had a strong pacifist commitment so don't look to them for any re-investment in things military.  At best look to be the world's social workers.



None of the parties are very pro military nowadays to be honest. Sure, Harper likes to boast how he and his party supports the troops but we have their record too, and you see the lowest GDP expenditure since the beginning of WW2 along with a nice blemish of how they've handled Veteran's Affairs.

Yes the other parties are not pro military, but it is foolish to think that the Conservatives really support us either. As the old saying goes, support for the military is a mile wide but an inch deep in Canada.


----------



## Harrigan (22 Sep 2015)

The tone on this website has changed noticeably since Nanos started showing polls with the CPC in first place (though will all three within the Margin of Error).  Overall, I don't think anything has changed - all three parties remain more or less tied.

I would think that the worst place the CPC could be is in first place in a tight race like this.  If this were to happen, I would expect the ABC contingents of the Liberals and NDP to both coalesce in one or the other party in the last week or so to attempt to prevent a Harper victory.  So I would suggest the best place for the CPC to be in the early October polls is a close second.  That would keep the Liberal and NDP votes split, and the government can hope for a Cameron-esque vote split to work in their favour.

Harrigan


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2015)

At last, someone is asking some questions about defence spending.


----------



## Pencil Tech (22 Sep 2015)

thehare said:
			
		

> None of the parties are very pro military nowadays to be honest. Sure, Harper likes to boast how he and his party supports the troops but we have their record too, and you see the lowest GDP expenditure since the beginning of WW2 along with a nice blemish of how they've handled Veteran's Affairs.
> 
> Yes the other parties are not pro military, but it is foolish to think that the Conservatives really support us either. As the old saying goes, support for the military is a mile wide but an inch deep in Canada.



It's nice to read somebody stating the truth on here but you're wasting your time. Most of the people following this discussion would vote for the Conservatives if they disbanded the military entirely, and then they would still find a way to say that it would be worse for the military with one of the other parties in power. It's all about gut feeling, culture and the dog whistles Harper is always blowing here. It's called "Election 2015" but it's really just somebody's Harper fanboy blog.


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Sep 2015)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> It's nice to read somebody stating the truth on here but you're wasting your time. Most of the people following this discussion would vote for the Conservatives if they disbanded the military entirely, and then they would still find a way to say that it would be worse for the military with one of the other parties in power. It's all about gut feeling, culture and the dog whistles Harper is always blowing here. It's called "Election 2015" but it's really just somebody's Harper fanboy blog.



Wow, that's a stretch.  And very "Kilo Jr." like thinking.


----------



## Altair (22 Sep 2015)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> It's nice to read somebody stating the truth on here but you're wasting your time. Most of the people following this discussion would vote for the Conservatives if they disbanded the military entirely, and then they would still find a way to say that it would be worse for the military with one of the other parties in power. It's all about gut feeling, culture and the dog whistles Harper is always blowing here. It's called "Election 2015" but it's really just somebody's Harper fanboy blog.


go to the liberal party leadership thread. It's more hospitable to those who don't vote conservative.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Sep 2015)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> It's nice to read somebody stating the truth on here but you're wasting your time. Most of the people following this discussion would vote for the Conservatives if they disbanded the military entirely, and then they would still find a way to say that it would be worse for the military with one of the other parties in power. It's all about gut feeling, culture and the dog whistles Harper is always blowing here. It's called "Election 2015" but it's really just somebody's Harper fanboy blog.



Do you actually believe a word any of the three main parties has said on defence? I don't. The conservatives have their problems on the defence file. At least, with the conservatives, we don't have start all over on 20 Oct by cancelling everything in the hopper, re briefing, and re tendering everything. Call it laziness on my part, but I have lived through way too many cancelled projects...


----------



## Pencil Tech (22 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> go to the liberal party leadership thread. It's more hospitable to those who don't vote conservative.



I rest my case.


----------



## Remius (22 Sep 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Wow, that's a stretch.  And very "Kilo Jr." like thinking.



It isn't that far a stretch really.  There are some hyper-partisan types here.  However, it must be said that just because they are more vocal doesn't mean that that this is "Harper's fan-boy blog".

I've tried to be as measured as I can in my critisism of ALL parties in this election as I still consider myself undecided but beginning to lean one way.

Mr. Campbell has been providing his opinions and facts in a a measured but biased way (he has been upfront about his biases though, full disclosure).

But...this tread has been derailed a bit by the little bun fight with Kilo vs "Harper fan-boys".  I'd prefer we stick to the issues rather than fight over how each side here presents its case.  If you don't like what they have to say, don't engage or engage but stick to issues rather than name calling. 

Pencil Tech says something they don't like and someone takes another jab at Kilo.  Who is trolling who in that case?


----------



## MARS (22 Sep 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> go to the liberal party leadership thread. It's more hospitable to those who don't vote conservative.



I guess that thread would be your own echo chamber then...  :crybaby:

Anyone who is going to vote based on a party's pledge for defence spending or even more laughable...veteran's issues, or the state of the military is delusional if they think any of the parties actually give a rats ass about any of that.  I can't believe I share the planet with people who believe that pap.  

I also cannot abide any party that promotes or otherwise gives credence to the peacekeeping myth and all of that bullshit either.

 :


----------



## Remius (22 Sep 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Do you actually believe a word any of the three main parties has said on defence? I don't. The conservatives have their problems on the defence file. At least, with the conservatives, we don't have start all over on 20 Oct by cancelling everything in the hopper, re briefing, and re tendering everything. Call it laziness on my part, but I have lived through way too many cancelled projects...



I don't.  And it is a sticking point.  And they have cancelled things in the hopper and may very well have to restart.

The CPC promised a great many things that they haven't delivered on.  I gave them my vote before.  Why should they get my vote again on this issue?  Mr. Polievre's lackey who came to my door certainly couldn't explain it to me.

So to sum up.  No party is getting my vote in regards to Defense issues.  I don't trust any of them.  On this issue my check marks are all going in the against column for all three major parties.


----------



## Lumber (22 Sep 2015)

I was seriously starting to wonder if the NDP was a good alernative; then they said they would pull 100% out of Iraq/Syria/Kuwait.

I started leading back toward giving the Liberals another shot at it; then they said they'd cancel the New Shipboard Aircraft Project  F-35 program.

I started wondering if I should take a stab at voting Conservative for a change; then I remembered the Alamo.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 Sep 2015)

Yep, Pencil Tech. This thread is a veritable Conservative Party "like" session....


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2015)

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, from the _'Civilization As We Know It Is Doomed'_ department, is Lawrence Martin's latest on "Conservative Canada:"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-toll-we-pay-for-a-bunker-mentality/article26463412/


> The toll we pay for a bunker mentality
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




So, the article by Anne Kingston, which provoked so much discussion here, and was properly debunked by Good2Golf, has some _traction_, if only because it plays to Lawrence Martin's own conformation bias ... we all have 'em.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> I don't.  And it is a sticking point.  And they have cancelled things in the hopper and may very well have to restart.
> 
> The CPC promised a great many things that they haven't delivered on.  I gave them my vote before.  Why should they get my vote again on this issue?  Mr. Polievre's lackey who came to my door certainly couldn't explain it to me.
> 
> So to sum up.  _No party is getting my vote in regards to Defense issues._  I don't trust any of them.  On this issue my check marks are all going in the against column for all three major parties.




And I share that view. While I, like most people here on Army.ca, take defence very seriously, _I understand_ that national defence is not a priority for most Canadians and, therefore, it is not an electoral platform priority, either. There are several things that _I believe_ are important: social justice, for all, _not just each party's favoured few_, matters to me; so does government, itself ~ I think the Government of Canada is _too big_, _too busy_ at things that don't really matter, _too intrusive_, and much, Much, MUCH _too expensive_; foreign policy is important ~ not Syrian refugees, they are just symptoms of a Western failure to look after our own vital interests in the world; and my list goes on quite a way before it reaches national defence. 

I find favour with bits of each party's platform, I find more to like, _in policy terms_, in the CPC's ideas than in any of the others, but I certainly don't approve of all (maybe not even most) of what they propose.

But, sad to say, none of them are worth much on national defence, but that's not the end of the world because we can, when the time is right (when _necessity_ strikes) fix things, as we've done in the past: that's the wrong way to do things, but it's the Canadian way.


----------



## Remius (22 Sep 2015)

Well, the election has hit a new low with this...

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/harper-should-apologize-for-politicizing-terry-fox-mulcair-says-1.2575175

While Mr. Mulcair is probably right (and I think an apology was issed from teh campaign on this) he is just as bad by making it an issue and calling on the PM to apologise.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2015)

There was a "debate," of sorts, on women's issues, the CPC did not participate ... look at the Moderator's introductory remarks video on  Steve Ladurantaye's _Twitter_ feed to see why the CPC declined to join.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> At last, someone is asking some questions about defence spending.



The take-aways, in my opinion:

Trudeau paraphrased "We will supply the Canadian military whatever the Canadian worker can supply and the military will have to work with that."

Mulcair paraphrased "It is all about the process.  The quality of the answer is immaterial"

Harper paraphrased "They are both wrong"

Trudeau and Mulcair paraphrased "Do anything to upset those union jobs on the coasts?  Shirley, you jest!"


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2015)

The _Ottawa Citizen_, in a report on the (LGen (ret'd) Andrew Leslie campaign, suggests that the _"Liberals in Ottawa are feeling saucy these days, they talk about winning Nepean and Kanata-Carleton, Conservative strongholds more vulnerable than they have been with the retirements of John Baird and Gordon O’Connor, and Pierre Poilievre’s decamping for the even truer-blue riding of Carleton."_

Given Ottawa's large population of civil servants, especially middle and lower rank public servants, I would not be surprised to see the CPC take big hits ~ employment policies, like the ongoing sick leave disputes,  matter to most civil servants ~ in all Ottawa area constituencies.

Anyway, the full _Citizen_ article is worth a read for its take on defence issues.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Ottawa Citizen_, in a report on the (LGen (ret'd) Andrew Leslie campaign, suggests that the _"Liberals in Ottawa are feeling saucy these days, they talk about winning Nepean and Kanata-Carleton, Conservative strongholds more vulnerable than they have been with the retirements of John Baird and Gordon O’Connor, and Pierre Poilievre’s decamping for the even truer-blue riding of Carleton."_
> 
> Given Ottawa's large population of civil servants, especially middle and lower rank public servants, I would not be surprised to see the CPC take big hits ~ employment policies, like the ongoing sick leave disputes,  matter to most civil servants ~ in all Ottawa area constituencies.
> 
> Anyway, the full _Citizen_ article is worth a read for its take on defence issues.



How soon they forget the Press that Leslie received in 2011 when he stated that DND and the CAF should cut 11,000 civilian and military.  Many of those civilians and CAF members live in Orleans.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> How soon they forget the Press that Leslie received in 2011 when _he stated that DND and the CAF should cut 11,000 civilian and military_.  Many of those civilians and CAF members live in Orleans.




Actually, George, there was a lot of merit in what he said, there was some nonsense, too, but it's Ottawa, so we have to expect that.

If enough of those cuts had been taken by/in HQs, as he proposed, then the CF might have, now, have enough money and positions to enlist a couple of thousand more sailors, soldiers and air force personnel for our ships and units. Some of what he recommended was contracting out: many of the people "cut" would have found good, long term jobs, right here in Ottawa, with contractors. Andrew Leslie deserves to share some of the blame for the HQ bloat that seems to be sucking the life out of the CF ... but many, many more deserve a lot more blame than he.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2015)

And here is some red orange meat for the _Harper Haters,™_ from good ol' NDP _leftie_ Gerald Caplan, in an article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

My _emphasis_ added
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-uncertainty-in-this-election-is-unbearable/article26472928/


> The uncertainty in this election is unbearable
> 
> GERALD CAPLAN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




Enjoy!  :nod:


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Sep 2015)

:rofl: :cheers:


----------



## Jed (22 Sep 2015)

Wow! When Gerald Caplan just fantasizes about the NDP getting power he starts to act like a 'Pinky and the Brain' cartoon character.

I truly do fear what will happen to Canada if the NDP gets their hands on the reins.

I suppose I must be on of those dreaded 'Neocons'.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2015)

The _Globe and Mail_ has updated its Election Forecast and says there is a:

     39% chance that the Conservatives get the most seats;

     *41% chance that the NDP gets the most seats*;

     23% chance that the Liberals gets the most seats;

And, there is a

       21% chance that the Green party gets more than one seat;

       18% chance that all three main parties at 100 seats or more;

       1% chance that any party gets a majority.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Sep 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> Wow! When Gerald Caplan just fantasizes about the NDP getting power he starts to act like a 'Pinky and the Brain' cartoon character.
> 
> I truly do fear what will happen to Canada if the NDP gets their hands on the reins.
> 
> I suppose I must be on of those dreaded 'Neocons'.



Muclair already said today he'd roll back the EI rate decreases, but appoint "an independent board of directors" to oversee the fund. I wonder how long it'll take him to get his hand into that cookie jar after he he sees how fast its growing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2015)

And, according to a report in the _Ottawa Citizen_, Altair gets his wish. The report is headlined, "‘No circumstances’ under which Trudeau would support Harper continuing as prime minister" and says: "In his strongest statements to date, Trudeau said “there are no circumstances” under which he would prop up a minority Conservative government ... “I have spent my entire political career fighting against Mr. Harper’s narrow and meaner vision of what Canada can be and what the government should do,” he said Tuesday after an arts-and-culture announcement in Montreal ... “There are no circumstances in which I would support Stephen Harper to continue being prime minister of this country.”"


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> Well, the election has hit a new low with this...
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/harper-should-apologize-for-politicizing-terry-fox-mulcair-says-1.2575175
> 
> While Mr. Mulcair is probably right (and I think an apology was issed from teh campaign on this) he is just as bad by making it an issue and calling on the PM to apologise.




But, Prime Minister Harper says, that "the [Terry Fox] foundation in his name put forward the very ideas on cancer research funding the Conservatives announced over the weekend. Prime Minister Harper is quoted as saying, "“In August of this year we received a request from the Terry Fox Institute and the Terry Fox Foundation for the kinds of contributions and matching funds we’re setting up ... we fulfilled that request; I think it’s a great policy.”"

Maybe it's M Mulcair, not Prime Minister Harper who owes the apology ... for this one.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (22 Sep 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Shirley, you jest!"



I know Shirley and she _never_ jests!!


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And, according to a report in the _Ottawa Citizen_, Altair gets his wish. The report is headlined, "‘No circumstances’ under which Trudeau would support Harper continuing as prime minister" and says: "In his strongest statements to date, Trudeau said “there are no circumstances” under which he would prop up a minority Conservative government ... “I have spent my entire political career fighting against Mr. Harper’s narrow and meaner vision of what Canada can be and what the government should do,” he said Tuesday after an arts-and-culture announcement in Montreal ... “There are no circumstances in which I would support Stephen Harper to continue being prime minister of this country.”"




The _Toronto Sun_ also covers M Trudeaus "no circumstances would I support Harper" remarks and reports several hundred millions dollars in new arts funding:

    "Earlier Tuesday, at an event with local candidates and supporters, Trudeau announced the Liberals would give $380 million in additional funding for the arts and undo Conservative funding cuts to the CBC.

     Trudeau said he would reverse the $115 million in annual cuts the Conservative government made to the national broadcaster and would top up funding for CBC/Radio-Canada by an additional $35 million a year.

     He also said he would double the annual funding for the Canada Council of the Arts to $360 million from $180 million.

     Telefilm Canada and the National Film Board would together get an additional $25 million a year, he said."

Too bad he couldn't add that to DND's budget, but ...


----------



## GAP (22 Sep 2015)

I think he has finally realized that there is no actual chance of him becoming PM, so he is pulling an NDP....promise any and all.............


----------



## Altair (22 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And, according to a report in the _Ottawa Citizen_, Altair gets his wish. The report is headlined, "‘No circumstances’ under which Trudeau would support Harper continuing as prime minister" and says: "In his strongest statements to date, Trudeau said “there are no circumstances” under which he would prop up a minority Conservative government ... “I have spent my entire political career fighting against Mr. Harper’s narrow and meaner vision of what Canada can be and what the government should do,” he said Tuesday after an arts-and-culture announcement in Montreal ... “There are no circumstances in which I would support Stephen Harper to continue being prime minister of this country.”"


I've held my promise to stay away from here, the least you can do is not drag me into stuff.  :-\


----------



## Rocky Mountains (22 Sep 2015)

If Trudeau won't support a Conservative minority, he will preside over the death of the Liberal Party.  He should consider that Mulcair only was at 20 % in the polls a lot less than a year ago, not far from their historical average.  It was Trudeau's bone headed comments and inexperience that brought the Liberals down.  Making Mulcair PM will send the Liberal Party the way of the Liberal Party in the UK, into oblivion.  There is simply no need for 2 parties to be fighting over the leftist vote, considering that Mulcair has abandoned the hard left at least until the election is over.


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Sep 2015)

I am sick to the death of the constant Harper bashers/haters in the media. Can't even watch or listen to the news. Last night Global spent 12 of 30 minutes Trudeau fondling/Harper bashing with hardly a mention of the NDP. 

If the NDP form the next government, good on them. It will be the first and last time. Get it over with. It's like waiting for a dip shit boss to get posted.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> If Trudeau won't support a Conservative minority, he will preside over the death of the Liberal Party.  He should consider that Mulcair only was at 20 % in the polls a lot less than a year ago, not far from their historical average.  It was Trudeau's bone headed comments and inexperience that brought the Liberals down.  Making Mulcair PM will send the Liberal Party the way of the Liberal Party in the UK, into oblivion.  There is simply no need for 2 parties to be fighting over the leftist vote, considering that Mulcair has abandoned the hard left at least until the election is over.




I encourage you to look at George Dangerfield's _The Strange Death of Liberal England_ (1935); most libraries should have a copy, if not, there's always Amazon, which has it in stock. The situation has changed since the first decade of the 20th century but some of the circumstances are parallel.

The Question is: if the NDP moves, successfully, into and occupies _enough_ of the centre, the _mushy middle_, can the Liberals differentiate themselves _enough_ from the bold, brash newcomers?


----------



## Lumber (22 Sep 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> If Trudeau won't support a Conservative minority, he will preside over the death of the Liberal Party.  He should consider that Mulcair only was at 20 % in the polls a lot less than a year ago, not far from their historical average.  It was Trudeau's bone headed comments and inexperience that brought the Liberals down.  Making Mulcair PM will send the Liberal Party the way of the Liberal Party in the UK, into oblivion.  There is simply no need for 2 parties to be fighting over the leftist vote, considering that Mulcair has abandoned the hard left at least until the election is over.



As I've always been centre-left, I never really paid much attention to what was happening to the PC and Reform/Canadian Alliance parties. Is what's happening now between the Liberals and NDP similar to what happened between the PC and CA? Were the PC and CA very closely aligned ideologically or were they just trying to combine the right0wing vote in order to defeat the Liberals? Traditionally I'd say there was too much difference between the NDP and LPC for them to ever combine in the way the PC and CA did; Left-of-Centre vs. True Left-Wing. But with Mulcair leaning toward the centre, and Trudea leaning toward the left, could we see the Liberal Democratic Party of Canada? New Liberal Democrats? Democratic Liberal Party?


----------



## suffolkowner (22 Sep 2015)

ERC I think that's part of the Liberals problem. The Chretien years were conservative light, so why not vote for the real thing. Now they're left of the NDP. But all politics and no policy


----------



## GAP (22 Sep 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> could we see the Liberal Democratic Party of Canada? New Liberal Democrats? Democratic Liberal Party?



Well........at least then we would have all the dippers in one pot.....


----------



## Altair (23 Sep 2015)

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com//full-comment/kelly-mcparland-campaign-2015-is-trite-trivialized-and-superficial-no-wonder-voters-are-tuned-out



> It’s getting increasingly difficult to take this election seriously. There are big issues in the balance, as there always are, but it’s hard to spot them amid the careening, caterwauling campaigns and the screeching mobs bent on derailing them. It all reminds me of a description from the dawn of yellow journalism a century ago, when William Randolph Hearst overturned the staid world of journalism with lurid tales of sex, crime and political corruption: “A Hearst newspaper,” wrote one of his employees, “is like a screaming woman running down the street with her throat cut.”
> 
> The headlines alone make you want to skip right to the sports section, where the Blue Jays are winning and hockey is back. NDP candidate Pat Martin apologizes because he can’t control his potty mouth. NDP leader Thomas Mulcair apologizes because he once said “Newfie”. Is there a non-Newfie in Canada who hasn’t? The Prime Minister is being bashed for using the term “old stock” for some Canadians. Terry Fox’s family is upset at being offered money for their cancer fund during the campaign. A Liberal candidate is outed for allegedly trying to skip the sales tax on his home renovation, like about 80% of other homeowners. Another Liberal is dropped for making nutbar statements about the RCMP, which he thinks is “Canada’s Gestapo.” A third Liberal quits after suggesting pot-smoking is a good way to reduce domestic violence. A fourth apologizes for an obscenity-laced Twitter tirade, explaining he was drunk at the time.
> 
> ...



Helps explain why people couldn't care less about politics these days.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Sep 2015)

One of the least biased pieces produced thus far. It lambastes each party just about evenly, although it does go a little light on Mr Mulcair.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2015)

And, the opposite direction, the _Toronto Star_ plays the race card in an article that ascribes racist motives to Joe Daniel, an undistinguished CPC MP, a "visible minority," and an immigrant from Trinidad, because he cited his concerns about the _rush_ to screen Syrian refugees ... concerns that many Canadians share.


----------



## Lumber (23 Sep 2015)

> From: _Toronto Star_ plays the race card
> 
> "According to the Ottawa Citizen, star Conservative candidate Dianne Watts in Surrey South-White Rock (B.C.) retweeted a message implying the Islamic State had “orchestrated” the migration of Syrian refugees. The re-tweet has since been deleted."



My cynical side was also wondering the other day if ISIS is so brutal because they see it as a necessary evil; a tool with which to spread a wave muslims into the western world.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2015)

Reviving something said here, a few days ago, a fellow named Matt Skinner (@KrankyKanuck on _Twitter_) says, and _I agree_ that ...

          A Liberal party led by Mulcair would be infinitely better than the current NDP or Lib parties

          ... because, he says ...

         Mulcair has some useless MPs and the Liberal MPs have a useless leader.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2015)

And, here, from our _"will wonders never cease?"_ department is an excellent, _*informative*_ report, from _Global News_, on the promises made by the three contending party leaders. Well worth a look ...






(The article is too long to post.)


----------



## Remius (23 Sep 2015)

For those that follow the polls here is the latest NANOS poll.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/liberals-conservatives-numerically-tied-nanos-1.2576705


If I read this right, it looks like the NDP is close to dropping out of the margin of error and might be in third now. 

I'm not sure I'm a fan of Nanos' nightly polling but it seems according to them, that last week didn't hurt the conservatives but seems to have affected the liberals a bit in the positive.

I'll be curious to see what the other polls are saying.


----------



## Remius (23 Sep 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> For those that follow the polls here is the latest NANOS poll.
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/liberals-conservatives-numerically-tied-nanos-1.2576705
> 
> ...



And looking here at Eric Grenier's poll tracker we see what might be the start of a Liberal momentum.  Of note is their uptick in projected seat wins in Ontario.  This may explain why the leaders are there now duking it out.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Sep 2015)

This just out earlier today from the Conservatives:


> *Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that a re-elected Conservative government will re-establish College Militaire Royal de St. Jean as a full degree-granting institution.*
> 
> “From Charles de Salaberry during the War of 1812 to the tens of thousands of in uniform today, francophones have a long and honourable history of serving in our armed forces,” said the Prime Minister.
> 
> ...


More from CBC.ca here - more Army.ca backstory here.


----------



## Remius (23 Sep 2015)

Well that will likely initiate some debate.  It certainly caters to the Quebec voter but I wonder what the non-quebecer thinks.  

Do we really need another degree granting military college?  I'm not so sure.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Sep 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> For those that follow the polls here is the latest NANOS poll.
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/liberals-conservatives-numerically-tied-nanos-1.2576705
> 
> ...



http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/20150922%20Ballot%20TrackingE.pdf

Interesting to me is the 2nd Choice analysis.

The Tories have 46% with no second choice.  The Libs, NDP and Greens are 16%, 12% and 7% respective.  In the words of Alexander Keith: "Those that like the Tories like them a lot."  The Libs, NDP and Greens don't have a similarly dedicated core.

Meanwhile the Libs and the NDP have ~50% of their vote that is still considering voting for the other guy.  Could give Harper concerns with strategic voting but can't be doing much for letting Trudeau and Mulcair sleep at night.

As a Tory supporter this is interesting to me:

18% of Justin's 32% would vote for Harper as a second choice (an additional 5.7% of the vote in play for Harper).
11% of Tom's 29% would vote for Harper as a second choice (an additional 3.2% of the vote in play for Harper).
19% of Elizabeth's 4% would vote for Harper as a second choice (an additional 0.8% of the vote in play for Harper).
4% of Gilles's 3% would vote for Harper as a second choice (an additional 0.1% of the vote in play for Harper).

If Harper could convert all of those second choice votes then his total would be 31.5+5.7+3.2+0.8+0.1 = 41.3%
41.3% of the voters don't hate Harper/Tories and Harper has a solid core of 16% of the electorate to depend on.

Conversely the HarperHaters are split four ways and none of parties have a base of support as strong as the Tories 16%.

The Libs have a base of 16% of 31.6% = 5% of the electorate or 31% of the Tory base.
The NDP have a base of 12% of 29% = 3.5% or 21% of the Tory base.
The Greens have a base of 7% of 4% = 0.3% or 2% of the Tory base.
The Bloc have a base of 25% of 3% = 0.8% or 5% of the Tory base.

Add all of the firm anti-Harper teams together and you get 5%+3.5%+0.3%+0.8% = 9.6% of the electorate or 60% of the Tory base.

Advantage Team Harper I would say.  And the wide fluctuations in the polls for the Libs and NDP - swapping ground and back - while the Tory numbers have stayed fairly flat (constant) over the last couple of years is supportive of that hypothesis.

He has a bigger base than all his opponents combined, his support has stayed with him in good times and bad, and 42% 41.3% of the population are considering voting for him.

Meanwhile the opposition is greatly divided and inimical to each other, not just to Harper and the Tories.

At the same time the pool of undecided is dropping to the 10% range from the 20 to 25% range seen a year ago.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> Well that will likely initiate some debate.  It certainly caters to the Quebec voter but I wonder what the non-quebecer thinks.
> 
> Do we really need another degree granting military college?  I'm not so sure.




We have a current thread that deals with that, as an aside.

Some members make the (valid) point that we don't need any degree granting military colleges ~ RMC could be a _Sandhurst_ like institution doing officer training and degrees could be earned, later in an officer's career and any of Canada's universities, as the officer's wishes and the needs of the service, together, dictate.

Other members, me included, argue that both RMC and CMR should exist as both _Sandhurst_ like institutions and universities that grant some, special to the military, degrees, again later in an officer's career.


Edit: to add quote from Remius


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> We have a current thread that deals with that, as an aside.
> 
> Some members make the (valid) point that we don't need any degree granting military colleges ~ RMC could be a _Sandhurst_ like institution doing officer training and degrees could be earned, later in an officer's career and any of Canada's universities, as the officer's wishes and the needs of the service, together, dictate.
> 
> Other members, me included, argue that both RMC and CMR should exist as both _Sandhurst_ like institutions and universities that grant some, special to the military, degrees, again later in an officer's career.


That said, and given Canada's wide-thin support for the military, is this enough to get some mo' Quebec votes?


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That said, and given Canada's wide-thin support for the military, is this enough to get some mo' Quebec votes?




The CPC are only really competitive in a few Quebec ridings ~ maybe five _should wins_ and five more _could wins_; if this sways enough votes in even just one or two of those _could wins_ ridings then the party likely thinks it's a worthwhile promise ... to be kept at their leisure.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The CPC are only really competitive in a few Quebec ridings ~ maybe five _should wins_ and five more _could wins_; if this sways enough votes in even just one or two of those _could wins_ ridings then the party likely thinks it's a worthwhile promise ... to be kept at their leisure.


Good point in yellow there.


----------



## cupper (23 Sep 2015)

That would go far to pissing the Royal Roads alumni off.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Sep 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> That would go far to pissing the Royal Roads alumni off.



We kind of new it was bound to happen...just a matter of time...


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2015)

Although this is _local_, Ottawa news, it should be of interest because:

     1. It shows that the Liberals have made some substantial gains in ridings previously held by the Conservatives;

     2. With the exception of Ottawa Centre (where I live and vote) the NDP is not much of a factor in Ottawa; and

     3. LGen (Ret'd) Andrew Leslie (LPC) has a commanding lead over incumbent, albeit undistinguished CPC MP Royal Galipeau in Orléans.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Sep 2015)

Too bad about #3.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2015)

And this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Yahoo! News_, is just in from our _"who would have ever even thought the NDP might be unethical?"_ department:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/ndp-mp-pat-martin-used-donations-unions-pay-210359545.html


> NDP MP Pat Martin used donations from unions to pay off debt from defamation law suit
> 
> By Andy Radia | Canada Politics – Mon, 23 Sep, 2013
> 
> ...




 :rofl:  but no further comment ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2015)

Andrew Coyne, writing in the _Ottawa Citizen_, takes stock of the campaigns to date in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/andrew+coyne+liberal+message+might+make+much+sense+least+message/11385537/story.html


> Liberal message might not make much sense, but at least it’s a message
> 
> ANDREW COYNE  09.23.2015
> 
> ...




All true enough, _in my opinion_ ... so, when, if ever, will Canadians decide that one or the other of the three is "good enough" or, maybe, just "the best of a bad lot?" My guess is during the last week of the campaign, after the Thanksgiving long weekend, if they even bother to decide at all.

     (It all rather reminds me of the _Rhinoceros Party_ campaign promise, back in the 1980 campaign (after Joe Clark's short lived PC minority government) to have elections every six months, because they're so much fun.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2015)

And, in an article in the _Toronto Sun_ David Akin says that, given the _promises_ by both M Mulcair and M Trudeau that "there isn't a snowball's chance in hell," and there are "no circumstances in which I [Justin Trudeau] would support Stephen Harper to continue being prime minister,” "it’s a majority or bust for Stephen Harper."

David Akin goes on to say:

     "Their first opportunity will likely come in late November on a confidence vote over the Speech from the Throne, the speech that sets out the broad legislative agenda and objectives of any government.

      Now, if a government loses a confidence vote mere weeks after a general election, it would be up to Governor General David Johnston to force a new election or simply let someone else have a crack at winning “the confidence of the House.”

      Johnston is the right G-G for this conundrum as he is widely regarded as a constitutional expert in his own right.

      But if Johnston calls on Mulcair or Trudeau to try to form a government, how would either man do it? Would it be through a formal coalition where, perhaps, one was the other’s deputy prime minister? Would it be an agreement not to bring down
      this new government for a certain period of time? What would the terms be?

      Mulcair’s and Trudeau’s declarations this week have turned these questions away from the realm of the hypothetical and into the realm of the real. And yet, voters who seek enlightenment on these issues get only obfuscation from both New Democrats
      and Liberals."


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Although this is _local_, Ottawa news, it should be of interest because:
> 
> 1. It shows that the Liberals have made some substantial gains in ridings previously held by the Conservatives;
> 
> ...




Further to this, the _Ottawa Citizen_ reports that a MAINSTREET poll shows Ontario as a CPC vs LPC battleground with the NDP in a (distant) third position:

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




The questions, my questions, anyway, are:

     1. Can the CPC and LPC maintain this sort of thing until after Thanksgiving? and,

     2. Can either the CPC or the LPC "break out" in Ontario?

It seems to me that a CPC "break out" in Ontario is the only way for Stephen Harper to get the majority that David Akin suggests he needs.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2015)

For those who wonder why defence and foreign policy are not campaign issues, Jeffrey Simpson says, in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_  that it's because we, Canadians, are a smug, self satisfied, inward looking bunch of freeloaders, and we like it that way, and, therefore, we're not about to discuss the policies that give us our unearned sense of moral superiority:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/were-a-country-comforted-by-untruths/article26504246/


> We’re a country comforted by untruths
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...



I don't often agree with Mr Simpson, just as a stopped clock is _right_ twice a day, so he, too, must be _right_ from time to time ... this is one of those times.


----------



## Lumber (24 Sep 2015)

If anyone can find a copy of the poll I'd love to see it. So far, I can only find a few articles from news agencies in Toronto reporting on this, which surprises me, because it's the biggest move in the election to date:

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/09/24/conservatives-swing-into-lead-close-in-on-majority-government-new-poll-suggests.html



> *Conservatives swing into lead, close in on majority government, new poll suggests.*
> 
> MONTREAL—Stephen Harper’s Conservative party has taken a commanding lead in the federal election race, a new poll suggests.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2015)

Here is a link to the original, it says:

    "Si les élections avaient lieu aujourd'hui, les conservateurs de Stephen Harper obtiendraient 35,4% des suffrages, ce qui pourrait être suffisant pour former au moins un gouvernement minoritaire. C'est surtout le NPD qui semble écoper
     de cette remontée du Parti conservateur: il voit ses appuis chuter de 5,4 points à l'échelle nationale, pour s'établir à 24,5%. Ce faisant, les troupes de Thomas Mulcair culbutent au troisième rang dans les intentions de vote, derrière le Parti libéral,
     qui récolte 26,3% des appuis, en baisse de 1,1 point de pourcentage. En tout, Ekos a interrogé 2343 Canadiens dans le cadre de ce sondage réalisé du 17 au 22 septembre. La marge d'erreur est de plus ou moins 2%, 19 fois sur 20."

Which means:

CPC:  35.4% ↑<6%
LPC:  26.3% ↓ 1.1%
NDP: 24.5% ↓5.4%


----------



## Lumber (24 Sep 2015)

Strange that you can't find the poll on the Ekos website.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2015)

This makes tonight's French language debate even more important. If, as the MAINSTREET poll (previous page) suggests, the NDP is third, well behind the CPC and LPC, in Ontario, then it must hold on to its Quebec base. The expectations from the national media _commentariat_ are that all the other leaders will gang up on M Mulcair and this will benefit, mainly, the LPC.

I can _imagine_ that, _IF_ the _Ekos_ poll results are both valid and durable, until Oct 19, that I might have to update my old old _guesstimate_, which was based on the notion that M Mulcair could not sustain NDP popularity in Quebec, to look like rather this:

Conservatives:         169   seats
Liberals:                     90±
NDP:                           63±
Other QC Party:       15±
Greens & Others:      1±
TOTAL                     338


----------



## Lumber (24 Sep 2015)

I'd almost be happy with a conservative majority just so I can watch all the Harper-haters/ABC crowd go nuts. They'd be crying foul and rigged election for years. It'd make for good reading.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2015)

I'm of two minds: _First_, I don't like minority government because good public policy must, always, be compromised for the sake of power brokering; and, _Second_, the CPC is old, tired, and out of ideas and it needs (deserves) a "time out" to rethink it's policies and leadership, _*but*_ I wouldn't trust either M Mulcair or M Trudeau with a majority.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Sep 2015)

There's still the option of the Bloc supporting them. Of all four parties, the Bloc would probably be in the most dire financial position and need the most time to restock the coffers. If the Torries do form a minority, their hope would be to last 12 to 18 months before the next election. If Mr Harper makes his exit at the four month point, then I think that the earliest possible election is 12 months.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Sep 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I'd almost be happy with a conservative majority just so I can watch all the Harper-haters/ABC crowd go nuts. They'd be crying foul and rigged election for years. It'd make for good reading.



Too true. What struck me about the last episode was the "it's not partisan but we're only contesting Conservative wins" claim. Notwithstanding that there were an equal number of tight races won by the other parties, some with an even thinner margin of victory that the six Conservative wins.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2015)

The _Globe and Mail_ reports on a new Léger poll under the headline: "NDP losing momentum in Quebec in new Léger poll."

The _Globe and Mail_ says the latest Quebec number are:

BQ:   20% ⇧ 2%
CPC: 18% ⇧ 5%
LPC:  22% ⇧ 2%
NDP: 38% ⇩ 8%

Remember, there are _25 days_ to go ...


----------



## suffolkowner (24 Sep 2015)

I want to see a conservative minority government just to see how the legislative session plays out.
With regard to party finances do you not think the first thing a Liberal-New Democrat government (no matter how short lived) would do is reinstate the vote subsidy


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2015)

Oh, and about that "middle class" notion ... here is an OECD chart showing the _Gini coefficient_:






Canada is, as you can see, in the middle of a pack of comparable nations, wedged, at about 0.3, in between somewhat _more equal_ Germany and somewhat _less equal_ New Zealavd ... we're are _much more equal_ than America (0.4) and _much less equal_ than Denmark (0.25), for whatever that's worth.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2015)

In this report, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, Bill Curry suggests that the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan might not come to fruition if there is either a Liberal or NDP government in Ottawa:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/ontario-downplaying-introduction-of-orpp-tied-to-lower-ei-premiums/article26505766/


> Why a federal Liberal or NDP win could put Ontario pension plan at risk
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...



I'm tempted to say _"Advantage: Liberals"_ because I think M Trudeau can _hint_ that he and Premier Wynne can reach some kind of friendly agreement that would negate the perceived (by premier Wynne) need for the unpopular programme.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2015)

And here, in a report by Jennifer Ditchburn of the _Canadian Press_ which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, we get a peek inside the NDP campaign machine:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/former-obama-strategist-aiding-ndp-says-only-mulcair-can-beat-harper/article26515465/


> Former Obama strategist aiding NDP, says only Mulcair can beat Harper
> 
> JENNIFER DITCHBURN
> OTTAWA — The Canadian Press
> ...




I wonder how he feels about the (apparently) falling NDP fortunes in _la bell province_?


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Sep 2015)

So where's the caterwauling now that the NDP has hired a TFW?


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Sep 2015)

Mulcair and Trudeau having stated their refusal to work with Harper, there are only two conceivable outcomes in which a CPC minority (if it is the largest minority, in order to meet Harper's own criterion - the party with the most seats) governs:
1) Seat count of CPC + BQ >= 170.
2) Seat count of CPC very close to 170, and Harper goes shopping for floor-crossers before the first confidence vote.

Mulcair and Trudeau have changed the calculations of all voters who favoured a CPC minority subject to bargaining with NDP and LPC opposition.  Now voters have to decide: CPC majority, LPC minority, or NDP minority.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Sep 2015)

Is "expansion of CPP" a roundabout way of saying "increase benefits and premiums", being in turn a roundabout way of saying "we spent most of our income on ourselves instead of raising more children (or any at all), so now you kids will have to pay a greater share of your income to support us"?


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> For those who wonder why defence and foreign policy are not campaign issues, Jeffrey Simpson says, in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_  that it's because we, Canadians, are a smug, self satisfied, inward looking bunch of freeloaders, and we like it that way, and, therefore, we're not about to discuss the policies that give us our unearned sense of moral superiority:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/were-a-country-comforted-by-untruths/article26504246/
> I don't often agree with Mr Simpson, just as a stopped clock is _right_ twice a day, so he, too, must be _right_ from time to time ... this is one of those times.



Ici aussi, deux fois.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm of two minds: _First_, I don't like minority government because good public policy must, always, be compromised for the sake of power brokering; and, _Second_,* the CPC is old, tired, and out of ideas *and it needs (deserves) a "time out" to rethink it's policies and leadership, _*but*_ I wouldn't trust either M Mulcair or M Trudeau with a majority.



When we talk "ideas" are we talking "visions"?  I voted Tory because they weren't selling "visions" they were selling "governance" and promising to be boring.....  And boring they are.

The other reason I voted Tory was I detested the concept of a "Natural Governing Party" and Justin Trudeau is ample evidence that it, and the underlying assumptions (Jeffrey Simpson and Lawrence Martin - avatars) are not dead yet.

With respect to defence and aid - if Jeffrey wants to start punting for a defence budget of 1.8% of GDP and a foreign aid budget of 0.7% - together with a decision on a fighter replacement and Big Honking Ships to transport troops, tanks, aid workers and refugees - then I would consider paying for his articles.

As for health and education?  Nothing preventing the provinces and cities from going to their own taxpayers and hiking taxes locally.

The Tories are tired, they are boring and they are as venial as any other mob - but they have not completed my primary task - the "reset" of the Liberals and all those that support them. Not the people that support them because of their policies but those that support them because of their Gravy Train.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Globe and Mail_ reports on a new Léger poll under the headline: "NDP losing momentum in Quebec in new Léger poll."
> 
> The _Globe and Mail_ says the latest Quebec number are:
> 
> ...



Three long times and an event?


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Sep 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So where's the caterwauling now that the NDP has hired a TFW?



The Americanization of the NDP.


----------



## Pencil Tech (24 Sep 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I want to see a conservative minority government just to see how the legislative session plays out.
> With regard to party finances do you not think the first thing a Liberal-New Democrat government (no matter how short lived) would do is reinstate the vote subsidy



They should reinstate the voter subsidy.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2015)

I'm putting this here, rather than in the Ontario election thread, because Justin Trudeau has, often, appeared to be joined at the hip with Premier Kathleen Wynne.

Now, the _Toronto Star_ reports that scandal has washed over Premier Wynne and her party.

The article says, in part:

    "Huddled around their leader in the east lobby of the Ontario legislature, Liberal MPPs saw something they had never seen before in the normally unflappable Premier Kathleen Wynne.

     Fear.

     It was moments after a searing question period and Wynne was still absorbing the jarring news that Pat Sorbara, her deputy chief of staff and campaign guru, ‎had been accused by Elections Ontario of the “apparent contravention”
     of bribery laws related to the Sudbury byelection."

And:

    "Wynne appeared to some witnesses — including a Star reporter glancing through a doorway — to be rattled as she implored her colleagues‎ to circle the wagons around Sorbara and Sudbury Liberal organizer Gerry Lougheed.
  
     Both operatives are being in investigated by Ontario Provincial Police for allegedly offering a job to former Liberal candidate Andrew Olivier in exchange for him clearing the way for then-NDP MP Glenn Thibeault to defect to the Grits."

Will this _stain_, this renewed stench of Liberal corruption, tarnish M Trudeau's image?


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Sep 2015)

Reporter/analyst David Akin is both decent & charitable in sharing the facts of this case, where an NDP candidate in the Hamilton area (who also happens to be the vice-chair of the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, with a Masters degree - in social work, admittedly) told a reporter that she didn't know what Auschwitz was until when she had to apologize for a tasteless social media posting.

Really?  Really?  Are my expectations tooooooooooo high here?  :facepalm:  As David said in his piece:


> Can a party fire one of its candidates for unbelievable, jaw-dropping ignorance?
> 
> Well, if political parties started doing that, we probably wouldn’t have many candidates on our ballots ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Reporter/analyst David Akin is both decent & charitable in sharing the facts of this case, where an NDP candidate in the Hamilton area (who also happens to be the vice-chair of the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, with a Masters degree - in social work, admittedly) told a reporter that she didn't know what Auschwitz was until when she had to apologize for a tasteless social media posting.
> 
> Really?  Really?  Are my expectations tooooooooooo high here?  :facepalm:  As David said in his piece:




More, here, including this bit:

    "Prior to earning a master of social work degree from McMaster University — where her thesis dealt with race, class, and gender dynamics — Johnstone spent two years studying social justice and peace studies at Western University's Kings College.

     According to the King's website, that program "encourages critical reflection on oppression and injustice, locally and globally.""


How in the name of all that's holy can _anyone_ have a Master's degree in _anything_ from a repultable university and not know what Auschwitz means? How can _Western/King's_ have passed _anyone_ in _anything_ related to social justice and skipped over the _Holocaust_? In my opinion the problem isn't that Ms Johnstone is stupid, I'm sure she isn't; the problem is that she spent years and years in post secondary education and no one taught her anything ...

Maybe what's needed is a deep academic review of the academic standards at _McMaster_ and _Western_, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to award degrees until we are sure they have qualified faculty doing real teaching about real subjects ...


----------



## MARS (24 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm putting this here, rather than in the Ontario election thread, because Justin Trudeau has, often, appeared to be joined at the hip with Premier Kathleen Wynne.
> 
> Now, the _Toronto Star_ reports that scandal has washed over Premier Wynne and her party.
> 
> ...



No, it won't.  Why would it?  i don't think it is any more serious or will taint the LPC anymore than Robocalls have tainted the CPC or the satellite offices ended by taxpayer dollars have tainted the NDP. Which is to say very little, if at all, in the long run.  None of these stories have the legs given how long a week is in politics.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Sep 2015)

Come on now.  The NDP faux pas' are getting really bad in the Hamilton area.  Thomas Mulcair addressed Alex Johnstone as "a wonderful man".  

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/ndp-candidate-not-upset-tom-mulcair-called-her-a-wonderful-man-1.3162730


----------



## dapaterson (24 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Come on now.  The NDP faux pas' are getting really bad in the Hamilton area.  Thomas Mulcair addressed Alex Johnstone as "a wonderful man".
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/ndp-candidate-not-upset-tom-mulcair-called-her-a-wonderful-man-1.3162730



[Life of Brian]

Don't you oppress me!

[/Life of Brian]


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Come on now.  The NDP faux pas' are getting really bad in the Hamilton area.  Thomas Mulcair addressed Alex Johnstone as "a wonderful man".
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/ndp-candidate-not-upset-tom-mulcair-called-her-a-wonderful-man-1.3162730


 :rofl:

We couldn't make this s**t up, could we?



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> How in the name of all that's holy can _anyone_ have a Master's degree in _anything_ from a repultable university and not know what Auschwitz means?


Exactly!  Makes me feel kind of proud of only having a BA (also in the social sciences) and knowing about Auschwitz  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And here is an updated _Predictionator_ from David Akin:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And it looks, in the latest _Predictionator_ from _Sun Media_'s David Akin, as if things have changed in the last week or so:


----------



## Underway (24 Sep 2015)

I have a B.Sc. and still know what Auschwitz is.  But I would be willing to bet that most people you stop on the street in Hamilton West-Ancaster-Dundas wouldn't know what Auschwitz was.  And that's a relatively a high income area with many supposedly educated people.  Its gonna be a non-issue.


----------



## Underway (24 Sep 2015)

I don't understand what has changed with this predictonator.  The polls are essentially still tied at approx 30% each.  Is the conservative vote really that efficient??


----------



## suffolkowner (24 Sep 2015)

I don't know, I think familiarity with Auschwitz should come with a high school education, never mind university. I am a big proponent that we need to return to a more turn of the century natural philosophy tradition.

Looking good for conservative minority. Doesn't look like any scandal will touch any party. Everyone's just used to it, I guess


----------



## dimsum (24 Sep 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I don't know, I think familiarity with Auschwitz should come with a high school education, never mind university.



Totally agree.  I'm sure WWII is covered in high school history, and concentration camps are covered as part of WWII unless the the teacher is a Holocaust denier, in which case there are bigger issues.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> I don't understand what has changed with this predictonator.  The polls are essentially still tied at approx 30% each.  Is the conservative vote really that efficient??




David Akin explains his _Predictionator_ methodology here.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2015)

A pretty good NDP ad attacking Justin Trudeau.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2015)

According to the the national media _commentariat_ M Mulcair "won" the debate, but no one, except, perhaps Ms May, turned in less that fully acceptable performances, and there were no "knock out" blows. Let's wait and see if it provokes any movements in the public polls ...


Ooops ... two small boo-boos, fixed them quickly  :-[

Further edited to add:

Further reading of the _pundits_ suggests that:

     1. All of Prime Minister Harper, M Mulcair and M Duceppe turned in good, solid performances; but

     2. Since M Mulcair was seen as being the one with "the most to lose" he is, also, counted as the winner because he fended off attacks from all sides.

On a_ purely personal_ level: I'm sure that M Trudeau is a very nice young man and not, at all, in any way, less than bright, but ... he doesn't _seem_ to belong in the same room as Prime Minister Harper and Messers Duceppe and Mulcair. He, and Elizabeth May, just _seem, to me_, to be a bit "out of their league."


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Sep 2015)

They picked an excellent English language voice for Trudeau, he sounded like a whiny child the entire time.

What I don't get, is why there is allowed to be a French-only debate, but every English one has to have French segments.


----------



## McG (25 Sep 2015)

I don't remember there being any French in the previous two debates


----------



## George Wallace (25 Sep 2015)

Now hearing that the interpreter for Harper did not do a good job.  (I was not watching debate, so wouldn't know.)


----------



## GAP (25 Sep 2015)

The voice-over for the translators on CTV was very poorly done....I don't know about the other networks....

They left in all the background babbling, the voice-over was not clear and distinct....very hard to follow....

Harper came out pretty good, as everybody was out to attack Mulclair. Trudeau came across weakly, almost singing Kum Bay Ah about wanting to raise up the middle class that he doesn't give two shits about.

Duceppe, is still the separatist. 

There is a reason why May should NOT be included....she adds nothing.....


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Sep 2015)

Droppin' like flies ....
_"(Winnipeg) NDP candidate quits over social media posts linking Jewish sect to the Taliban"_
 :facepalm:


----------



## Danjanou (25 Sep 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I don't know, I think familiarity with Auschwitz should come with a high school education, never mind university.



Apparently not in some school districts in the Hamilton region  8)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 Sep 2015)

I have two points on this article.

Firstly, if commenting on the backwardness of treatment of women by some more extremist/traditionalist religious group with a comment as innocuous as the one the candidate made, where he merely compared the said treatment (on that point only) by two different groups to show them to be the same [exact quote: "much like the Taliban and other extremists, the Haredim offer a toxic caricature of faith at odds with the spirit of the religious tradition they profess to represent."], then the totally sterilized and vacuous public discourse we are left with will never permit the resolution of any problem by the politicians. IMHO the statement by the candidate is well within the bounds of free speech, does not even remotely come close to being inappropriate and if that is now the bar to disqualify candidates, we may not find anyone to stand for parliament in a few years.

Secondly: "Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley": ??? Who comes up with these name  :facepalm:


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Sep 2015)

I know I'd sure as hell be not acceptable.


----------



## Lumber (25 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Droppin' like flies ....
> _"(Winnipeg) NDP candidate quits over social media posts linking Jewish sect to the Taliban"_
> :facepalm:



This is why we need to get rid of the requirment for the Party Leader's edorsement as a requirement for running for office. If the people in his riding had a problem with his statement, then they won't elect him. If the registered NDP in his riding don't want him, they will elect a new representative. 

I hate how our political process is democratic, but our Political process is a malignant dictatorship.


----------



## Kilo_302 (25 Sep 2015)

Yet more meddling with what is usually publicly accessible information, this time around gas prices of all things.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-fuel-prices-neil-macdonald-1.3240778



> Today, though, the Canadian public service is generally regarded as muzzled, more so than at any time in the modern era.
> 
> The current government seems to consider information a political tool, easily weaponized, and has ordered bureaucrats largely to refrain from communication with the general public they are supposed to serve. With particular emphasis, of course, on the media.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rocky Mountains (25 Sep 2015)

"Jonasson is a minister in the Unitarian Universalist Church"

Known to Christians as heretics.  Oh Oh!  I've just disqualified myself from running for Parliament.  Badmouthing Jews in Winnipeg is not a way to get elected.


----------



## Kilo_302 (25 Sep 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> "Jonasson is a minister in the Unitarian Universalist Church"
> 
> Known to Christians as heretics.  Oh Oh!  I've just disqualified myself from running for Parliament.  Badmouthing Jews in Winnipeg is not a way to get elected.



The NDP's move to the center is going to hurt them I think. Ditching candidates who are critical of Israel, and this chap who I think correctly compared a fundamentalist sect of Judaism to the Taliban stands in sharp contrast to standing by another candidate who doesn't believe in abortion or gay marriage. A lot of NDP supporters I know are assessing their options. Not a scientific poll by any means, but if history is any indicator the left party who pretends to be on the right during election season always loses.


----------



## Lumber (25 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The NDP's move to the center is going to hurt them I think. Ditching candidates who are critical of Israel, and this chap who I think correctly compared a fundamentalist sect of Judaism to the Taliban stands in sharp contrast to standing by another candidate who doesn't believe in abortion or gay marriage. A lot of NDP supporters I know are assessing their options. Not a scientific poll by any means, but if history is any indicator the left party who pretends to be on the right during election season always loses.



NDP loses election for leaning too close to centre (Liberals lose for whatever reason).
Large faction of NDP break way and form new Left-Wing party (the Social Democratic Party of Canada).
Remaining members of NDP dissolve and join Liberal party.
Trudeau steps down as leader.
Mulcair steps in as interim ledear à la Bob Rae.
8 More years of Conservative leadership.


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Sep 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I have two points on this article.
> 
> Firstly, if commenting on the backwardness of treatment of women by some more extremist/traditionalist religious group with a comment as innocuous as the one the candidate made, where he merely compared the said treatment (on that point only) by two different groups to show them to be the same [exact quote: "much like the Taliban and other extremists, the Haredim offer a toxic caricature of faith at odds with the spirit of the religious tradition they profess to represent."], then the totally sterilized and vacuous public discourse we are left with will never permit the resolution of any problem by the politicians. IMHO the statement by the candidate is well within the bounds of free speech, does not even remotely come close to being inappropriate and if that is now the bar to disqualify candidates, we may not find anyone to stand for parliament in a few years.
> 
> Secondly: "Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley": ??? Who comes up with these name  :facepalm:



 :goodpost: 

Admittedly not every sect feels that public execution is the appropriate penalty for a woman failing to comply with the dress code.

Haven't seen much evidence of that amongst the local Hutterites or Mennonites (nor even the Mormons).


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Sep 2015)

The political left is in a bind of its own making with respect to intolerance for freely-expressed controversial opinions.  Social media made practical the "Two Minutes Hate", and progressives have been early and strong adopters to attack those with whom they disagree.  The tactic is available to all.  Consequently, people with something to lose (politicians during an election) are hypersensitive and seek to deny opponents a target.


----------



## CougarKing (25 Sep 2015)

Perhaps the Tories can foil their plans the same way Jason Kenny did in 2011 by focusing his efforts in ridings that were predominantly of the recent immigrant demographic.

Reuters



> *Canada's Liberals try to boost share of important immigrant vote*
> Fri Sep 25, 2015 11:40am EDT
> 
> By David Ljunggren
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 Sep 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The political left is in a bind of its own making with respect to intolerance for freely-expressed controversial opinions.  Social media made practical the "Two Minutes Hate", and progressives have been early and strong adopters to attack those with whom they disagree.  The tactic is available to all.  Consequently, people with something to lose (politicians during an election) are hypersensitive and seek to deny opponents a target.



Full disclosure: I have always been (Progressive) conservative.

This said, Brad, if you think this is something of the left's own making, I strongly suggest you go and read anything by Ann Coulter.

She is certainly not making the point that the "right" is any better. I break down in hives every time I  read something from her. I think the right is just as "politically-correct" when it is applied to leftist speech they don't approve of.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Yet more meddling with what is usually publicly accessible information, this time around gas prices of all things.



Perhaps it's just some of "must not be seen to be influencing or meddling in the election" that the CF and OGD are bound by?


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Sep 2015)

>This said, Brad, if you think this is something of the left's own making, I strongly suggest you go and read anything by Ann Coulter.

The political right has a share.  But the political right is several orders of magnitude behind when it comes to disinviting and harassing speakers, demanding language policing, orchestrating publicity campaigns to get people fired for taking the "wrong" side of a political issue, musing about criminalizing some classes of dissent and skepticism, and generally treating political disagreement as a moral failing.


----------



## cupper (25 Sep 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I break down in hives every time I  read something from her.



I found the cure to that is to change the channel, turn the page, stick my hand over my ears and go LA-LA-LA-LA.

Best cure is to leash up the dogs and go for a walk, enjoy the fresh air.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2015)

The _Globe and Mail_ has updated its Election Forecast:

_Conservatives take the lead after new polls; Liberals close in on NDP_

Our election forecast, based on recent polls and historical data, projects the likelihood that a given party would win the most seats, if an election were held today. Our algorithm was designed in consultation with political scientist Paul Fairie (read more about how it works). This page will be updated frequently with new polls. Scroll down to explore the data.

     50% chance that the Conservatives get the most seats

     29% chance that the NDP gets the most seats

     23% chance that the Liberals get the most seats

And: 

     24% chance that the Green party gets more than one seat

     17% chance that all three main parties win 100 seats or more

      1% chance that any party gets a majority.

_LATEST ANALYSIS_

Conservatives take the lead after new polls; Liberals pulling up to NDP

Paul Fairie
Special to The Globe and Mail

_UPDATE SEPT. 25:_ The Conservatives have re-taken the lead in the Globe Election Forecast for two reasons. First, a strong performance in an EKOS poll gave the party 35 per cent of the national vote, compared to just 26 per cent for the Liberals and 25 for the NDP. If these results are repeated by other firms in the next few days, this is very good news for the government; if the poll is an outlier, this will become clear in short order, and its effect in the Forecast will wash out. Second, the NDP have polled somewhat weaker than usual in Quebec, most notably in the most recent Léger poll. While still in first, and down compared to earlier polls in the range of eight percentage points, losing grip on even 10 seats in a three-way race reduces any party's chances of winning the most seats.

_Sept. 22:_ Public opinion data has been streaming in since the federal leaders' debate last Thursday, and all evidence suggests that voters remain as divided as ever.

Winning a debate isn't the same thing as winning an election. A better measure of who won can be seen by looking at who moved the most votes. Here, too, signals are mixed. While the Nanos 3-day tracking poll showed its usual three-way race, Ipsos had the Liberals taking a small lead. The last time they had the Liberals in first was back in late May when they were tied at 31 per cent with the Conservatives. Similarly, the Liberals continue their gradual improvement in the Globe Election Forecast.

_Sept. 14:_ As the polls draw even to a three-way split in the popular vote, so do the odds of each party winning the most seats. While the NDP and Conservatives remain ahead, the Liberals continue to improve their chances of winning the largest parliamentary caucus primarily as a result of their recent strong polling performances in Ontario.

_Friday, Sept. 8:_ The close three-way race in the federal election has become even tighter in the last week. A diminished Conservative vote coupled with growing Liberal support now gives all three parties with a realistic shot of winning the most seats in October. A consequence of this three-way race is seen in the Election Forecast's estimate of the likelihood of a majority government: just 2.2 per cent.

_Wednesday, Sept. 2:_ The Globe’s forecast now predicts that the NDP are the most likely party to win the largest number of seats, with the party leading in 53 per cent of the simulations. This follows a string of seven consecutive national polls each showing a lead of between 1 and 10 percentage points for the New Democrats.

The seven poll lead was reported by seven different pollsters, using three different methods: traditional telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and online surveys. The New Democrats have only had such a string of good polling on two separate occasions during this parliament: earlier this year in June, and in the May-June period of 2012.

In good news for the Liberals, three recent polls, by Nanos, Ipsos Reid and Forum, have showed the party in second place, ahead of the Conservatives. Furthermore, polls consistently suggest the gap between first and third place is under 5 percentage points.

This all reinforces how unusual this election is: the best a third-place party has ever done in terms of vote share was in 1988, when the Ed Broadbent-led NDP won 20.4 per cent of the vote. Currently, we’re in a situation where whatever party is polling in third is earning 25 per cent popular support.

_Paul Fairie is a University of Calgary political scientist who studies voter behaviour, who designed The Globe’s Election Forecast._


----------



## jollyjacktar (25 Sep 2015)

Hmmmm, I may be looking for some Crow to be on my dinner table on the 20th.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Sep 2015)

Maybe the "evil Stephen Harper, we're better" narrative is running thin among voters who want actual substance to their election promises. Still a long time to go, but I don't think Trudeau's ever polled this low.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> For those who wonder why defence and foreign policy are not campaign issues, Jeffrey Simpson says, in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_  that it's because we, Canadians, are a smug, self satisfied, inward looking bunch of freeloaders, and we like it that way, and, therefore, we're not about to discuss the policies that give us our unearned sense of moral superiority:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/were-a-country-comforted-by-untruths/article26504246/
> I don't often agree with Mr Simpson, just as a stopped clock is _right_ twice a day, so he, too, must be _right_ from time to time ... this is one of those times.




There is a long, complex and, with _*some*_ justification, critical article, here, in the _Globe and Mail_ which is offered in preparation for the _Munk Debate_ (three major party leaders on foreign policy) on 28 Sep. It has several useful infographics embedded in it.

I agree, wholly, with Gen (Ret'd) John de Chastelain when he says,_ “You’re supposed to talk softly and carry a big stick. But it seems to me that we have been talking loudly and increasingly carrying only a twig. I think we need to stand up for what we think is right, and for what our allies think is right, but we must have the resources commensurate with our wish to be involved.”_ In other words we need the _means_ (money) to give real, enduring, positive effect to the government's _principles_.

Equally, I disagree wholly with Madame Justice Louise Arbour when she says, _“Canada, to everybody’s surprise, became the sole dissenter. … That in itself is completely bizarre. Canada can’t play alone. The U.S. can do that, China can do that, maybe Russia. But not Canada, and not Sweden for that matter ... At the time, I thought it was inexperience. But it became clear that it was a way of doing business, that Canada was unwilling to yield on certain things to create a consensus.”_ We can have _principles_ and we can stand up for them, even if we must, sometimes, stand alone.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2015)

Conservative _insider_ Andrew MacDpougall, Senior Executive Consultant at MSLGROUP London and is a former director of communications to Stephen Harper, speculates, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, on why Prime Minister Harper will not _do the right thing_ and collapse and leave the field to either M Mulcair or M Trudeau:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/macdougall-is-stephen-harper-a-honey-badger-or-black-knight


> Is Stephen Harper a honey badger, or Black Knight?
> 
> ANDREW MACDOUGALL
> 
> ...




I have said, many times, that, _in my opinion_, M Trudeau's route to power, to 24 Sussex Drive, has to be, _first: _through the NDP, starting in Quebec, and, only _second:_ through Stephen Harper and the CPC. That's a tough challenge: defeat one enemy and then turn about and defeat another ~ it's the sort of thing that a Rommel or a von Manstein might have accomplished on the military battlefield, it's not the sort of thing that I think Gerald Butts can pull off on the Canadian political battlefield.

The NDP have obvious vulnerabilities, and _I think_ M Trudeau's team have done quite well at hitting them, as _I believe_ they must. But, while the Conservatives have a _soft underbelly_, the Liberal decision to outflank the NDP on the left has, pretty much, closed that option. The Conservative base is weak in one area: fiscal conservatives. Those fiscal conservatives will not trust the NDP: there is just too much baggage in the NDP base to trust M Mulcair's move to the _centre_. But, those fiscal conservatives, mainly in Ontario, were, probably, prepared to trust the Liberal Party of _Canada_, they did, before, in the 1990s ... but they are not prepared to trust the Liberal Party of _Ontario_ and that is what the Trudeau campaign looks like. So, by outflanking the NDP on the left and by aligning himself too closely with Premier Wynne, _I think_ that M Trudeau has forgone the support of the one part of the Conservative base that could have been shaken loose.


----------



## Underway (26 Sep 2015)

Thanksgiving weekend is the time where we will see the campaign begin to coalesce.  All those family arguments and discussions over the turkey have a way of prodding Canadians towards making a decision.  Forces us to actually pay attention to the campaign, as there's always one member in every family who brings it up as a topic of conversation.

This three way tie won't be the final result, and we will see that on voting day, similar to the British election.  I think there will be more than one surprise.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Sep 2015)

Do Mulcair and Trudeau have any concept of what is going on in the world?  Their attitude towards our National Security and protection of our society is really beyond calling naive.  They are completely "Out to Lunch".

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canada-revokes-citizenship-of-toronto-18-ringleader



> NDP leader Tom Mulcair has said he would scrap the citizenship revocation law, and on Friday Liberal leader Justin Trudeau repeated his pledge to repeal it. “The bill creates second-class citizens,” he said. “No elected official should ever have the exclusive power to revoke Canadian citizenship. Under a Liberal government there will be no two-tiered citizenship. A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.”



Seriously?  If we have refugees, migrants, or immigrants coming here and committing criminal acts, or worse, then they should not be Canadian Citizens; and they should be sent back to their native countries.  Imprisonment is not the answer.


----------



## Ostrozac (26 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Seriously?  If we have refugees, migrants, or immigrants coming here and committing criminal acts, or worse, then they should not be Canadian Citizens; and they should be sent back to their native countries.  Imprisonment is not the answer.



So Russell Williams should have just been deported to the UK, instead of being locked up? The UK wouldn't have convicted him for his murders on Canadian soil, and he'd be walking around right now a free man, living on his pension. Similarly, many of our traditional organized crime figures in Montreal were either born in Sicily or have dual Italian-Canadian citizenship -- should they never go to jail, and simply be deported back to the EU whenever the Mounties catch up with them? That doesn't sound right to me.

If a Canadian citizen, resident or visitor (no matter where they are born) has commited crimes in Canada, I think that imprisonment in a Canadian prison is the right solution. The punishment of banishment (or transportation, as we used to call forced one way trips to Australia) seems to be not exactly where we want to be going.


----------



## Underway (26 Sep 2015)

If they are a citizen, they are our problem.  INCLUDING if they commit a crime elsewhere, which is why we should always intervene in cases where their punishment might be considered barbaric.  Or if they are innocent/prosecuted wrongly elsewhere as well (a certain Egyptian pardon comes to mind).  Can't stop someone from being a Canadian just because its inconvenient, costly or distasteful.  If we let them in and accept them as part of the family we take the good with the bad and deal with the family problems IN the family.  I don't agree with that law and I never did.

Same thing in the Forces.  We should be taking care of our own, good or bad.


----------



## GAP (26 Sep 2015)

20 years ago, a friend who ended up in Stoney Mountain Pen had to fight to not be deported back to the UK, even though he came over here at 4 years old. He had never taken out citizenship in Canada, because at that time British citizens had the same implicit  rights as Canadians......


----------



## George Wallace (26 Sep 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> Same thing in the Forces.  We should be taking care of our own, good or bad.



Sorry.  In the Forces, it has been the case for decades now; if you are found to be "so bad", you are GONE.  You have a Criminal Charge of any sort; you are GONE.  You have a drug or alcohol problem; you are GONE.


----------



## KJK (26 Sep 2015)

On another note I have to wonder how much Notley cost the federal NDP in support with her bonehead move last week. If you aren't aware she was planning on giving senior government officials a 7.25% raise at the same time as many Albertans are without jobs or are taking pay cuts and/or reduced work weeks so the companies they work for can stay solvent. CNRL for instance has announced that they are looking at an across the board pay cut of 10% to cut costs. All this and what will surely be the biggest budget deficit in the history of the province, pretty bad optics from where I stand. The raise appears to tabled now since the Wildrose were all over her about it but why would you even consider it? She also assured the public sector worker there would be no layoffs. I wonder where all this money is supposed to come from?

KJK


----------



## George Wallace (26 Sep 2015)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> So Russell Williams should have just been deported to the UK, instead of being locked up? The UK wouldn't have convicted him for his murders on Canadian soil, and he'd be walking around right now a free man, living on his pension. Similarly, many of our traditional organized crime figures in Montreal were either born in Sicily or have dual Italian-Canadian citizenship -- should they never go to jail, and simply be deported back to the EU whenever the Mounties catch up with them? That doesn't sound right to me.
> 
> If a Canadian citizen, resident or visitor (no matter where they are born) has commited crimes in Canada, I think that imprisonment in a Canadian prison is the right solution. The punishment of banishment (or transportation, as we used to call forced one way trips to Australia) seems to be not exactly where we want to be going.



We have numerous cases of Jamaicans being deported back to Jamaica for those very reasons; committing crimes in Canada.  There is a case of a Canadian, who is the child of Indian parents who were employees of the Indian Embassy in Ottawa, being deported to India.  There are many such cases, and they go back decades.  It is not something new.   Why do you think we should put a further strain on our Social Systems, our Penal System, and our Legal System to protect guilty parties who do not subscribe to our social, culture, nor Legal systems?  They ARE someone else's problem that we have inherited through lax policies.  Time to ensure that those mistakes are not continued and rules tightened up.  Time to use the "STICK".  


[Edit to add:]

Note:  We are talking about people who have broken their "contract with this nation" after they swore an oath to become citizens.


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Sep 2015)

I think there's middle ground to be had on the issue. I would propose that if you're a dual citizen and you commit a crime, then that should not necessarily result in revocation of your Canadian citizenship. You should be treated like any other Canadian. That being said, if you engage in actions against the Canadian state, such as terrorism or the taking up of arms in support of a declared enemy, then it's quite reasonable that you lose your Canadian citizenship after you've been treated to due process. As detestable as some crimes are, we quite regularly parole native born Canadians and accept that they are going to be living among us. I question whether there's a difference just because the parolee was born in another country. There's just as much chance of re-offending or reintegrating into society, regardless of one's origins.

I don't see what's gained in making those of us who came here from somewhere else generally at risk of losing our citizenship. That being said, I agree that we should be treating our citizenship as a precious gift. I just think there should be narrow, well defined criteria on the subject of revocation. To do otherwise would hold naturalized Canadians to a higher standard than those born here.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Sep 2015)

Agreed.  Not necessarily a "Middle" ground, but a little common sense.  We should not be revoking Citizenship of someone for trivial offences; only the most serious offences that are a "Threat to the National Interests" such as acts of terrorism or sedition, or extreme cases that indicate the person is not integrating into Canadian society.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2015)

One of the things that's very, very wrong with the Conservatives' _law and order_ agenda is that they want to have one blanket rule for everything. In _my opinion_ ~ which runs counter to almost everything _my_ party proposes ~ broad sentencing guisdelines and absolute respect for judicial discretion are what's required.

_I believe_ that _loss of citizenship_ should be one the books, ditto for loss of the right to vote and, I suppose, a few other "add ons" that one might imagine: judges should be allowed to award such "add ons" to sentences for a selected range of serious crimes when they believe it is appropriate.

I trust the judgment of judges more than I trust the "will of the people," especially when it is filtered through our elected representatives.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Sep 2015)

The latest:  blue government = mo' Special Forces (also attached if link doesn't work)....


> The Hon. Jason Kenney today announced the Conservative Party’s intent to strengthen Canada’s Special Forces to ensure that Canada is fully prepared to address a growing terrorist threat.
> 
> “Our Government has made the rebuilding of the Canadian military a top priority since we took office,” Mr. Kenney said. “A re-elected Conservative government will provide the Canadian Armed Forces with an expanded Special Forces capability to respond to varied, and sometimes multiple, national and international emergencies.”
> 
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Sep 2015)

Means nothing if its just a PY shuffle from other trades. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.


----------



## McG (27 Sep 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Means nothing if its just a PY shuffle from other trades. Robbing Peter to pay Paul.


It would be interesting to see the authorized PY strength of the CMBGs on 01 Apr of each year from 2010 to present.  It has been the field force that won the tactical fight in Afghanistan which seems to have been raided to stick PYs into all the new HQs and into some communities promised new battalions in past elections.

You are right, I would be much more comfortable with this announcement if it clarified that the growth will not be carved from the existing CF (same of the promised new military university).


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> It would be interesting to see the authorized PY strength of the CMBGs on 01 Apr of each year from 2010 to present.  It has been the field force that won the tactical fight in Afghanistan which seems to have been raided to stick PYs into all the new HQs and into some communities promised new battalions in past elections.
> 
> You are right, I would be much more comfortable with this announcement if it clarified that the growth will not be carved from the existing CF (same of the promised new military university).



Completely agree. I think you'll see these positions come right out of the field force again, which is short just like everyone else. They also don't specify whether they are SF Op/Assaulter/CBRN Op positions, or if they are supporters.


----------



## blacktriangle (27 Sep 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Completely agree. I think you'll see these positions come right out of the field force again, which is short just like everyone else. They also don't specify whether they are SF Op/Assaulter/CBRN Op positions, or if they are supporters.



By supporters, you mean HQ staff officers, right?  ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Sep 2015)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> By supporters, you mean HQ staff officers, right?  ;D



Absolutely. Startop still has parking spaces I think.


----------



## YZT580 (27 Sep 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> If they are a citizen, they are our problem.  INCLUDING if they commit a crime elsewhere, which is why we should always intervene in cases where their punishment might be considered barbaric.  Or if they are innocent/prosecuted wrongly elsewhere as well (a certain Egyptian pardon comes to mind).  Can't stop someone from being a Canadian just because its inconvenient, costly or distasteful.  If we let them in and accept them as part of the family we take the good with the bad and deal with the family problems IN the family.  I don't agree with that law and I never did.
> 
> Same thing in the Forces.  We should be taking care of our own, good or bad.


and after that is done, send them back to their home countries.  Why should we shoulder the burden of paying their pensions?  They have done nothing to earn them and by their actions have demonstrated that they despise the country that gave them succour.  Neither murder nor robbery is subject to the revoking of citizenship: only crimes against the state itself.


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Sep 2015)

David Akin commented on the Liberal costing of their platform in this piece which is reproduced under the Fair Dealings Provision of the Copyright Act:

Liberals offer a clear choice: Deficits for an economy already growing
http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/09/26/liberals-offer-a-clear-choice-deficits-for-an-economy-already-growing

David Akin BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF

OTTAWA -- For weeks now, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau has been saying in leaders' debates, television interviews and in media scrums that his party was "the first party to put a fully costed framework" in front of voters.

That wasn't quite true.

The fully costed framework from the Liberal Party was actually put before voters Saturday morning. Apparently someone forgot to memo the leader on that one.

In any event, it's out now, and to the great credit of the Liberal campaign team, the numbers the Liberals are putting before the voters are certainly more credible and comprehensive than the costing document put out by their NDP rivals.

But that doesn't mean they are the right numbers.

The Liberals, as advertised, would add $26.1 billion to the national debt by running deficits in three of the first four years of a Trudeau mandate.

They'd cancel billions of dollars in tax breaks the Conservatives have already implemented. They'd be replaced by some of their own multi-billion dollar tax breaks as well as a different benefit scheme for parents.

The Conservatives are already spending billions on infrastructure, veterans, arts and culture. The Liberals would spend a bit more.

And despite loudly complaining a few months ago that the Conservatives were embarrassing Canada by spending a pittance on defence, the Liberals would spend exactly the same pitiable amount on the Canadian Forces. It looks like, no matter who forms government on Oct. 19, spending on national defence, relative to the size of our economy, is headed back to levels we saw during the so-called "decade of darkness" under the Jean Chretien Liberals.

There is no carbon tax in the Liberal fiscal framework or any revenue associated with putting a price on carbon. This seems a bit odd given that Trudeau has said several times in this campaign that Canada needs to put a price on carbon. Trudeau was not around Saturday and will not speak to reporters again until after Monday night's foreign policy leaders' debate but his proxies told reporters there will be nothing in any Liberal budget over any of the next four years that produces any federal revenue from carbon pricing.

A Trudeau government will somehow co-ordinate a national system of carbon pricing where the carbon taxes are collected (and presumably spent) by provincial governments. Stay tuned for more on that one.

And while Trudeau has vowed to legalize marijuana, his party's fiscal framework does not recognize any revenue from a pot tax or savings that may accrue because of reduced law enforcement expenses.

So there are still lots of questions about the choices the Liberals and every other party is making on spending, tax, and benefit issues.

But what now sets the federal Liberals apart from just about every other party in Canada is that they now believe that when an economy is growing, as Canada's economy now is -- the Bank of Canada and every forecaster anywhere says so -- the federal government ought to run deficits, however modest they may be relative to the size of the overall federal budget.

The huge deficits rung up by the Harper government after the 2009 fiscal crisis were a response to rapid and massive spikes in unemployment. But as almost any economist will tell you, Ottawa's massive deficits back then made only a bit of a difference.

And, in any event, any economist anywhere will also tell you that we do not have an employment crisis right now. Yes, because of the rapid drop in oil prices earlier this year, unemployment spiked in resource industries in Western Canada. But a federal deficit is not going to bring back high oil prices.

And though the economy shrank for the first two quarters of this year, enough for some to say Canada was technically in recession, this "recession" saw the creation of nearly 80,000 net new jobs from January to August, the most recent month for which data is available.

For the second half of this year, our economy should grow at a pace of about 2.5% per year adding even more jobs. Forecasters, including the Bank of Canada, have our economy growing at or near those levels for the next four years.

So, again, why should we add $26 billion to the national debt to "help" an economy that is growing and will be growing?

The answer is: We should not. Except for rare crises, such as the 2008-09 recession, even if the cost of borrowing is low and even if, as the Liberals say, the relative size of our national debt will remain low, a prudent, responsible federal government either raises taxes to match its spending plans or it lives within its means. That, in a nutshell, is the Conservative and NDP position. If you believe otherwise, the Liberals are your choice.


- mod edit to add link -


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Sep 2015)

Here is a link to the daily (nightly?) Nanos tracking poll. It shows the NDP has called to third place following the French debate, while both the Conservatives and the Bloc moved up in Quebec.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/nanos-polls

I am not a pollster but it seems useful to track progress via Nanos. I would comment that the Liberal one percentage point lead over the Conservatives is probably heavily influenced by the standings in Atlantic Canada where the Grits enjoy 54% support.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Here is a link to the daily (nightly?) Nanos tracking poll. It shows the NDP has called to third place following the French debate, while both the Conservatives and the Bloc moved up in Quebec.
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/nanos-polls
> 
> I am not a pollster but it seems useful to track progress via Nanos. I would comment that the Liberal one percentage point lead over the Conservatives is probably heavily influenced by the standings in Atlantic Canada where the Grits enjoy 54% support.




Look at the five bar graphs on the right side of the Nanos poll page; both the CPC and LPC have the same problem: _inefficient_ vote distribution. The CPC have 46% of the vote in the Prairies (62 seats) while the Liberals have a whopping 54% of the vote in Atlantic Canada (but only 32 seats at stake). That _skews_ the national numbers, _I think_, especially _for_ the Liberals. My _guesstimate_ is that the _Globe and Mail's_ forecast is more likely, based on similar numbers: _50%_ chance that the Conservatives will form a government; _29%_ chance of an NDP government; and only a _23%_ chance of Liberal government, despite being ahead of the CPC and NDP nationally; and only a _1%_ chance that any party will have a majority government.


----------



## Old Sweat (27 Sep 2015)

I agree with your assessment. I would also suggest that after seeing an assessment on CTV News Channel, that the "crazy aunt in the attic" none of the Laurentian Elites want to even acknowledge is the issue of Islamic women's dress.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> David Akin commented on the Liberal costing of their platform in this piece which is reproduced under the Fair Dealings Provision of the Copyright Act:
> 
> Liberals offer a clear choice: Deficits for an economy already growing
> http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/09/26/liberals-offer-a-clear-choice-deficits-for-an-economy-already-growing
> ...




I thought Jean Chrétien's _Red Book_, issued first in the 1993 campaign, was a stroke of campaign (tactical) brilliance. But, now, 20+ years and a half dozen campaigns later it is both old hat and unbelievable.

The first thing M Chrétien taught us, again, was that campaign promises are infinitely flexible in their execution, if candidates remember them at all. The second thing he taught us was that those pesky _events_ drive policy in the real world, not political manifestos.

I am prepared to agree with David Akin that the Liberal "costed promises" are slightly farther from cloud-cuckoo land than are the NDP's. But I don't believe that either M Mulcair or M Trudeau has any intention of keeping many of their promises ... oh, the F-35 will be gone if we elect the Liberals, that's an easy promise to keep. But all the other "goodies" promised by both the NDP and LPC will have to wait while the government deals with economic realities, real or just perceived. _I don't believe_ the Conservatives, either: their promises are as flimsy as their chances of forming a majority government.

So, my reaction is ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I agree with your assessment. I would also suggest that after seeing an assessment on CTV News Channel, that the "crazy aunt in the attic" none of the Laurentian Elites want to even acknowledge is the issue of Islamic women's dress.




_I think_ that's a winning issue for the CPC. You're right, no one (in the national _commentariat_) wants to discuss it, but a solid majority of _ordinary Canadians_ find it easy to side with the CPC and hard to forgive the LPC and NDP for missing what is, to them, an obvious "truth."


----------



## Rocky Mountains (27 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't believe[/i][/color] the Conservatives, either: their promises are as flimsy as their chances of forming a majority government.



Chretien repeated the same promises for 3 elections and kept almost none of them - daycare?

Harper has been remarkable in the number of election promises he has kept.  Prominent are reduction of the GST and eliminating the long-gun registry.

While NDP and Liberal promises are each in the billions, the Conservative promises are much more modest and achievable.  The Conservatives have a record which shows a year and a half balanced budget without the destruction of social spending transfers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And, in an article in the _Toronto Sun_ David Akin says that, given the _promises_ by both M Mulcair and M Trudeau that "there isn't a snowball's chance in hell," and there are "no circumstances in which I [Justin Trudeau] would support Stephen Harper to continue being prime minister,” "it’s a majority or bust for Stephen Harper."
> 
> David Akin goes on to say:
> 
> ...




More on this, and the potential _Constitutional_ conundrum facing His Excellency, the Governor General, in this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/close-election-brings-danger-of-political-instability/article26554054/


> Close election brings danger of political instability
> 
> RANDALL PALMER AND LEAH SCHNURR
> OTTAWA — Reuters
> ...




_First_, with regard to "going to the Queen:" I agree it's a hopeless (and hopelessly _unclassy_) move; King George VI issued letters patent to the Governor General of Canada in 1947 that, _de facto_, made him, the GG, head of state and _responsible_ for all these sorts of matters.

_Second_, the _King Byng Thing_ still applies. Lord Byng, the Governor General, used his authority and, contrary to Prime Minister King's advice, did not dissolve parliament and call an election (which King needed to avoid a quite serious scandal) and, instead, asked Arthur Meighen to form a government, which he did, using a bit of (now outdated) political chicanery. Meighan lost the first vote in the house and King won a very strong minority government. The outcome is that the _power_ of the _advice_ of the prime minister is very, very strong and GGs ought to follow it except in the most odd circumstances ... think Australia in 1975. I agree with the late Eugene Forsey that Byng was right; to have acceded to King's request for an election would have been "tantamount to allowing a prisoner to discharge the jury by which he was being tried.... If the Governor-General had granted the request, he would have become an accomplice in a flagrant act of contempt for Parliament," but the generally prevailing view is that King won and the PM established his _authority_ over the GG.

_Third_, the first duty of the sovereign (or the GG) is to ensure that the country has a government, or is (actively) seeking one by way of a general election.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Sep 2015)

Like it or dislike it, it seems pretty clear even to me:


> .... Onley said Johnston told him to “just remember, you stick to the basic principles ... (those are) the sitting prime minister or sitting premier has the right to not resign even though his party may have fewer numbers of seats than one or both of the other parties.” ....


Incumbent PM seems to get first crack at maintaining a government.  That said, it'll be interesting to see what happens, given this (hearsay) read of the GG's feelings, if the PM in a minority gives it a go and loses a confidence vote.


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Sep 2015)

Personally, I think folks are imprudently discounting the Quebec effect. If the Bloc were to perhaps gain 15 seats, they might hold the balance of power. They might see themselves better off supporting the Conservatives and wringing concessions from them, rather than being the most junior member of a triumvirate.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Sep 2015)

According to an article in the _Globe and Mail_, the "Quebec campaign gets nasty; [but the] ad wars still muted in rest of Canada."

The article features two ads that are playing in Quebec: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=lVE-N-htzKs and https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1&v=CmmSV1jtK3s

The first, by the BQ, is aimed at the NDP but probably helps the CPC, too. The second should resonate across the country, but it's _against Harper_ rather than being _For the NDP_.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Sep 2015)

Absolutely, as well they'll take seats directly from the NDP, weakening their position in a house of Commons ménage a trois attempt.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Sep 2015)

So, which party leader dismissed David Suzuki's "sanctimonious crap"?

I guess Justin's now chasing the Tory vote as well...

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/david+suzuki+says+trudeau+called+views+climate+change/11393762/story.html


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 Sep 2015)

You know, maybe there is hope for that Justin guy, after all...


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Sep 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You know, maybe there is hope for that Justin guy, after all...



Fur skin coats and dissing St. David.... maybe next time.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (27 Sep 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Personally, I think folks are imprudently discounting the Quebec effect. If the Bloc were to perhaps gain 15 seats, they might hold the balance of power. They might see themselves better off supporting the Conservatives and wringing concessions from them, rather than being the most junior member of a triumvirate.



Except that their great leader has already stated that under no circumstances will they support the Conservatives.


----------



## Underway (27 Sep 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Except that their great leader has already stated that under no circumstances will they support the Conservatives.



Which means nothing.  The NDP statement means nothing as well.  Everyone but the CPC will be broke after this election, so calling an election right after will be favouring the conservatives.  As such the NDP and Lib's may very well get together and make a coalition.  NDP and BQ maybe, as they have much in common.  Floor crossers etc... 

You can never say you will form a coalition in the middle of the campaign.  That's like saying our "team might lose the Stanley Cup" before the series starts.  You play to win.  Always.  You deal with the consequences of the election after the election, not hedge your bets before so you don't haemorrhage votes to some other party.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2015)

There is a lot wrong with the Conservative's _"law and order"_ and _"security"_ agendas, including,_ in my opinion_, mandatory sentences and stripping _anyone_ of their citizenship: both are fraught with complexities. (For the record, _I believe_ that citizenship and other rights ought to be somewhere in the "golf bag" of punishments that are available to judges (not to politicians and bureaucrats) for use, at their discretion, when the crime and the offender call for them.

But, _I suspect_ that, like the _niqab_ at citizenship ceremonies (again, for the record, I want the full face visible when giving testimony in a law court and when getting legally valid photo ID), the recent Zakaria Amara (of _Toronto 18_ fame) case (where his citizenship was revoked under Bill C-24, a law that allows dual citizens convicted as terrorists to be stripped of Canadian citizenship and deported) is very popular with a solid majority of Canadians and M Trudeau is on the wrong side of popular opinion when he disagrees ~ he is, actually closer to my opinion than is the CPC and I applaud him for his courage in taking a nuanced but unpopular position ... but I'm not sure being brave or smart is "good" in a tight election campaign.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2015)

Normally, I would put this here, in the _New, Conservative Foreign Policy_ thread, but the timing of the leak and the tenor of the "report" both _suggest, to me_, that it was both written and leaked by angry, anti-Harper civil servants (mid level executives, at a _guess_) in an effort to help the opposition ... most like in an effort to help the old, familiar, friendly Liberals.

The article is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/leaked-document-says-canadas-world-influence-has-declined/article26556418/


> Leaked internal report warns of Canada's declining world influence
> 
> STEVEN CHASE AND SHAWN MCCARTHY
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




Canada's _influence_ has, indeed, _declined_ amongst three "blocks:" the Africans, the Arabs and the Latin Americans. It is, in my _guesstimation_, largely unchanged amongst the Europeans (down, a bit, in Western Europe, up a lot in Eastern Europe) and Asians and may be "up" just a bit with the Americans. I'm not so sure our "stature" in Africa or the Middle East and West Asia is a matter of any real concern. America matters, Asia matters, Europe matters ...

I am also a wee, tiny bit worried about diminished foreign aid: not because it actually helps the _wretched of the earth_, it rarely does any real good, but, rather, because it is the normal, accepted _grease_ for the wheels of diplomacy and trade. In other words, we bribe dictators and princes in order to secure markets for our goods and support (or protection) for our _interests_.

That being said, the report, _in my opinion_, is a partisan, political hatchet job designed and leaked by the civil service in order to help defeat the government. It ranks as fair to half decent politics; but very unprofessional public service.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...That being said, the report, _in my opinion_, is a partisan, political hatchet job designed and leaked by the civil service in order to help defeat the government. It ranks as fair to half decent politics; but very unprofessional public service.



Yes, a "fail" indeed.  Perhaps someone needs a refresher in their institution's expected ethical conduct.

Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector - Expected Behaviour



> Federal public servants are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the values of the public sector and these expected behaviours.
> 1.Respect For Democracy◦Public servants shall uphold the Canadian parliamentary democracy and its institutions by:
> ◦1.1 Respecting the rule of law and carrying out their duties in accordance with legislation, policies and directives in a non-partisan and impartial manner.
> ◦1.2 Loyally carrying out the lawful decisions of their leaders and supporting ministers in their accountability to Parliament and Canadians.
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (28 Sep 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Yes, a "fail" indeed.  Perhaps someone needs a refresher in their institution's expected ethical conduct.
> 
> Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector - Expected Behaviour



Someone actually leaked a "SECRET" document, and no one seems concerned about this Security infraction?  Someone's job should be on the line right now.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2015)

Here's a new, fairly large (_n_=3,000+ respondents) poll from ABACUSDATA:

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




It is, still, a very tight, three way race, but, it's beginning to look as if the NDP _peaked_ too soon (late Aug) and the Liberals are unable to gain any _traction_. That does not mean the Conservatives are a shoo-in ... there are three weeks to go and plenty of those interesting _"events"_ might be waiting in the wing for all three parties.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Someone actually leaked a "SECRET" document, and no one seems concerned about this Security infraction?  Someone's job should be on the line right now.



This, "SecureDrop" _service_ is featured, often prominently, on the _Globe and Mail_'s website. Other media outlets almost certainly have similar _services_ ... I haven't bothered to look.

Leaking is, sadly, part of politics and _policy development_ in Washington, London, Canberra and Ottawa, too. It's too safe, too easy and, too often even (tacitly) encouraged by _management_. "If the politicians _leak_ then," some public servants say to themselves, "why shouldn't I, to set the record straight, to give the public the facts?"


----------



## YZT580 (28 Sep 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Except that their great leader has already stated that under no circumstances will they support the Conservatives.


perhaps when they review the books following the election they might find that there are areas where they could agree not to disagree quite so vehemently?


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Someone actually leaked a "SECRET" document, and no one seems concerned about this Security infraction?  Someone's job should be on the line right now.


If it's a public servant, I guess s/he didn't attend the mandatory two-day Values & Ethics training shortly after this :tsktsk:


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Leaking is, sadly, part of politics and _policy development_ in Washington, London, Canberra and Ottawa, too. It's too safe, too easy and, too often even (tacitly) encouraged by _management_. "If the politicians _leak_ then," some public servants say to themselves, "why shouldn't I, to set the record straight, to give the public the facts?"


Ah, _"Yes, Minister,"_ again comes to the rescue ....


> That's another of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I give confidential press briefings; you leak; he's being charged under .... the Official Secrets Act.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ...
> Ah, _"Yes, Minister,"_ again comes to the rescue ....




It's always important to remember that Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister, were documentaries, not comedies.


----------



## dapaterson (28 Sep 2015)

I beleive the more appropiate would be

Sir Humphrey: Bernard, Ministers should never know more than they need to know. Then they can't tell anyone. Like secret agents; they could be captured and tortured. 
Bernard: [shocked] You mean by terrorists? 
Sir Humphrey: [seriously] By the BBC, Bernard.


Or possibly:

Sir Humphrey: Open government, Prime Minister. Freedom of information. We should always tell the press freely and frankly anything that they could easily find out some other way.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It's always important to remember that Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister, were documentaries, not comedies.


So I've heard from former senior provincial and federal officials ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2015)

Some specific to Foreign PolicyDefence/the CF data from a recent _Angus Reid_ poll on election issues:


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2015)

John Ibbitson, writing in his Campaign Notebook, in the _Globe and Mail_, says that:

     Nik Nanos:  “Conservatives and Liberals in a tight national race – NDP trend down in Ontario.”

          > Conservatives: 33 per cent (up 2.0 from last week)

          > NDP: 26.9 per cent (down 2.2 from last week)

          > Liberals: 31.6 per cent (up 2.2 from last week)

          > Green: 3.6 per cent (down 1.9 from last week)

          > Bloc: 4.2 per cent (up 0.4 from last week)

The margin of error is 2.8 points. .


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2015)

And, given that the Foreign Policy debate is this evening, this graphic might be interesting:

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




But remember, please, that foreign policy rarely counts for much in Canadian elections.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Some specific to Foreign PolicyDefence/the CF data from a recent _Angus Reid_ poll on election issues:



Interesting use of colour in the graphic.  I see a "Conservative "C" at 61%".   A subliminal message?   >


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2015)

Still on foreign policy, and specifically on Canada-US relations, this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ looks at the campaign ramifications of our most important, arguable only really important, bilateral relationship:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/reviving-canada-us-relations-no-easy-task/article26555907/


> Reviving Canada-U.S. relations no easy task
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> The Globe and Mail
> ...



_In my opinion_, Canada-US relations wil be cool no matter who is prime minister in Ottawa and,equally, no matter who is in power in Washington. The relationship works quite well _despite political will_, on either side of the boder, to make it better or worse.

Keystone XL, for example, will, eventually, get built, because it is, indeed, a "no brainer" in the long term ... but in the short term it is nothing more, nor less, that a partisan political _wedge_ issue. Border security will also remain complex and difficult, despite also being pretty much a "no brainer," because it, too, is a political issue in the USA. The Americans are, by and large, _afraid_ of the _others_, and, despite being "kith and kin" we are, still, out there amongst the _others_.

What to do?

Nothing ... America must, eventually (I hope) pass through the long,dark, tunnel of _fear_ and political idiocy in which it is, currently, trapped. Until then ...  :dunno:


----------



## suffolkowner (28 Sep 2015)

It would seem to me unethical to not "leak" information that was in the public interest. Pretty sure every ethics training I've ever seen had a lot more to due with hierarchy of command than actual values. What qualifies someone to proclaim these ethics?

Still it looks more and more that a Conservative party minority is in the works with a better than outside chance at pulling out a majority


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Sep 2015)

So, again, 41% of voters don't Hate Harper.  There is his majority, and his ceiling.

On the other hand 20% of voters disagree with the policies of their champions (parkas and withdrawal). I know that foreign policy doesn't count for much in Canadian elections but I believe/hope that the difference weakens the will for the opposition to stay home on election night and dither.

Greens hate Harper for his stance on the Environment.  Trudeau disses St. David, wears fur and is wobbly on oilsands and pipelines.  Mulcair is equally wobbly on the oilsands and pipelines.

Socialists hate Harper for his Economics.  Mulcair is a Thatcherite.  Trudeau can't be arsed to show up for his own budget release - and appears to have a weak grasp on his own policies.

Liberals hate Harper because he has the Power - and they do not.  And there is nothing anyone can do to make them happy other than make their man PM.

Laurentian Fabians hate Harper.  Particularly for positions on foreign affairs, foreign aid, law and order and the niqab ban.  Unfortunately most non-Fabians disagree with them and support the policies Harper espouses even as the non-Fabians try to remember why it is they hate Harper.

Not a lot of positive reasons for co-operation to bring down the incumbent.



> Monty Python
> Witch Scene Script
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (28 Sep 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> It would seem to me unethical to not "leak" information that was in the public interest.



 ???

Leaking "Security Concerns" is none of the Public's business.  It is not in the public interest.  The leaking of "Classified" documents is a very serious security matter.  In fact, as this is now in the public domain, the "bad guys" also know what the problems may be.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Sep 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> It would seem to me unethical to not "leak" information that was in the public interest. Pretty sure every ethics training I've ever seen had a lot more to due with hierarchy of command than actual values. What qualifies someone to proclaim these ethics?
> 
> Still it looks more and more that a Conservative party minority is in the works with a better than outside chance at pulling out a majority



I'm pretty sure that the older Victorian morality, which largely drove the rules for both the modern army and the civil service applies:  if soldiers and other servants are to have opinions Her Majesty will issue them.

One of the greatest errors in modern morality was the Nuremberg Trials.  For soldiers and civil servants "Following Orders" HAS to be an adequate defence.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Sep 2015)

Sometimes I wonder if some people in high positions may not fully analyse their actions.  I wonder if this position being taken by PSAC may backfire on them.  If the Public think that there are too many bureaucrats, this campaign by PSAC may have the opposite affect than what they are hoping for:

http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/psac-launches-second-phase-of-vote-to-stop-the-cuts-campaign-529744461.html



> *PSAC launches second phase of Vote to Stop the Cuts campaign*
> 
> OTTAWA, Sept. 28, 2015 /CNW/ - The Public Service Alliance of Canada is today launching the second phase of its Vote to Stop the Cuts campaign.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Sep 2015)

260,000 people.  Perception is reality.

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/index.asp?lang=eng&page=clerk-greffier&sub=archives&doc=20090506-eng.htm




> Perceptions and Realities of Today's Public Service
> 
> Archived Content
> 
> ...



Funny coincidence.  Nuremberg is in Germany.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2015)

Thomas Friedman was, undoubtedly, correct when he said: "... in the globalization system ... one of the most important and enduring competitive advantages that a country can have today is a _lean_, effective, honest civil service". I have emphasized "lean" because I don't think it gets enough attention. Mr Lynch said, "He was articulating that there is a strong correlation between a country's competitiveness and prosperity and the quality of its public sector." I agree with that. And I further agree with Mr Lynch when he said, "this correlation holds whether the country is developing or developed; whether it is poor or rich." Canada is a rich, developed country with a, broadly and generally, effective and honest public service, but it's anything but _lean_. The public service is too large, _in my opinion_ ... not bloated, not like the CF's C2 superstructure with too many GOFOs in too many HQs, but in need of some pretty ruthless downsizing (and pay raises for the survivors). (My _guesstimate_ is that fully 25% of the Canadian public service can and should be cut; that's 64,000 people who, in my opinion, need, "pink slips and running shoes," as Brian Mulroney put it back in 1983, when he was standing for his party's leadership. I believe that as many as ¾ of those 64,00, 48,00 in other words, are doing work that is useful but ought to be done by the private sector, on contract for or, sometimes, just instead of the government, so only about 15,000 people would be "out on the street," so to speak.

Of course, my position is quite at odds with the position that PSAC outlines in the article George Wallace posted just above.

_My suspicion_ is that few people agree with me. The public service does, indeed, serve the public and my sense is that the _public_, the voting population, _likes_ being served.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _My suspicion_ is that few people agree with me. The public service does, indeed, serve the public and my sense is that the _public_, the voting population, _likes_ being served.



But does the public like the service they have received?  Which public servants do they routinely interact with and how many are appreciative of the interaction?


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> But does the public like the service they have received?  Which public servants do they routinely interact with and how many are appreciative of the interaction?



I'm thinking on the _macro_ level. _My guess_ is that most of the public equates cuts to the PS as cuts to the services they _want_, maybe even need.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Sep 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> But does the public like the service they have received?  Which public servants do they routinely interact with and how many are appreciative of the interaction?



Most of the inefficiencies that the PS may have, are not usually found at the "front end" workers who are serving the "customers", although at times there may be duplication of effort found in number of offices, workers, services, etc.  Most often where the cuts should be made, would be found in the bloated upper echelons.  Unfortunately, it is there that one finds the senior members whose survival skills are often the only skill that they have mastered.   >


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Most often where the cuts should be made, would be found in the bloated upper echelons.  Unfortunately, it is there that one finds the senior members whose survival skills are often the only skill that they have mastered.   >


Or the senior members who are asked, "how should we cut?"  

I remember one year at city hall, a manager actually provided council with the option of cutting his job and merging his team with a larger city department - and that only happened once in the 10 years or so I watched city council.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Sep 2015)

I appreciate the macro/"front-end" dichotomy but public servants include"

Veterans Affairs Canada
Benefits Canada
Canada Revenue Agency.

How many people have enjoyed their experience with the front-end and how many people think the solution is to hire more people just like them?  >


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Or the senior members who are asked, "how should we cut?"
> 
> I remember one year at city hall, a manager actually provided council with the option of cutting his job and merging his team with a larger city department - and that only happened once in the 10 years or so I watched city council.



I still fondly remember when the company I worked for got a directive from the owner (similar to Harper's instruction to NDHQ) to lose bodies:  The DS solution arrived at, by consensus, was for the management team to be slimmed as per orders, the surplus managers to be formed into a Management Advisory Council (with no duties and no responsibilities but healthy personal budgets) and to layoff any technical and sales personnel with more than 15 years in the company......

I had 17 years.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Sep 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I still fondly remember when the company I worked for got a directive from the owner (similar to Harper's instruction to NDHQ) to lose bodies:  The DS solution arrived at, by consensus, was for the management team to be slimmed as per orders, the surplus managers to be formed into a Management Advisory Council (with no duties and no responsibilities but healthy personal budgets) and to layoff any technical and sales personnel with more than 15 years in the company......
> 
> I had 17 years.


Yeah, that's the kind of solution we hear about too often - and hiring an outside consultant doesn't help because guess who briefs/guides them?


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2015)

Prof William Watson, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, examines the _hidden agenda_ ... but not Stephen Harper's, he suspects that what we've seen is what we'll get again, but, rather the two _hidden agendas_ of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/watson-look-whose-agenda-is-hidden-now?hootPostID=fad0d095e790166b4da3cd8b2b582f43


> Look whose agenda is hidden now
> 
> WILLIAM WATSON
> 
> ...


_


If we do not get a Conservative majority, then:

     I fear the NDP's left wing, notwithstanding M Mulcair's move to the centre ~ which I believe is real; and

     I can only hope that the Liberals might elect enough right wingers, blue Liberals or Manley Liberals to offset and overpower the influence of Gerald Butts and Premier Wynne, because I believe that
     M Trudeau is a sock puppet for those two._


----------



## 63 Delta (28 Sep 2015)

Anyone having a problem watching the Munk Debates? I cant seem to get on the website at all. Does anyone know if the debates are being streamed elsewhere? Or if they will be available on Youtube later? I liked that the Globe and Mail streamed the debate on Youtube and you could pause and replay the debate.


****Posted on twitter right after I asked this question: http://livestream.com/Munk-Debates/federal-election-debate***

Appears they are having problems.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2015)

HULK_011 said:
			
		

> Anyone having a problem watching the Munk Debates? I cant seem to get on the website at all. Does anyone know if the debates are being streamed elsewhere? Or if they will be available on Youtube later? I liked that the Globe and Mail streamed the debate on Youtube and you could pause and replay the debate.



Try this: http://www.cpac.ca/en/vote2015/ it's working well for me.


----------



## blacktriangle (28 Sep 2015)

I was having some issues with The Globe and Mail stream earlier, but it's stable as of now. 

BTW - I highly recommend Elizabeth May's twitter feed.  ;D


----------



## 63 Delta (28 Sep 2015)

I think I may have found Thomas Mulcairs doppelganger... 






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRWAQ255qhs


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2015)

OK, those who missed it, the foreign policy debate, didn't miss anything ... young M Trudeau, nice as he may be, comes across, to me, as a rude kid.


----------



## GAP (28 Sep 2015)

Harper held his own again, while the other two were getting strident at times trying to make their points. 

They are talking about what they would do, Harper is talking about what he has done....there is a difference.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Sep 2015)

> “Loss of our traditional place at some multilateral tables.”
> “Canada may not be a ‘partner of first choice’ ” for foreign countries.
> “Declining market share in emerging markets,” meaning Canada is failing to sufficiently build commercial ties with fast-developing countries.
> “New donor countries are emerging and Canada’s relative [official development assistance] is declining,” meaning as Ottawa has restrained foreign aid, other international actors such as China have hiked international assistance to expand their global influence.



Without knowing which tables, the first one could be an improvement.  Some tables aren't worth being at if they give "face" to people who do not deserve it.

The latter three are most likely all good news.  To the extent other countries are becoming more multilateral and engaged (both good), by definition Canada's share of the action is likely to decrease.  Examples: an increasingly stable, powerful, regional "partner of first choice" - perhaps with shared culture - vice far-away Canada; more other countries trading in emerging markets (good for everyone); more other countries increasing aid (the denominator in the calculation of Canada's share - CanadaAid / TotalAid).


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Sep 2015)

>The Liberal Leader’s idea for a reset revolves around a more diplomatic Canada, one that tries to engage the United States on climate change, and embraces North America, and Mexico – a potential two-on-one ally in continental affairs. Still, it’s light on issues, such as security co-operation, which matter to both sides.

Wishful thinking.  Canada's relationship with the POTUS overlooks the influence of senators and house members.  There will always be regional parochialism.  (Example: softwood lumber.)  Everything requires work, and Canada has no control over which issues the US chooses to take up as internal grudge matches (eg. environmental ones).

>The NDP, meanwhile, offers a revised version of the idea that Canada’s help on global issues will earn goodwill on cross-border ones. MP Paul Dewar said Canada can find a global role that’s helpful to the United States by playing a bigger role in places the United States doesn’t, such as Mali, or the Central African Republic. There are many countries that will offer six fighter jets to a mission like the one in Iraq, so in the end, Canada’s contribution is not significant, he said.

A bigger role abroad is not what is important.  The presence of military or non-military support is a nice afterthought to what really matters: unambiguous political backing.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> OK, those who missed it, the foreign policy debate, didn't miss anything ... young M Trudeau, nice as he may be, comes across, to me, as a rude kid.


In case you're interested nonetheless, here's a transcript.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Globe and Mail_ has updated its Election Forecast:
> 
> _Conservatives take the lead after new polls; Liberals close in on NDP_
> 
> ...




The _Globe and Mail_ updated its Election Forecast yesterday, _before_ the foreign policy debate. The results are:

     _55%_ chance that the Conservatives get the most seats

     _22%_ chance that the NDP gets the most seats

     _24%_ chance that the Liberals get the most seats

And 

     24% chance that the Green party gets more than one seat

     20% chance that all three main parties win 100 seats or more

     _1%_ chance that any party gets a majority

The updated analysis says:



> UPDATE SEPT. 25: The Conservatives have re-taken the lead in the Globe Election Forecast for two reasons. First, a strong performance in an EKOS poll gave the party 35 per cent of the national vote, compared to just 26 per cent for the Liberals
> and 25 for the NDP. If these results are repeated by other firms in the next few days, this is very good news for the government; if the poll is an outlier, this will become clear in short order, and its effect in the Forecast will wash out. Second,
> the NDP have polled somewhat weaker than usual in Quebec, most notably in the most recent Léger poll. While still in first, and down compared to earlier polls in the range of eight percentage points, losing grip on even 10 seats in a three-way
> race reduces any party's chances of winning the most seats.
> ...



It _appears, at first glance_, that the CPC has gained, measurably, at the expense of the NDP, but _I suspect_ that what's really happening is:

     Many potential NDP voters are shifting to either undecided (leaning left) or to the Liberals;

     An almost equal number of Liberals (leaning right) have shifted to either undecided or to the CPC; and

     Quite a few previously undecided (_disengaged_) voters have moved into the CPC camp.

Overall, the NDP is falling, the Liberals are holding steady or stagnating (your choice), and the CPC is rising.


----------



## suffolkowner (29 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> Leaking "Security Concerns" is none of the Public's business.  It is not in the public interest.  The leaking of "Classified" documents is a very serious security matter.  In fact, as this is now in the public domain, the "bad guys" also know what the problems may be.



I was thinking in more general terms although in this case I don't see a valid case for "security concerns" or the public interest being made both would be stretching the point to absurdity.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This video, which I found online, says that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has upheld the French ban on the _burqa_ (and the _niqab_, too, I wonder?).
> 
> This _might_ have some minor impact on Canada's election campaign.




Margaret Wente, in a column in the _Globe and Mail_ explains why she thinks the _niqab_ debate matters in this election, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/why-the-niqab-matters-now-and-in-future/article26573582/


> Why the niqab matters, now and in future
> 
> MARGARET WENTE
> The Globe and Mail
> ...



I am in full agreement with Ms Went's final paragraph: I _wish_ this wan't an issue; I had _hoped_ that common sense might prevail ... but it hasn't and it won't because we are dealing with a *foreign* social, _cultural_ issue that some people want to import into Canada. I have been told by a few Muslims ~ a couple with PhDs ~ that covering one's head, face or body is not required or even encouraged in the _Quran_; it is, rather, an artefact of medieval cultures in Asia, the Middle East and Europe ...


     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






                                              A modern, fashionable burqa and medieval European nuns' habits

_I believe_ that, very broadly and generally, we need to _tolerate_ religious symbols (of course there are some, a few exceptions, things that are _intolerable_) but we do not need to allow the import of foreign _cultural_ customs.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2015)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I was thinking in more general terms although_ in this case I don't see a valid case for "security concerns"_ or the public interest being made both would be stretching the point to absurdity.




It depends upon the security classification/designation applied ~ presumably for some good reason ~ to the original document. The public servant who leaked the document should be called to account for his or her _choice_ ... and _I believe_ (s)he made one. I must assume that someone had a valid reason for designating that document, in some way, as being "for official use only" or SECRET or whatever; perhaps it was a briefing related to a Cabinet Confidence, in which case the public servant who leaked it is guilty of a very, very serious "crime" against one of the foundation stones of our, _Westminster_, style of parliamentary government.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The public servant who leaked the document should be called to account for his or her _choice_ ... and _I believe_ (s)he made one.


Presuming it's a bureaucrat that leaked the document - others in the system have been known to share advice to ministers with the media, too.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Sep 2015)

From the same cultural impulse.
















Mennonites and Hutterites.

The difference is that, like your mediaeval nuns, while the attire is considered both by society at large, the society in particular and the wearer individually, as being modest......the face is uncovered.  The humanity of the person is on display.  



> I see you, and you see me. I experience you, and you experience me. I see your behaviour. You see my behaviour. .....


  R.D. Laing, Politics of Experience

After that Laing gets overly clever by half and must have made Joyce blush but anyway ... the salient point is that it is hard enough to interpret other people when you can read their body language and ... most importantly.... see their faces.   In any society it is important to give and receive feed-back to know when we are giving pleasure and when we are giving offence.



> The Stranger within my gate,
> He may be true or kind,
> But does not talk my talk –
> I cannot feel his mind.
> ...


  Kipling - The stranger 

I can't agree with Kipling on his last verse except that it is a widely held belief common not just amongst WASPs but also Catholics, Blacks, Sikhs, Jains, Chinese, French, Proddies, Shia, Sunnis and Wahabis.

But the primary issue is an issue of communication and it is not possible to freely communicate across a veil.

I don't know why but I remember clearly being raised to believe that it was illegal to cover my face at any time in Britain in the 50s and 60s.    Perhaps this was because of residual beliefs left over from various War Measures.  Perhaps it was because my father did his service in a Martial Law environment in Palestine.  I don't know.  But I accept that my opinions are coloured by the way I was raised.

Having said that, I am firmly with the majority.  I cannot conduct conversation with a sack of potatoes - no matter how literate it may be.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It depends upon the security classification/designation applied ~ presumably for some good reason ~ to the original document. The public servant who leaked the document should be called to account for his or her _choice_ ... and _I believe_ (s)he made one. I must assume that someone had a valid reason for designating that document, in some way, as being "for official use only" or SECRET or whatever; perhaps it was a briefing related to a Cabinet Confidence, in which case the public servant who leaked it is guilty of a very, very serious "crime" against one of the foundation stones of our, _Westminster_, style of parliamentary government.



I too believe that the individual has a right to follow their conscience.  But equally society has a right, and the obligation, to enforce the law.

It is not brave to whisper behind backs.  It is brave to act illegally, knowingly, and willingly accept the consequences because your conscience drives you where society will not go.


----------



## Infanteer (29 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> A modern, fashionable burqa and medieval European nuns' habits
> 
> _I believe_ that, very broadly and generally, we need to _tolerate_ religious symbols (of course there are some, a few exceptions, things that are _intolerable_) but we do not need to allow the import of foreign _cultural_ customs.



That's not a burqa, that's a chador (edit: looks like a hijab), most common in Iran.  It differs from a niqab (a garmet leaving only the eyes exposed that is predominently worn by Muslims in the Arab peninsula) or a burqa (a complete face covering worn primarily in South Asia); if anything, this emphasizes how different cultures interact with the Islamic faith.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Sep 2015)

> In Quebec, niqabs are anything but trivial. Legislation introduced by the Liberal government in June would ban face coverings for anyone giving or receiving public services. The province’s leading politicians overwhelmingly support the ban, as does the public. “It’s clear to me that the niqab is not religious, it’s cultural,” said Denis Coderre, the Montreal mayor (and former federal Liberal bigwig and immigration minister). The main criticism of the proposed bill is that it doesn’t go far enough.



Wow. A politician that finally gets it and says so in public.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Sep 2015)

I don't have any problem with any dress that leaves the face uncovered, whether it be a nun's habit or a hijab.

I object to full coverings that do not let me know what I'm dealing with.

Full coverings, have already been used to disguise ne'er do wells.

http://www.london24.com/news/crime/jailed_the_men_who_tried_to_rob_a_brixton_pawnbrokers_in_burkas_1_4212499

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/11/19/men-wore-burkas-during-robbery-toronto-police

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-22811466


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2015)

Niqab is a face covering (veil).  Were you thinking Hajab?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Niqab is a face covering (veil).  Were you thinking Hajab?



Yes. Tanks! George

Old timers setting in again ;D


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Yes. Tanks! George
> 
> Old timers setting in again ;D



That is OK......I'll raise a wee dram for you with my mess tins.   ;D


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2015)

Just for clarification, on this track of the discussion, here are the images of headdress' worn by women in different Muslim cultures.  Some of these cultures are more strict than others, even demanding ALL women, no matter their faith, to dress accordingly.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2015)

OK, at the risk of dragging this thread back on track (yes, I know the _niqab_n(and sundry variants of Middle Eastern dress) IS an issue, but ...) this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, resonates with me:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/china-isnt-much-of-an-issue-in-this-election-why-not/article26580739/


> How a powerhouse of 1.4 billion people was left out of the Munk Debate
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I've been says for years that Canada needs to change the _orientation_ of our foreign policy farther away from _comfortable_ old Europe and more towards strange, complex and oh, so very _foreign_ Asia. 

It was very, very appropriate for China's Paramount Leader Xi Jinping to give Canada a miss during the election campaign ... absent some kind of a crisis in Sino-Canadian relations a visit during a campaign would have been seen, correctly, as unwelcome interference.

But: the TPP should have been a springboard to talk about what China, and Asia, more broadly, means to Canada ~ it wasn't and that's a pity.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2015)

I missed this a couple of days ago ... the NDP's new anti-Trudeau attack ad.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Sep 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just for clarification, on this track of the discussion, here are the images of headdress' worn by women in different Muslim cultures.  Some of these cultures are more strict than others, even demanding ALL women, no matter their faith, to dress accordingly.



George, do you have a link to that website?  I would like to share it on Facebook.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2015)

This report, which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a wee bit less than illuminating:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-candidate-accuses-privy-council-office-defence-of-meddling-in-campaign/article26586397/


> Liberal candidate accuses Privy Council Office, Defence of meddling in campaign
> 
> AMHERST, N.S. — The Canadian Press
> 
> ...




Can anyone shed any light on what might have happened?


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Sep 2015)

HuffPo has a similar graphic based on the same study (PDF):




Good catch, George - thanks for sharing.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Sep 2015)

Thanks to both of you. 

Cheers.


----------



## Privateer (29 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This report, which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a wee bit less than illuminating:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-candidate-accuses-privy-council-office-defence-of-meddling-in-campaign/article26586397/
> 
> Can anyone shed any light on what might have happened?



More from "Cumberland News Now":



> AMHERST – Bill Casey has filed a complaint against the Department of National Defence and the Privy Council Office alleging they conspired to prevent him from going into the Col. James Layton Ralston Armoury last week.
> 
> The Liberal candidate for Cumberland-Colchester planned to host a press conference there to ask the Conservatives when they are going to live up to a promise made five years ago to finish repairs to the century-old building.
> 
> ...



Link: http://www.cumberlandnewsnow.com/News/Local/2015-09-29/article-4293375/Casey-files-complaint-over-treatment-at-armoury/1


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> George, do you have a link to that website?  I would like to share it on Facebook.



https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/11143570_752413001537231_1770463460069663329_n.jpg?oh=fa243381c3a06ad19c0006f08dd2e2d6&oe=568EC0DD


----------



## Lumber (29 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This report, which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a wee bit less than illuminating:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-candidate-accuses-privy-council-office-defence-of-meddling-in-campaign/article26586397/
> 
> Can anyone shed any light on what might have happened?



I feel I can shed some light on what happened.

Right now, the Defence team is trying to appear completely impartial with regard to the election. Shortly after the bass Writ dropped, the CDS issued an order that all public affairs activities are to cease until the election is over. Being the over-cautious organization that we are, that has the formations (well, the Navy at least) paranoid that anytime they step out into the public, they might be seen as being political. Right now, every event going on at my unit that takes place outside of our unit (other than training) has to be vetted by ADM(PA), RCN-PA, and a few others; even the most innocent of events they are making us get approval for and making us inform 3 if not 4 different levels of PA personal above our unit.

So, my explanation would be, they saw a political candidate trying to use a defence establishment to push their political agenda, and the CAF memebers there panicked and kicked him out.

By the way, since when is a military establishment a "public space"?


----------



## ballz (29 Sep 2015)

QR&O 19.44 sheds some light...



> 19.44 - POLITICAL ACTIVITIES AND CANDIDATURE FOR OFFICE
> 
> (1) For the purposes of this article:
> 
> ...


_- minor mod edit to clean up #8 in list -_


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Sep 2015)

This says it all for me:


> .... The Liberal candidate for Cumberland-Colchester planned to host a press conference (at the Armoury) to ask the Conservatives when they are going to live up to a promise made five years ago to finish repairs to the century-old building ....


No matter which party, they can't be using the military as a partisan backdrop, full stop.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Being the over-cautious organization that we are, that has the formations (well, the Navy at least) paranoid that anytime they step out into the public, they might be seen as being political .... So, my explanation would be, they saw a political candidate trying to use a defence establishment to push their political agenda, and the CAF memebers there panicked and kicked him out refused to let a military establishment be used as a partisan political backdrop ....


FTFY - they may have been following this set of rules, too.  

Is it against the _Elections Act_, though?   I see a lot about running elections and the paperwork required of candidates, but I don't see much about campaigning.


			
				ballz said:
			
		

> QR&O 19.44 sheds some light...


Thanks for including that.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2015)

For those who believe that *provincial* _party_ past performance might predict how the federal party might govern, a new_ish_ group called _Aha!_ offers a study* (of sorts, the methodology is provided and it is not overly rigorous, but I've seen a lot worse) that suggests that, historically, for the past 35 years, Conservatives (Mike Harris, Bill Vander Zalm, Ralph Klein and others) have offered the (fiscally) best performances (there's only one non-Conservative (Catherine Callbeck (PEI 1993-96) in the top 10) while the bottom of the heap is very slightly (5:4) dominated by Liberal, NDP and PQ premiers.

____
* Study is a PDF file available at the website by clicking on Read The Study


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2015)

This is _not_ a Liberal problem or, even, Mr Marwan's problem ... it is a _Canadian_ problem. I suspect that many, many Canadians (possibly, even probably a majority of Canadians) _believe_ that Canada fought in both Iraq and Afghanistan and that Prime Minister Harper sent the CF there both times.

The media _suggests_, ever so subtly,that Afghanistan was "Harper's War." Also, it is true that Prime Minister Harper has, recently, sent the CF to fight an air campiagn that includes Iraq, and it's true that Stephen Harper advocated, publicly, for Canada to participate in Iraq when President George W Bush engaged there ... but we never did. (We didn't even offer the US some political support in the UN which was, in the end, all they ever asked from us.) _My guess_ is that most high school students think that Prime Minister Harper sent the CF to Afghanistan in ... well, 90% of them would have no idea of when (or why) the most recent Afghanistan War (_our_ Afghanistan War) happened. Ditto for "Bush's Iraq War."

It isn't a question of memory or of a 500 years old historical record; it is that the media does, as it always has, _write the first draft of history,_ but now, in the 21st century, no one bothers to read the second or third drafts ...


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Sep 2015)

Bill Vander Zalm a Conservative? ???


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Bill Vander Zalm a Conservative? ???




The study grouped the BC Socreds in with "small C conservatives." There grouping is:

   Small “c” conservative (blue): Conservative/Progressive Conservative/Social Credit/Saskatchewan/BC Liberal parties

   Small “l” liberal (red): Liberal parties

   Social democratic (orange): New Democratic parties and Parti Quebecois


----------



## Remius (30 Sep 2015)

Latest Nanos poll.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/nanos-polls

NDP seems to continue its tumble. I think to the LPC's benefit.  If Mr. mulcair ends up as leader of the Third Party, he will likely resign.  Mr. Trudeau will only be in that situation if he comes in third.  1st loser is still better than what they had.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> Latest Nanos poll.
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/nanos-polls
> 
> NDP seems to continue its tumble. I think to the LPC's benefit.  If Mr. mulcair ends up as leader of the Third Party, he will likely resign.  Mr. Trudeau will only be in that situation if he comes in third.  1st loser is still better than what they had.




Looking a bit behind those numbers:

     Atlantic Canada (32 seats): Advantage _Liberals_;

     Quebec               (78 seats): Advantage _NDP_;

     Ontario             (121 seats): Advantage _Liberals_;

     Prairies              (62 seats): Advantage _Conservatives_; and

     BC                      (42 seats): Tie.

     Overall:                                Advantage _Liberals_


----------



## Lumber (30 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Looking a bit behind those numbers:
> 
> Atlantic Canada (32 seats): Advantage _Liberals_;
> 
> ...



So basically we're back to the 1990s / early 2000s, but the Bloc has been substituted with the NDP.


----------



## Remius (30 Sep 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> So basically we're back to the 1990s / early 2000s, but the Bloc has been substituted with the NDP.



For now.  Who knows next week.  But, what must concern the CPC is the gains the LPC seem to be making in Ontario.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2015)

Further to polls and polling, Lysiane Gagnon, writing in the _Globe and Mail_, suggests that Prime Minister Harper is "campaigning on the back of an isolated and vulnerable minority, which must be the height of cynicism." But, she says,  "the tactic pays," [because] "this matter, as objectively trivial as it is when compared with other election issues, led to the most heated exchange during last Thursday’s French-language debate." Her column is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/whats-at-work-behind-opinion-poll-results/article26587805/


> What’s at work behind opinion poll results
> 
> LYSIANE GAGNON
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




I agree with Mme Gagnon that this issues will not hurt the Liberals in their bedrock base of non-Francophone ridings in the Montreal area, but it will play out against both the LPC and NDP in most (55+) of the ridings that are solidly Francophone. The question is: _cui bono?_ Which party, BQ or CPC, can ride this "objectively trivial" issue to a few more seats? If the advantage lies with the Conservatives then is it enough to win say, two or three or even four or five additional seats?


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> So basically we're back to the 1990s / early 2000s, but the Bloc has been substituted with the NDP.



_I don't think so_ ... I highly doubt that either the NDP or the Liberals can reproduce the 1993 or 2011 results in Quebec (54 seats for the BQ in '93, 59 seats for the NDP in 2011's _"Orange Crush"_) or the Liberal Party's 1993, '97 or 2000 results (98 to 101 seats) in Ontario.

_My guess_ is that Ontario will split _something like_ 60~40~20, and Quebec will split 40~20~10~10.


----------



## Lumber (30 Sep 2015)

An aside; I asked my friend who he was voting for. He said he wasn't voting; not because he didn't think it was important, but because he was so uninformed (and had no intention of doing the research) that it would be an unfair stab in the dark. 

I told him that I'd be more than happy to educate him, to which he replied something like "Tell you what I'll do for YOU. You tell me who YOU are going to vote for, and I'll vote the opposite. With that promise in mind, you now don't have to vote, as I'm nullifying your vote."

His logic is a little flawed, but I found the implication interesting.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Sep 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> An aside; I asked my friend who he was voting for. He said he wasn't voting; not because he didn't think it was important, but because he was so uninformed (and had no intention of doing the research) that it would be an unfair stab in the dark.
> 
> I told him that I'd be more than happy to educate him, to which he replied something like "Tell you what I'll do for YOU. You tell me who YOU are going to vote for, and I'll vote the opposite. With that promise in mind, you now don't have to vote, as I'm nullifying your vote."
> 
> His logic is a little flawed, but I found the implication interesting.



And back to Dr. Bill Murray -  for many "It Just Doesn't Matter".   They are not unhappy with the status quo.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Sep 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> They are not unhappy with the status quo.


Or at least not unhappy enough/not motivated enough to cast a ballot  :facepalm:


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Or at least not unhappy enough/not motivated enough to cast a ballot  :facepalm:



For them the "status quo" allows for them to live their lives without being bothered about who runs government.  They just don't feel enough pain/pleasure from a source that they identify as government for it to make any difference in their lives.

They're happy.


----------



## Lumber (30 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Or at least not unhappy enough/not motivated enough to cast a ballot  :facepalm:



IMO, the only people who get motivated to go out and vote are those that pay attention to Politics. It's politics for the sake of Politics. Canadians enjoy an amazing standard of living; life in this country is nothing short of amazing when compared to most of the world. Most the things that get peoples' blood flowing and make them want to vote are things that don't affect the majority of Canadians on a day to day basis. For example, the niqab, foreign aide in Iraq and Syria, military intervention in Iraq and Syria, the Keystone XL pipeline, bill C-51, bill C-24. These are rousing issues to anyone who is paying attention, but since they don't touch the day to day lives of the majority of Canadians, they can go completely un-noticed unless you are following Politics.

If you really want to increase voter turn out, make an issue out of cell-phone plans, car insurance premiums, and the legalization of marijuana.


----------



## Lumber (30 Sep 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> For them the "status quo" allows for them to live their lives without being bothered about who runs government.  They just don't feel enough pain/pleasure from a source that they identify as government for it to make any difference in their lives.
> 
> They're happy.



I don't think most Canadians would realize how important what you just said is, especially the Harper haters. But I'll make one correctiong to your statement: "_We're_ Happy". I'm dead set on voting but I'm damn happy and proud to live in a country where people are just _happy_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> For them the "status quo" allows for them to live their lives without being bothered about who runs government.  They just don't feel enough pain/pleasure from a source that they identify as government for it to make any difference in their lives.
> 
> They're happy.




No, I think you were right the first time: _"They're not unhappy."_ There's a big difference, _I think_. If Canadian are happy then more of them would be saying that they're going out to vote and that they plan to vote Conservative. What little I've seen, so far, suggests that we may be headed for another record low turnout; if that's the case then, depending on who wins, we can say, either: _"The few who care want change,"_ if the LPC or NDP win, or _"They're not unhappy,"_ if the CPC wins.


----------



## Lumber (30 Sep 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> If you really want to increase voter turn out, make an issue out of cell-phone plans, car insurance premiums, and the legalization of marijuana.



Yes, I know I'm quoting myself. But I swear I wrote the above post before finding this article:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/trudeau-would-start-legalizing-pot-right-away-1.2588260



> *Trudeau would start legalizing pot 'right away'*


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So we share voting for Martin.  Had Manley followed Martin (although it wasn't a «tête carée's» turn yet), we would have likely voted similarly again.  My base reasoning would likely be different (Blue Grit or Red Tory is my preference) than your's (you seems more aligned to party than the leader himself), but the end result would have been the same.  Once Dion showed up, my choice was easy...Red Tory it was and Harper was still playing nice(-ish) with MacKay (and the re-named PC clan).
> 
> You seem to mistakenly assume that military members will overwhelmingly (and mindlessly) vote Conservative for rather simple, dogmatic reasons. Perhaps some do, but others do so for pragmatic reasons based on worth of the leadership, warts and all, vice ethereal, genetic/branding reasoning. Many see Trudeau Jr. as a front offic piece being driven by the back room, like GW was by the Old Man and Dick Cheney.  Gerald Butts and Kathleen Wynne's = Canadian George Bush Sr. and Kathleen Wynne.
> 
> ...




This got me to thinking ...

A few days ago a member PM'd me and said something like:

         "Tell me your own political opinion. You say you're a Conservative but you bad mouth the CPC on a regular basis; you obviously _hate_ (his word, my emphasis) the Liberals
          and the NDP. So, where do you stand?"

I replied, initially, that I would think about his question. What G2G said, above, has persuaded me to respond to my interlocutor in public, which I told him I would do.

First: I am a card carrying member of the Conservative Party of Canada. I am also a regular donor to that party and I donate enough to be a member of its so-called "Leaders Circle" (there's no apostrophe in "Leaders Circle" so I can only assume that it is a just circle of undefined "leaders," not a circle of rich people around the party leader). I plan to vote for the CPC candidate in my riding this election, even though I think he is the second best candidate and he may even be the third best; he is, still, an acceptable candidate for me because I rate party (platform and record) as being at least as important as individual attributes. Thus, although I think Paul Dewar (NDP) is a _better person_, all round, to be an MP, my CPC contender, Damian Konstantinakos, is, certainly, a "good enough" individual and when I then weigh the parties I find that I favour Mr Konstantinakos over Mr Dewar on the whole mix of _person + policies._

Second: I don't _hate_ either the Liberals or the NDP. In fact I admire both movements. But I think the NDP went wrong, right from the start, from the _Regina Manifesto_, and especially from around 1960 when the Canadian Labour Congress took over and converted the old CCF into the NDP. I believe that the Liberals went off the rails in 1960, at the "Kingston Conference" where journalist/public intellectual Tom Kent proposed, and the party, led by Lester Pearson, agreed to take a sharp, economically unsustainable, left turn. I didn't break with the Liberal Party until 1967, when Pierre Trudeau took over as leader, I could not then and cannot now abide M Trudeau. He was, in my opinion, a sadly misguided, deeply flawed human being, and the worst prime  minister in Canadian history, likely the worst leader of any liberal democracy in the 20th century.

I do _hate_, not too strong a word, _Marxism_ and Marxist-Leninist-Maoist communism. _I believe_ that Karl Marx was a fool. _I think_ he totally misunderstood what he saw in 19th century England; Blake was right, the mills _*were*_ "dark" and downright "satanic," but while Marx sat in the Reading Room of the British Museum proposing socio-economic rubbish, real, smart people were out, "on the ground," making real changes to British society. Marx proposed a silly theory to solve a non-problem. We should study Marx to understand folly, not society or economics; he knew nothing about either. I reject any political party or movement that subscribes to any Marxist principles.

But, and don't get me wrong, _I think_ Marx's dictum of _"from each according to his ability, and to each according to his needs,"_ is a wonderful, even beautiful idea ... there's only one problem: it requires perfect people and to my certain knowledge there are none alive, today, and I doubt any perfect person ever did exist. I understand the _dream_, _I wish_ it could come true; it cannot; it requires the perfectibility of mankind; that's never going to happen; Karl Marx was a fool; so is everyone who believes in him.

That being said, _I believe_ in government and _I believe_ in the _liberal_, democratic political process.

_I believe_ that good, democratic government is "Government with the (_informed_) consent of the governed." _I also believe_ that the most important foundation stone for good government is respect for the rule of law and another, almost as important, is a body of _sound_ public institutions, starting with public libraries and elementary schools and going all the way up to great universities and law courts, but, always being conscious that it is the community that makes the institutions, not the other way 'round. 

I am, _I suppose_, a _Confucian_ when it comes to government. _I don't think_ we need anything like a _much_ government as we, in Canada, have in 2015, but I think the (much smaller) government we do need should be wise and just and should expect the cooperation of the people.

I self identify as both a _classical, 19th century liberal_ and as a _utilitarian_. I believe in the notion that the high duty of the state is to protect the _sovereign individual_  from the depredations of all collectives, including religions and governments, themselves. When, much less than now, government is necessary, _I believe_ it should try to do "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Another great duty of government is to secure an protect a few absolute rights for every individual: the rights to _life_, _liberty_ and _property_, as defined by John Locke in 17th century England, and the right to _privacy_, as defined by Brandeis and Warren in late 19th century America. Of course there are other rights, important rights, but they are all limited and circumscribed ~ only those four are,_ in my opinion_, fundamental.

As you can see I do not "fit" well into (agree with) any of our political parties, and I would not start my own party because so very, very few people would ever agree with me.

I am a Conservative despite most of the party's platform and policies and most of the people in it. I am a Conservative for two reasons:

     1. It is the party that is least far from my positions on the key issues; and

     2. I believe that responsible citizens ought to participate, however they can, in shaping public policy. The best way for me to participate is to support one political party and to try to temper its platform and policies by making my view known.

I also _believe_ in our, _Westminster_ form of democratically elected, _responsible_ (as opposed to being just _representative_) government. I think our, Canadian system of government has many, many flaws, beginning with an unelected chamber and going through serious inequality of representation in the other chamber and on to a badly drafted, written Constitution ... but none of those flaws are beyond the wit (and goodwill) of man to fix.

_I believe_ I have _not_ missed voting in any federal election since I started voting well over 50 years ago; I know I have missed a few (not many) provincial elections and rather more civic ones, but, finally, _I believe_ that we, citizens, have both _rights_ and _duties_ and our most important duty is to vote for those who would govern us.


Edited for clarity (I said "Finally" twice, I deleted the first "finally")  :-[


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2015)

Lawrence Martin, writing in the _Globe and Mail_, in this column which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper, is a bit uncertain about whether M Trudeau is rising or just that M Mulcair is falling. What he is sure about is that M Mulcair, unlike Prime Minister Harper, has failed to attend to either of his two bases, in Quebec, and amongst the broader Canadian left, and will, therefore, lose:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-ndp-can-kiss-its-chances-goodbye/article26571622/


> The New Democrats can kiss their chances goodbye
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




The other key insight here, I think, is, as others have described in this thread, that M Mulcair is a natural _Liberal_ and M Trudeau seems, like his father, to be a silk stocking socialist who belongs in the _NDP_.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Sep 2015)

Something from Twitter to ponder:

"Deficits are a way of measuring the kind of growth and the kind of success that a government is actually able to create." - Justin Trudeau

By that measure, Greece should be a frikken paradise.  :facepalm:


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This got me to thinking ...
> 
> A few days ago a member PM'd me and said something like:
> 
> ...



To be framed and hung on my wall......  saves me the trouble.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Droppin' like flies ....
> _"(Winnipeg) NDP candidate quits over social media posts linking Jewish sect to the Taliban"_
> :facepalm:




And now it looks as though the LPC will have only 337 candidates after Cheryl Thomas, Victoria, has resigned as a Liberal candidate after some intemperate remarks she made, on social media, about both Jews and Muslims came to light. Another one bites the dust ...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (30 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This got me to thinking ...
> 
> A few days ago a member PM'd me and said something like:
> 
> ...





			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> To be framed and hung on my wall......  saves me the trouble.



Even better as a column in the National Post.


----------



## suffolkowner (30 Sep 2015)

trying to decide who to vote for via my cows
http://snafu-solomon.blogspot.ca/2015/09/economics-explained-by-cows.html


----------



## Lumber (30 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This got me to thinking ...
> 
> A few days ago a member PM'd me and said something like:
> 
> ...



Ok everyone, I see it now. I would vote for ERC if he ran for office as well.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And now it looks as though the LPC will have only 337 candidates after Cheryl Thomas, Victoria, has resigned as a Liberal candidate after some intemperate remarks she made, on social media, about both Jews and Muslims came to light. Another one bites the dust ...



Can someone more articulate than me explain why I want to punch the editors of True North Times in the face right now?


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Sep 2015)

As might be expected, this line from L Martin's article jumped out at me: "Why not some stimulus?"  Liberal supporters sure are beating that drum hard.

Consider: if the Keynesian model worked in Canada, then the mid-90's cuts (austerity) should have caused a severe economic growth slump and the post-2008 spending programs (stimulus) should have caused a notable economic growth surge.

There definitely was no severe contraction due to the Chretien/Martin cuts, and the only comments I've read about the recent stimulus program is that it does not seem to have moved the dial much on anything.

Those are two real-world examples of significant magnitude disproving that massive changes in federal government spending in either direction have any notable effect in Canada.  Supporters of "stimulus" need to explain that away instead of promising unicorns and pixies.  Until they do, the Liberals and their supporters - no matter how august - are talking bullsh!t.  Shame on anyone who perpetuates their nonsense or believes it.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Oct 2015)

There's no real problem the with Keynesian model. The idea that we save when it's good so that we can spend when it's bad is pretty simple. What's really wrong is the way in which we apply it. We spend when it's good, and we spend when it's bad. We wouldn't need austerity if we saved for the bad times.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> No, I think you were right the first time: _"They're not unhappy."_ There's a big difference, _I think_. If Canadian are happy then more of them would be saying that they're going out to vote and that they plan to vote Conservative. What little I've seen, so far, suggests that we may be headed for another record low turnout; if that's the case then, depending on who wins, we can say, either: _"The few who care want change,"_ if the LPC or NDP win, or _"They're not unhappy,"_ if the CPC wins.



I missed this due to your marvellous declaration that followed.

Although I liked your declaration I'm going to disagree here.  

If a government is screwing up its people let it be known fairly quick.  Bastilles are stormed.  Kings heads are removed.  Bread is demanded.

None of that is happening.  By that standard the government of the day is doing a fine job.  

I suggest that it is possible to state that the first vote is cast by those that don't vote at all.  "qui tacet consentire videtur" or clearly put, silence implies consent.  Not voting can be fairly construed as consenting to the government of the day.

Therefore Harper stands with a clear majority of the Canadian populace:  the 40% of the 60% that did vote or 24%, plus the 40% that didn't vote and thereby consented to his governance, for a total of 40 + 24 or 64%.

We may debate the niceties of happy, not unhappy, complacent or even apathetic (not entirely a bad thing - they are without feeling either way - it just doesn't matter to them.)  The fact remains that they are not sufficiently bothered by their circumstances to feel that they need to take personal action.  

Perhaps we should just call them content? And content to consent?


----------



## Altair (1 Oct 2015)

I didn't vote in 2011. 

I was not content. I was disgusted by all of the choices.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2015)

Here is a new CPC attack ad on an issue that might actually resonate with many voters. The data that I have seen suggests that both M Mulcair and M Trudeau are out of step with something like 65% to 85% of Canadians on deporting convicted terrorists and niqabs.


----------



## s2184 (1 Oct 2015)

In the previous federal elections I voted for the Liberals except the last one. I don't know for some reason I started liking Conservative last five years. (May be I was adopted to it over the years ;D)

Earlier I was not at all interested to vote for this election. But, now I am going to cast my vote in advance polling, & most likely for the Conservative again.

I am just asking myself a question to make the final move.

If we are sending Team Canada to Olympics (pretend to be the Olympics for the sports of governing), which party is most capable of bringing home gold medal? 

& the answer is...???


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I've been says for years that Canada needs to change the _orientation_ of our foreign policy farther away from _comfortable_ old Europe and more towards strange, complex and oh, so very _foreign_ Asia. ( .... ) the TPP should have been a springboard to talk about what China, and Asia, more broadly, means to Canada ~ it wasn't and that's a pity.


More on the same theme from the G&M:


> When I last spoke with China’s envoy to Vancouver, Liu Fei, she complained politicians in Ottawa and Toronto are so focused on Europe and the United States that they too often ignore China. She had her own agenda, of course: China is not in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal being negotiated between Canada, the United States, Japan and other Pacific nations. But she still had a point.
> 
> I recalled her comments while watching Stephen Harper, Thomas Mulcair and Justin Trudeau settle into a foreign policy debate on Monday that included no discussion whatsoever of China – its rising influence, its world-shaking economy, its human rights record or Canada’s approach to the bilateral relationship. The debate was still likely the best we’ve seen so far, to be fair, but the word “China” was only mentioned once – in French and in the context of the TPP – and came up only as an aside in the section on climate change. It was a foreign policy debate that could only have happened in eastern Canada, which often simply gazes south or across the Atlantic.
> 
> In some ways this makes sense: the United States is Canada’s largest trading partner, and we are part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. But for someone watching the debate, it was hard to tell the global balance of power is shifting toward Asia ....


More @ link

The latest on "why the @#$%^& are we _still_ selling arms to the Saudis?" (and how unions are reportedly helping to keep that quiet).


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Oct 2015)

> I didn't vote in 2011.
> 
> I was not content. I was disgusted by all of the choices.



I am likely not the only one here then to put aside any complaints you have regarding the last four years.

The Brits call that "throwing your Teddy out of the cot." 

Assuming you vote, you'll reset your "Citizen voicing displeasure with their representation" membership. 

G2G


----------



## Altair (1 Oct 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I am likely not the only one here then to put aside any complaints you have regarding the last four years.
> 
> The Brits call that "throwing your Teddy out of the cot."
> 
> ...


I could have spoiled my ballet with the same effect as not voting. Or voted for the communist party to the same effect as not voting. 

I don't vote for the lesser of the evils. They might get the idea I support them. 

Let's be clear. If my choices on the ballot are stalin,  Mao,  and Castro and I don't vote, I will still voice my displeasure no matter who wins.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I could have spoiled my ballet with the same effect as not voting. Or voted for the communist party to the same effect as not voting.
> 
> I don't vote for the lesser of the evils. They might get the idea I support them.
> 
> Let's be clear. If my choices on the ballot are stalin,  Mao,  and Castro and I don't vote, I will still voice my displeasure no matter who wins.



I would have thought you would have voted for Trudeau's friend, Castro?  






Photo credit: National Post


----------



## George Wallace (1 Oct 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I would have thought you would have voted for Trudeau's friend, Castro?



AH!  Now that "canoe" photo comes to mind once again.  Just like Dad.   >


----------



## Altair (1 Oct 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I would have thought you would have voted for Trudeau's friend, Castro?


That would be the lesser of the evils.

A politician needs to earn my vote,  not get it by default. And while I know we vote for MPs, those MPs run for a party, and if I don't like that party they won't get my vote. Even if that means not voting. 

2011 was the perfect storm. I was tired of the CPC, the CPC candidate was the best person for my riding, the liberal one was passable but Ignatieff threw me off,  and I didn't like layton (as a politician) and the ndp candidate was a wacko.

Top that off by the army keeping me busy and no, I didn't vote. 

P.S. It was at a funeral. I've had to go for a family members, you gotta hug everyone. Even without cameras from all around the world.


----------



## Remius (1 Oct 2015)

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/nanos-polls

More numbers with the blue and the red switching spots from yesterday. But still essentially tied.

The NDP continue their decent.

With Ontario tied exactly, I expect some agressive campaigning there in the next few weeks.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> ...
> Ok everyone, I see it now. I would vote for ERC if he ran for office as well.
> ...




I don't think so ...

My idea of "good government" in Canada last occurred in, about, 1948 to 1952, it persisted, also for the last time, a bit longer in the USA, from, say 1946 to about 1955. I doubt that you, Lumber, or 99.99% of Canadians would welcome a return to 1950.

There would be social programmes, not niggardly ones, either, but every single social programme, except for school meals, would be _means tested_ and social welfare would be hard to find and harder to get. On the other hand, we would reopen all the large "homes" for the mentally disabled ... because "community care" is an obvious, sad, miserable failure.

Taxes would be lower, but not by too much, because a lot of the money not spent on useless social _entitlements_ would go towards the national defence and (legal) industrial support programmes designed to boost the productivity/competitiveness of our export industries.*

Your fundamental rights would be well protected ... police and intelligence services would need legal warrants for any surveillance of Canadian citizens in Canada. (But, the security services would have access to SECRET legal proceedings that would issue warrants that would remain totally sealed for _x_ days (say 100 to 1,000 days) and where the identities of government agents and witnesses would remain SECRET for _y_ years (say 10 to 50 years).) The Official Secrets Act would still exist and would be enforced, rigorously.

On the other hand the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would not exist, at all, and, in fact, the Government of Canada would have asked Westminster to repeal the British North America Act of 1867 and the Parliament of Canada would have enacted _federation_ and _division of powers_ and _supreme court_ acts, and so on.

Your House of Commons in Ottawa would be larger, to ensure reasonable equality of representation over most of Canada. The Senate would be elected and effective. 

My  :2c: about "good government."
____
* That means that we would have a fairly robust "defence industrial base," like, say, the Netherlands, Singapore and Sweden, because the one sector of a nation's economy that is exempt all trade law restrictions is national security and defence.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/nanos-polls
> 
> More numbers with the blue and the red switching spots from yesterday. But still essentially tied.
> 
> ...




But the "tie" in Ontario is significant because, just a day or two ago, thew Liberals had a measurable lead in Ontario:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Looking a bit behind those numbers:
> 
> Atlantic Canada (32 seats): Advantage _Liberals_;
> 
> ...



Now the overall advantage is shifting ... towards the Conservatives.  _Momentum?_ As Zhou Enlai said, _circa_ 1970, when Henry Kissinger asked him about the impact of the French Revolution, _"It's too soon to tell."_


----------



## Pencil Tech (1 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> To be framed and hung on my wall......  saves me the trouble.



 :boke:


----------



## Lumber (1 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't think so ...
> 
> My idea of "good government" in Canada last occurred in, about, 1948 to 1952, it persisted, also for the last time, a bit longer in the USA, from, say 1946 to about 1955. I doubt that you, Lumber, or 99.99% of Canadians would welcome a return to 1950.
> 
> ...



Hey I didn't say I was going to vote you in as a dictator who would cause such drastic change as what you have described. But if you want a comfortable middle-ground, you need people pulling from both directions.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Hey I didn't say I was going to vote you in as a dictator who would cause such _drastic change as what you have described_. But if you want a comfortable middle-ground, you need people pulling from both directions.




The "drastic changes" were wrought, almost exclusively, in a period of 15 years, in the past 150, from 1968 through to 1983.

_I suspect_ (_fear_?) that there is no more "comfortable middle ground" in Canada (or in America). _My sense _is that we, following the Americans, are _drifting_ towards an increasingly polarized political environment.

My problem with Stephen Harper's alleged "plan" to destroy the Liberals and give us a British style left <> right (Tories vs Labour/NDP) system with _moderates_ as a small, powerless minority, is that it seems to be a national folly. What we need,_ in my opinion_, is a return to _moderation_, which (_opinion_, again) means that we must first stop and then reverse the Liberals' lurch to the left, begun in the 1960s, and that means looking at what we might have now had, say, Paul Martin Sr, Mitchell Sharp or, maybe, John Turner won the Liberal Party leadership in 1968. My _belief_, perhaps just a wild _guess_, is that the Canada I described ~ my Canada with 1950 _values_ ~ is more likely to have evolved than Pierre Trudeau's Canada, which, of course, we live in, now.

I am resigned to big, intrusive, wasteful and inefficient government, and I doubt that it matters which political party runs things  ... but I don't have to like it. It's rather like being _tolerant_, isn't it? We _tolerate_ something that we believe to be _wrong_, but, when weighed against everything else, _acceptable_. That's so very Canadian.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting suggestion that the Conservatives have become "addicted" to the wrong re-election strategy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economic-insight/harpers-big-bet-wasnt-on-oil-it-was-on-the-canadian-consumer/article26603803/


> Harper’s big bet wasn’t on oil — it was on the Canadian consumer
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




Food for (fiscal policy) though.


----------



## Lumber (1 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _I suspect_ (_fear_?) that there is no more "comfortable middle ground" in Canada (or in America). _My sense _is that we, following the Americans, are _drifting_ towards an increasingly polarized political environment.



I think you can thank social media for this. Consider: the more polarized you are, the more likely you are to make your views heard. It's kind of like how more people will complain about bad service that will praise good service. The far left and far right (thought it seems more the former than the latter) are always going to be the ones who see every issue as a big deal and will voice their opinions on it. With the advent and proliferation of social media, their voice and their opinions just got a lot louder. While I would argue that Canadians in general remain as they were in the past (more centrist/moderate), all we hear is the shouting of the polarized few. You can't hear the sound of the content middle ground, because it's silent.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Oct 2015)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> :boke:



Can I fetch you a bucket and mop?


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I didn't vote in 2011.
> 
> I was not content. I was disgusted by all of the choices.



Ah.  But you were not sufficiently disgusted to change the status quo.  You were content to do nothing.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Oct 2015)

> In effect, the Conservatives have traded government debt for consumer debt. In solving one problem, it helped create another.



They traded the risk of one bad, big decision for the risk of 30,000,000 small ones.

Long time ago their was a video game called Harpoon.  NATO and the USSR in the North Atlantic with swarming air attacks over Iceland and Norway.  Initially I started off organizing massive aerial fleets and tried to co-ordinate every aircraft's activity.  Eventually I discovered a strategy that worked for me: keep a number of 4-aircraft flights in the air, scattered widely, all the time and manage the conveyor necessary to keep those flights flying.  The units were big enough to be effective but small enough, and numerous enough, that I didn't have to worry if a flight lost an aircraft or two or even if I lost a flight or two.

By betting on the consumer Harper has managed his risk downwards - assuming that he actually has bet on the consumer.

As a benefit - the consumer gets more control over his or her life.


----------



## Lumber (1 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Ah.  But you were not sufficiently disgusted to change the status quo.  You were content to do nothing.



If I lived in a Communist country, and I wanted to change the status quo, tell me, how would my vote do anything?

If you disagree entirely with all of the parties/candidates, how is your vote doing anything?


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2015)

It is not universal, by any means, but _I suspect_  this (the crowd's) reaction to Syrian refugees is much more common than many of us think. It is an election issue.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> If I lived in a Communist country, and I wanted to change the status quo, tell me, how would my vote do anything?



Short form: It wouldn't.  The solution would be to do the Communist thing and revolt.



> If you disagree entirely with all of the parties/candidates, how is your vote doing anything?



Is that strictly in the Communist context or generally?

I'll assume generally.  The question you have to ask yourself (suddenly feel a Dirty Harry urge) is "do you feel lucky?".  Are you sufficiently upset with the conditions of your life that change has to happen?  If you feel change has to happen and none of the characters on offer are providing what you want then your next choice is simple - if you live in a democracy.  See if you can find enough people that think like you to sign up and support you as you run for office.  If you live in a Communist society then see that revolting thing.

Revolting is possible in a democracy but most people don't feel it is necessary most of the time.  Mostly they are content.


----------



## MARS (1 Oct 2015)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> :boke:



wow, what a retort. So very....deep.


----------



## Remius (1 Oct 2015)

I know several parties are courting Mayor Nenshi.  Here in this article he expresses some of his views/opinions.

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/nenshis-harsh-words-for-harper/


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Oct 2015)

An interesting (trying to make nice?) open letter from PMSH to public servants:


> Since coming to office, our Conservative government has made life more affordable for Canadian families and protected Canada’s fragile economy in the midst of the most severe global recession in a generation. We have worked to lower taxes on individuals and job-creating businesses, increase Canada’s economic opportunities around the world through new trade agreements, and protect Canadians here at home and from threats abroad.
> 
> We have accomplished all of this because of our partnership with, and the hard work, dedication and integrity of you: Canada’s public servants. Canadians are well-served by our world-class public service, and I have seen this first-hand as Prime Minister. During our time in Government, we have worked with you to ensure your efforts are focused on the things that matter most to Canadians, and to create a healthier workplace where good work is recognized, red tape is removed, and benefits meet real needs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2015)

From David Akin, of _Sun News_:

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





He says: "Second poll today showing Conservatives with some separation. This time, it's Angus Reid, in the field Sep 28-30 with an online poll of 2,000: CPC 34% with LPC and NDP tied at 27%"


----------



## Altair (1 Oct 2015)

Nanos and ipsos Reid have a tie on top, ndp in third. Forum has been all over the place this entire election.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2015)

_I think_ what you want to look at are _trends_ and I think the _trends_, this week, are:

     The Conservatives are tending up  *↗*

     The Liberals are holding steady      ➙  and

     The NDP are trending down           *↘*

_Edited to add:_

The important question, _it seems to me_, is not who is leading (or trailing) in which poll? Rather, it is: _do polls influence results on voting days?_ (Polls are open 9, 10, 11 and 12 Oct (12 Oct is Thanksgiving Day) and, of course, on 19 Oct.) Many analysts consider _Momentum_, _the Big Mo_, as being all important in the last two weeks of a campaign. The Conservatives must be holding their collective breath to see if they do, indeed, have _momentum_ and the Liberals _might_ be asking themselves if they are stalled at the worst possible time.

One would love to be privy to the parties' internal, private polls ...


----------



## larry Strong (1 Oct 2015)

The latest from the Globe and Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-election-forecast-2015/article25377958/


Larry


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2015)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> The latest from the Globe and Mail
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-election-forecast-2015/article25377958/
> 
> ...




That is also a _trending up_ indicator for the Conservatives (up from a 55% chance of getting the most seats just a couple of days ago).


----------



## Altair (1 Oct 2015)

Well, good for the CPC I guess. Hopefully the the soft NDP supporters start going LPC.

Still 3 long ways to go.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Oct 2015)

>Still 3 long ways to go.

Thanks to ERC, this forum is a very short distance away from marking time in sleeps...


----------



## Remius (1 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That is also a _trending up_ indicator for the Conservatives (up from a 55% chance of getting the most seats just a couple of days ago).



More on this trend from Eric grenier

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-polls-oct1-1.3252148


----------



## a_majoor (2 Oct 2015)

Saw a rather bizzare thing on CBC news this morning. A reporter was talking at length about the auto industry in St Catherines and a protest by auto workers blaming Prime Minister Harper on the loss of jobs in the auto sector.

Somehow, in all the verbiage it never emerged that the primary cause of the devastation of the manufacturing (including auto) sector in Ontario is the Ontario Liberal Party and the economic policies they have been following since their election. This is an even better example of hostile PSYOPS than anything from RT.

Of course if the majority of voters are really that willfully ignorant, then we really do deserve the government we will get come 19 Oct.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Well, good for the CPC I guess. Hopefully the the soft NDP supporters start going LPC.
> 
> Still 3 long ways to go.




Following that line ... Jeffrey Simpson, who is, more or less, the unofficial spokesman (poster boy, at least) for the _Laurentian Elites_, suggests, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, that, no matter what the polling trends might suggest, the CPC has the weakest _team_ in memory:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/jeffrey-simpson-weak-conservative-lineup-reflection-of-harpers-leadership/article26625848/


> Weak Conservative lineup a reflection of Harper’s leadership
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




Now, Mr Simpson does make an interesting and valid observation: in politics, strong leaders tend to attract weaker followers or, equally probably, drive out strong followers. Consider, for example, Pierre Trudeau. he inherited, in 1968, a very strong Liberal cabinet, by 1984 it was a mere shadow of its former self. Ditto, _I think_, for Mulroney in 1984 to 1992, and then, of course, poor old Jean Chrétien, who presented himself as a strong leader, was never able to "command and control" his cabinet, suggesting, to me, that he was, in fact, a _weak_ leader. In Canadian (and most Westminster style governments) we have also seen the impact of creeping Americanism since, say, 1960 (the TV age) and the office of the prime minister has _evolved_ from being _primus inter pares_ to being quite _presidential_. So, _in my opinion_, Mr Simpson is describing a phenomenon which we can see at play in Australia, Britain and Canada, alike (Germany and India, too, probably) and he is, in the process, acknowledging that Prime Minister Harper IS a _strong leader_.

I do take issue with him on the topic of the CPC's _bench strength_. _I think_ the current caucus is _good enough_ for another term or even two, and _I believe_, as I have noted elsewhere in this Canadian Politics section, that the party has a pretty good batch of _potential_ leaders ~ at least as good (better, _I suspect_) than either the LPC or NDP can field.


----------



## Remius (2 Oct 2015)

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/nanos-polls

Slight uptick for the LPC and leading in Ontario.  Still essentially tied though.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is not universal, by any means, but _I suspect_  this (the crowd's) reaction to Syrian refugees is much more common than many of us think. It is an election issue.



There are several different reactions to the _niqab_ issue: while I sympathize with Mayor Nenshi's views, although I would not call it (raising the niqab ban) "disgusting," I agree with Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie, NDP candidate Alexandre Boulerice that the issue is "disturbing" in the public reaction to it.

The fact is, however, that it _IS_ an issue, one which the CPC and BQ will both try to exploit for their own, narrow, partisan political advantage.

But there are principles involved: an individual's _right_ to freedom of conscience, which can, arguably, extend to wanting to preserve her dignity/modesty because she considers it a vital attribute of her freedom, Canadian vs foreign cultural norms, and _tolerance_, with all that word implies. For both the Liberals and the NDP there is a price to be paid for their principles; for the Conservatives principles may bring electoral rewards.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Prof William Watson, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, examines the _hidden agenda_ ... but not Stephen Harper's, he suspects that what we've seen is what we'll get again, but, rather the two _hidden agendas_ of the Liberal and New Democratic Parties:
> 
> http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/watson-look-whose-agenda-is-hidden-now?hootPostID=fad0d095e790166b4da3cd8b2b582f43
> 
> ...




But the "hidden agenda" is not dead, after all. A _Progressive_ News Source has trotted it our, again, asking its readers to, in turn, ask their Conservative candidates for their views on abortion ... of course we have been told that candidates for the LPC and NDP may not have "views" of their own, they must toe the party line. (Edmund Burke must be rolling in his grave if he can see the depths to which freedom of conscience has sunk in those two parties.)


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Oct 2015)

A elementary teacher friend of mine is coming to grips with the Influence of the OLP influence on the LPC control room and reliving Wynne's steamroller-negotiating tactics with te teaches...maybe more teachers (particularly in Ontario) will be less inclined to vote for Trubuttswynne...


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Lawrence Martin, writing in the _Globe and Mail_, in this column which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper, is a bit uncertain about whether M Trudeau is rising or just that M Mulcair is falling. What he is sure about is that M Mulcair, unlike Prime Minister Harper, has failed to attend to either of his two bases, in Quebec, and amongst the broader Canadian left, and will, therefore, lose:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-ndp-can-kiss-its-chances-goodbye/article26571622/
> 
> The other key insight here, I think, is, as others have described in this thread, that M Mulcair is a natural _Liberal_ and M Trudeau seems, like his father, to be a silk stocking socialist who belongs in the _NDP_.




Accepting that the NDP _is falling_ in public support, Adam Radwanski, writing in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, suggest possible courses of action for M Mulcair and the NDP:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/as-ndp-lags-in-polls-whats-mulcairs-next-move-before-election-day/article26628993/


> As NDP lags in polls, what’s Mulcair’s next move before election day?
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




_I think_ that *all three* party leaders face similar dilemmas. Yes the NDP is falling, but the CPC and LPC are not rising either at all or at the rate they want ... it is still a tight, three way race. I agree that M Mulcair must have two messages: against Prime Minister Harper in Quebec and against M Trudeau in Ontario and BC. _I think_ Prime Minister Harper can play the "red neck" card (the _niqab_, security fears about Syrian refugees, stripping citizenship from convicted terrorists, etc) in all regions: Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies and BC. M Trudeau, _it seems to me_, must return to economics: Promises, Promises and more promises ... without too much attention to costs.


----------



## Remius (2 Oct 2015)

Andrew Coyne, last night on the At Issue panel mused about that exact dilema.  If Mulcair goes at Trudeau too much then it looks like he's fighting for 2nd place.  He suggested that the NDP may have to move back to the left (and be more vocal) on some issues especially in regards to the TPP where they would be the lone dissenter (thus claiming to support farmers, auto workers etc etc).  If they can sell this as being bad for Canada they might get some support back and that support must come from Ontario.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> Andrew Coyne, last night on the At Issue panel mused about that exact dilema.  If Mulcair goes at Trudeau too much then it looks like he's fighting for 2nd place.  He suggested that the NDP may have to move back to the left (and be more vocal) on some issues _especially in regards to the TPP where they would be the lone dissenter_ (thus claiming to support farmers, auto workers etc etc).  If they can sell this as being bad for Canada they might get some support back and that support must come from Ontario.




Good point. _I think_ the TPP is very important for Canada's long term economic health, I'm always a BIG supporter of free(er) trade, but _I know_ it is a loaded (political) gun in the short term, especially during an election campaign, and _I am convinced_ that the CPC is _dithering_ and _*may *_"screw the pooch" out of plain, old fashioned, political _fear_.


----------



## Remius (2 Oct 2015)

I'm thinking that this plan is starting to make the NDP look desperate.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/ndp-to-unveil-platform-geared-specifically-to-toronto-area-1.2591753

While catering to Toronto may seem like a good idea it may shrink support elsewhere.  But more importantly it show, at least to me, that the party is shortsighted in its vision and does not have the country's best interest at heart in the larger sense and seem to heading towards the "anything at all cost to win".

We'll see if this will translate into more support in Ontario and if it will offset the decline in Quebec.


----------



## Lumber (2 Oct 2015)

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/nanos-polls






I have no authority to make this claim, but IMO, what we're seeing here is a reflection of strategic voting intentions starting to take shape. Those on the left who want change, but were split between NDP and LPC, are finally making a decision (or changing their decision) and leaning toward Liberal. 

I think if the Liberals want to keep this momentum, they need some really inspiring capaign ads. They don't need anti-conservative attack ads; the left-wing already doesn't like harper, and red-tories won't believe the ads. Anti-Mulcair ads might help, but IMO they're not as effective real inspiring ads, and the NDP are doing a fine enough job on their own.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> I'm thinking that this plan is starting to make the NDP look desperate.
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/ndp-to-unveil-platform-geared-specifically-to-toronto-area-1.2591753
> 
> ...




_I guess_ it makes sense if you agree that he is both:

     1. In a tight race with M Trudeau in urban, central Toronto; and

     2. In a tight, three way race, with Prime Minister Harper and M Trudeau in the GTA suburbs.

_I believe_ the first is true, but I'm less sure about the second. _I think_ there are a few tight races in the suburbs but I haven't seen any recent numbers which would say if they are two or three way races.


----------



## Remius (2 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/nanos-polls
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Until either the Liberals or the Conservatives jump ahead and out of teh error of margin, i think it is premature to think anyone is gaining momentum.  Yesterday it was eth CPC ahead, today it's the LPC.  Let's see what the weekend brings.


----------



## Lumber (2 Oct 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> Until either the Liberals or the Conservatives jump ahead and out of teh error of margin, i think it is premature to think anyone is gaining momentum.  Yesterday it was eth CPC ahead, today it's the LPC.  Let's see what the weekend brings.



Fair. I guess my major point was that the left-wing fence sitters are starting to make a choice and their landing in the Liberal's back yard. That beign said, maybe no one party is getting momementum, but the NDP drop is sure going to push both the CPC and LPC up.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Oct 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> Until either the Liberals or the Conservatives jump ahead and out of teh error of margin, i think it is premature to think anyone is gaining momentum.


True.  Most of the polls I'm looking at, though, show the NDP losing momentum.


----------



## Remius (2 Oct 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> True.  Most of the polls I'm looking at, though, show the NDP losing momentum.



Yes, they are definitly on the downturn.  Well out of any margin of error and fairly consistant throughout most polls.  The LPC is benefitting yes, but will it benefit enough?  I don't know how many more votes they can steal.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Fair. I guess my major point was that the left-wing fence sitters are starting to make a choice and their landing in the Liberal's back yard. That beign said, maybe no one aprty is getting momemntum, but the NDP drop is sure going to push both the CPC and LPC up.




 ;D   Fat Finger Friday's.

Sorry for the derailment, but could not resist, having fat fingers myself when posting in haste.


----------



## Remius (2 Oct 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ;D   Fat Finger Friday's.
> 
> Sorry for the derailment, but could not resist, having fat fingers myself when posting in haste.



I get fat fingers every day lol.  My worst transgressions seem to be  "teh" instead of "the"


----------



## Occam (2 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Fair. I guess my major point was that the left-wing fence sitters are starting to make a choice and their landing in the Liberal's back yard. That beign said, maybe no one party is getting momementum, but the NDP drop is sure going to push both the CPC and LPC up.



I agree that the left wing fence sitters are probably starting to make a choice, but the way I see it, it's not likely to result in much or any gain in the CPC support.  Look at the Anatomy of 2ndChoice slide at http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/20151001%20Ballot%20TrackingE.pdf.

Liberals are most likely to choose NDP as a second choice.  NDP is most likely to choose Liberal as a second choice.  It's interesting to note that the CPC supporters are most likely to choose "none" as a second choice.


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Oct 2015)

That's because there isn't a real second choice party wise for those of us who might want to vote CPC.  The OPFOR on the other hand can hop all they like on the left side of the game.


----------



## Lumber (2 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That's because there isn't a real second choice party wise for those of us who might want to vote CPC.  The OPFOR on the other hand can hop all they like on the left side of the game.



You calling me OPFOR?  :Jedi:


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Oct 2015)

If the left shoe fits...  :slapfight:

Oh the irony in that I'm left handed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2015)

The end of the beginning ...

I was thinking about the recent (May 2015) UK election. There is lots of good data on the _Wikipedia_ page but the big story, in my opinion, wasn't the inaccurate polls or, even, the unfavourable treatment that the _first past the post_ voting system meted out to, especially, UKIP and the Liberal-Democrats. Rather, I think the real, big story is captured in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _The Economist_:

http://www.economist.com/node/21650781


> From behind lace curtains
> *A "silent majority" helps the Tories to pull off their usual surprise*
> 
> May 8th 2015
> ...



I wonder if we also have a 'silent majority" behind lace curtains here in Canada. _I suspect_ we do.

"What issue, " I ask myself, "will bring that _silent majority_ out from behind its lace curtains to vote?"

The _Globe and Mail_'s editorial board worries, too, about issues. It opines, in this editorial which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper, that too many people are focused on the trivial issue of _niqabs_ while other, more important issues are ignored:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/the-niqab-is-a-distraction-voters-should-focus-on-real-issues/article26626437/


> The niqab is a distraction. Voters should focus on real issues
> 
> The Globe and Mail
> 
> ...




I am reminded that Lynton Crosby, the so called _"Wizard of Oz"_ who was instrumental in prime Minister Cameron's surprising (shocking?) last minute victory is also working for Prime Minister Harper. In an interview with _The Telegraph_, Mr Crosby said, "It wasn't just Ed Miliband's Labour Party that revealed itself as out of touch and remote from the people who are the backbone of Britain ... it was a failure from the Westminster centric _'Eddie the expert'_ and _'Clarrie the commentator'_ who were tested and found wanting ...  [and] Politics is not entertainment ... that’s a mistake of people who are acute followers of politics as commentators or people from within the Westminster village. For the voters it’s not entertainment, it’s a serious issue, it’s a serious thing that means a great deal to their lives. It is their future.”

We're approaching the last two weeks of the campaign which include the Thanksgiving long weekend. Advance polls are open Fri, Sat, Sun and Mon, 9 to 12 Oct. It is time for Canadians to decide.

Will they decide on "bread and butter" issues, or will "societal value" issues, like the _niqab_ or _security_ matters, like stripping the citizenship from convicted terrorists, matter more?

How do the three main parties compare on "bread and butter" issues? Which one promises to leave more in or take more from voters' pay cheques? How about social and security issues? Does the _niqab_ matter "behind the lace curtain?" And, finally, who is behind that lace curtain, what age groups and how much to they vote?

I will be watching the ads closely to see how Mr Crosby and the CPC, and the Liberal and NDP's (mainly US/Democratic Party) advisors address the issues that seem to me to matter to that _silent majority_ behind Canada's "lace curtains."


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2015)

In this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Maclean's Magazine_, Paul Wells, not really a friend of the Conservatives, suggests that Prime Minister Harper and the CPC (and the "Wizard of Oz") are winning the campaign, if not the election ... yet:

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/paul-wells-as-far-as-i-can-tell-stephen-harper-is-winning/


> ‘As far as I can tell, Stephen Harper is winning’
> *The Conservatives are gaining ground in the polls faster than the Liberals. And the NDP slump is serious.*
> 
> Paul Wells
> ...




_In my opinion_ it's too soon to say the prime Minister Harper has the much sought after _Momentum_, but he's on the right track ... the questions remain: what issues will matter to those_ silent majorities_ (see above, and _I believe_ there's more than one) and which of them will come out to vote?


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2015)

There is a very long, too long to post here, even by my standards, but very good and interesting biography of Justin Trudeau in the _Globe and Mail_. Those who support him, those who are still undecided and those who oppose him all ought to read it: it may frighten, enlighten and/or reassure all three groups in some measures (and in no particular order).


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And it looks, in the latest _Predictionator_ from _Sun Media_'s David Akin, as if things have changed in the last week or so:



And here is the latest _Predictionator_ from David Akin, the Parliamentary Bureau Chief of _Sun News_:






The CPC _seems_, according to Mr Akin, to be gaining at the expense of both the NDP and the LPC.

The _magic number_ for a majority in 338 seat House is 170.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2015)

But, here in another poll, this one from the _Innovative Research group_ that shows the LPC leading, by a hair:


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 Oct 2015)

By a Justin hair.

Gosh, I hope the Liberals don't win. What an embarrassment on the world stage. I would rather have the NDP win as their one and only time as a national government (who would recognize Canada after 4/5 years of NDP rule, and who would re-elect the NDP again?)


----------



## GAP (2 Oct 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> By a Justin hair.
> 
> Gosh, I hope the Liberals don't win. What an embarrassment on the world stage. I would rather have the NDP win as their one and only time as a national government (who would recognize Canada after 4/5 years of NDP rule, and who would re-elect the NDP again?)



Shhh.....they keep reelecting the Liberals in Ontario...... :


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2015)

Interesting ...

See: https://twitter.com/CTV_PowerPlay/status/650065997165019136

CTV's Don Martin, host of _Power Play_, says, on his _Twitter_ feed: "Last Word: Keep in mind, a majority Canadian Prime Minister is among the most powerful democratic positions in the world."

If I'm reading all the polls well enough then the only party leader with _potentially_ a reasonable chance of winning a majority ~ that chance is only a remote possibility now ~ is the CPC. Do I detect worry amongst the _commentatriat_?


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> Andrew Coyne, last night on the At Issue panel mused about that exact dilema.  If Mulcair goes at Trudeau too much then it looks like he's fighting for 2nd place.  He suggested that the NDP may have to move back to the left (and be more vocal) on some issues _especially in regards to the TPP where they would be the lone dissenter (thus claiming to support farmers, auto workers etc etc).  If they can sell this as being bad for Canada they might get some support back and that support must come from Ontario._



And, just as if he'd read your mind, M Mulcair has, according to an article in the _Globe and Mail_ dropped a "bombshell declaration on Friday [that] promises to make the massive trade agreement a bigger factor in Canada’s 42nd federal election, which is 2 1/2 weeks away. It comes as polls suggest the NDP has dropped to third place in the national race ... The NDP’s hardening of position on a potential TPP deal sets it apart from the Conservatives, who favour a deal, and the Liberals, who have focused most of their criticism on the manner in which the Tories have negotiated the agreement rather than its substance ... Mr. Mulcair has sent a letter to International Trade Minister Ed Fast, the Conservative government’s point man on the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks, listing a slew of reasons why he’s distancing himself from the agreement, including the expected pain it will bring to Canadian dairy farmers and smaller auto parts makers."


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 Oct 2015)

The biggest part of his announcement is that an NDP government would not consider itself bound by the terms of a major Pacific Rim trade deal.

I read somewhere this week that Canada's two largest auto parts company's are on board (unions, of course, no) with the government. Mr Fast in an interview stated he regularly (weekly, I believe) consults with the dairy and auto parts industries.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how a possible 10% increase in milk product imports from the US (to off set the US imports of NZ products) would be "disastrous" for the dairy industry.

Cdns want cheaper dairy and other supply mgt products. Why hold 32 million citizens hostage to 4 or 5 ridings and 12,000 well off dairy farmers.

Phoenix, AZ costs converted to current Cdn $: gallon of milk: $2.60; 18 eggs: $2.40; boneless/skinless chicken breasts same price as the milk.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Oct 2015)

>The Conservatives have the weakest cabinet in living memory

Interesting idea.  It does prompt the question: where does Justin Trudeau rank in the spectrum of "weakest to strongest" PM or PM candidate in living memory?


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Oct 2015)

>Will they decide on "bread and butter" issues, or will "societal value" issues, like the niqab or security matters, like stripping the citizenship from convicted terrorists, matter more?

The NDP and LPC supporters' positions on these issues amuse me.

Ordinarily, I expect the "pro-women" vote (whatever that is) to be opposed to religious tyranny imposed by patriarchal religious hierarchies on "their" women.   But the anti-CPC faction jerks its knee in automatic opposition to whatever the CPC favours; so there they are on the other side, clinging to the fiction that all those women "choose" to wear the garments.

The objections to stripping citizenship chiefly hinge on the suggestion that it creates two classes of citizenship and that "two-tier" citizenship is wrong.  But we already have two classes of citizenship in Canada - non-aboriginal, and aboriginal.  I don't think the NDP or LPC is going to stake out a genuine position to have exactly one class of citizenship in Canada, so again their supporters (mostly) find themselves raising a reactionary objection rather than a reasoned one.  Would they be happier if birth citizenship were also revocable, so that enemies of the state could lose citizenship privileges and be mere residents?


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Oct 2015)

Saputo and Agropur (Parmalat is an Italian firm) are home grown Canadian success stories in the dairy industry.  Saputo, Agropur and Parmalat control 75% of the Canadian milk supply. 

Saputo is a family firm based in Montreal.
Agropur is a very large Co-Operative of Quebec dairy farmers (3445 members) processing milk in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, BC, PEI, NS and NB as well as 6 US states.

Agropur also is invested in Uruguay, Brazil and Argentina through Grupo la Lacteo



> Our Cooperative is the product of more than 140 mergers
> and acquisitions since 1938. It has grown from a regional
> organization into _*a North American leader that is
> positioning itself for the futur*_e. We are confidently
> ...



Saputo By Region

Canada, USA, Argentina, Australia



> Canada’s dairy giant Saputo is targeting emerging markets for growth
> With the $450 million purchase of Australia’s Warrnambool under his belt, Lino Saputo Jr. sees potential in Brazil
> 
> Jun 30, 2015 Sissi Wang   1



Link

Agropur




> CORPORATE PROFILE
> 
> Each waking day, Agropur cooperative responds to the call of some 3,473 dairy farmers who rely on this organization, which they jointly own, to enhance the fruit of their labour. *More than 5.4 billion litres of milk are processed annually in 40 plants spread throughout North America*.
> 
> Generating more than $4.7 billion in sales, the resulting products grace the tables of thousands of consumers from coast to coast. But before these products reach their tables, more than 8,000 employees and many contract agents assigned to milk collection and distribution combine their efforts and expertise to ensure that the final product meets all expectations.






> _*Business unit Agropur USA*_
> 
> Grand Rapids (Michigan, É.-U) 8
> Hull (Iowa, É.-U.) 9
> ...



http://www.agropur.com/en/profile/plants/



> Agropur Co-operative
> 
> Address:510 Rue Principale
> Granby,  QC ,
> ...





> National and international strategy:
> Building the Agropur of tomorrow
> Agropur made substantial investments to drive its recent
> growth. _*Over the last two years, the Cooperative carried
> ...



Quebec dairy farmers control a very large dairy company that operates outside of Quebec and across North America and has interests in South America.

Saputo, a Quebec based company that processes an awful lot of milk from Quebec farmers also has operations in the US, Argentina and _*Australia*_.

I suggest that the Canadian dairy industry is very well positioned to take advantage of freer trade via a TPP.  

The National Farmers Union is likely of a different opinion.


----------



## Altair (3 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> More on the 'merger,' reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/talk-all-you-want-but-liberal-and-ndp-pieces-just-wont-fit/article2147672/
> 
> ...


you were off some.

It's really interesting reading the first 10 or so pages of this thread.

How time changes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Oct 2015)

According to what I'm seeing this morning ~ and I'm sorry, I lost the reference/link ~ _Nanos_, at least, is suggesting that the race is spreading out, in the LPC;s favour:

LPC - 35±% of decided voters

CPC - 30±%

NDP - 25±%

If that's true then:

     1. The NDP decline, something the _Globe and Mail_ nicknamed the _Orange Cr*a*sh__, is real; and

     2. The LPC is edging close to majority territory (38±%).

But: there are two "long times in politics" to go and don't forget the "events, dear boy ..."_


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Oct 2015)

Chantel Hébert, writing in the _Toronto Star_, says that, "With the NDP bleeding support in Quebec, Thomas Mulcair needed to stand head and shoulders above the competition at Friday’s second French-language leaders debate to have a shot at staunching a debilitating hemorrhage ... [but] ... it is not that Mulcair had a bad debate night, but rather that he fell short of dominating the leaders podium."

She goes on to say that, "The niqab issue that has acted as a catalyst for a steady drop in NDP fortunes in Quebec did not come up until the second half of the debate ... Both Mulcair and Trudeau put up a more spirited defence of their opposition to the niqab ban than they had to date ... But with an overwhelming majority of Quebecers—including most members of its political class—overwhelmingly in favour of requiring Muslim women to unveil their face to take the citizenship oath, this is not the ground on which either of them can expect to score a lot of points in this province."

Finally, she adds: "Polls show that regime change remains the primary objective of a majority of Quebec voters," and she suggests that "... coming out of the five-round debate fight, he [Mulcair] is not even the leading contender for his former job of official opposition leader."

I have been saying, pretty consistently, that M Trudeau's route to power (24 Sussex Drive) or to retaining his own leadership of the LPC (winning _Stornoway_, at least) must be "through Quebec." If Mlle Hébert's analysis is correct then he _may_ have made that decisive step.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> According to what I'm seeing this morning ~ and I'm sorry, I lost the reference/link ~ _Nanos_, at least, is suggesting that the race is spreading out, in the LPC;s favour:
> 
> LPC - 35±% of decided voters
> 
> ...


_
That, versus David Akin's Predictinator ....







			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		


			But: there are two "long times in politics" to go and don't forget the "events, dear boy ..."

Click to expand...

Oh yeah ...._


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Oct 2015)

Davis Akin explains his _Predictionator_ in his _blog_. The key, it seems to me, is that he makes riding-by-riding judgments (guesses?) which he explains in this note:

    "Every riding has to have a winner for the seat count project but when I do individual riding assessments, I assess one of three grades: A Likely win means that, on the date of the assessment, this seat looked pretty safe to go to the party
     I have called it for. The winner is probably got at least 10% per cent more votes than the nearest challenger. But if it’s Leaning, the party I’m calling it for is going to have to work hard and there’s a reasonable chance of another
     party winning this riding. Leaning ridings are definitely ridings to watch where a winner is within 5% of the votes of the nearest challenger. Finally, the TossUp rating is used when my model spits out a result where the one or more parties
     are within about 2 per cent of each other. I list tossups with the party my model has in first followed by the part that is right behind it."

I think that's why he can predict a CPC minority in the face of a Liberal _national_ advantage. It is the same, as I understand it, for the _Globe and Mail_'s Election Forecast which explains itself as:

    "Our predictions use polling numbers and other data to calculate each party’s chance of winning a particular seat (read our methodology for more on how it works). We run simulated elections in each riding 1,000 times. The average of
     all of these simulations gives us our national forecast."

My earlier comments about "vote efficiency" also matter.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Oct 2015)

Speaking of riding-by-riding results, here in Ottawa, the _Ottawa Citizen reports that the latest polling (Mainstreet Research), "found that Leslie, a retired Canadian Forces general, has a healthy lead in public support over Galipeau and political rivals running for the other parties in the federal election."

    "The poll found Leslie with the support of 40 per cent of voters who have made up their mind or are leaning toward one party.

     Galipeau has 33 per cent of the decided and leaning vote. NDP candidate Nancy Tremblay has 19 per cent of that vote, compared to eight per cent for Green candidate Raphael Morin.

     Mainstreet polled a random sample of 660 people in Orléans on Sept. 28 and 29. A mixture of land lines and cellphones was surveyed, using interactive voice response (IVR) technology. The margin of error was plus or minus 3.8 percentage points,
     19 times out of 20."_


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Oct 2015)

Too bad.  I would like to see Leslie share the same fate Mackenzie did when he ran.


----------



## Old Sweat (3 Oct 2015)

I suspect these predictions, and I don't doubt the sincerity and the motivation of those who make them, are largely based on historical trends in many ridings. Take mine, the clumsily renamed Leeds-Grenville-Thousand Islands-Rideau Lakes, as an example. Based on our population it would be very strange indeed if more than one or two individuals were sampled in a poll. (I was called by Forum Research a couple of weeks ago.) Since 2004 this riding has voted solidly CPC and before that, the only reason the Liberals won in the 1993-2000 period was vote splitting between the PCs, Reform and later the Canadian Alliance.

The cost and logistics of conducting a proper sample of each riding nightly or even weekly is surely beyond the resources of all interested parties and organizations. To state that a thousand simulations are run for each suggests to me the use of a data base. Is this acceptable? Probably, and I accept the limitations of the technology.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think that's why he can predict a CPC minority in the face of a Liberal _national_ advantage.


Which is also why it's a good idea to, if you're keeping an eye on polling, to look at WAY more than one poll, and pay close attention to what they ask.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _I think_ what you want to look at are _trends_ and I think the _trends_, this week, are:
> 
> The Conservatives are tending up  *↗*
> 
> ...



Another poll, this one, released yesterday, by _Ekos_:






If those results mean anything then, _it seems to me_:

     The Conservative's upward trend has stalled and they are holding steady   *➙*

     The Liberals are continuing to hold steady                                                          ➙  and

     The NDP's downward trend has stalled and they, too, are holding steady   *➙*


----------



## Remius (3 Oct 2015)

For those that want a decent analysis of most polls Eric Grenier offers his take on the current situation.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-grenier-polls-oct2-1.3254490

It's a good take on the situation.  He declares that unless both groups of polls come to closer results of each other we likely won't really know until election night who was right.

For me, I'm fairly confident now that I can predict a very slim and fragile conservative minority, liberal official opposition and the NDP in third.  I'm also predicting another election come spring if not sooner unless an informal coalition is formed to unseat the CPC.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Oct 2015)

I cannot see the liberals doing a formal coalition with the NDP. If they do well enough on 19 October to get a close second to the conservatives (or even barely finish first), they will be flushed with enthusiasm and will want the whole thing for themselves. I also do not detect that they much like or trust the NDP, so why would they share power with them?

I say that we are in for some version of minority and a spring 2016 election. Unless, there are about 5 percent of the voters who have been hanging out in the weeds and masking their intentions (like in the UK) and intend on voting Conservative. in that case, the election is already over...


----------



## FSTO (3 Oct 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I cannot see the liberals doing a formal coalition with the NDP. If they do well enough on 19 October to get a close second to the conservatives (or even barely finish first), they will be flushed with enthusiasm and will want the whole thing for themselves. I also do not detect that they much like or trust the NDP, so why would they share power with them?
> 
> I say that we are in for some version of minority and a spring 2016 election. Unless, there are about 5 percent of the voters who have been hanging out in the weeds and masking their intentions (like in the UK) and intend on voting Conservative. in that case, the election is already over...



In that scenario I can see Harper resigning. Which could trigger a sort of a reinvention of the Conservatives that would be more receptive to the blue Liberals. If Trudeau remains to the left of the NDP...........?


----------



## Remius (3 Oct 2015)

That is why I say "informal".  The runner up goes to the GG with support from the third party.  It isn't inconceivable that say the liberals and NDP informally come to an agreement that one of the two forms government and agrees to some of the other party's platform.  So say the liberals agree to bring forward the NDP childcare program in exchange for 9 months of peace to refill the coffers and election war chests.  Stephen Harper would likely leave and the CPC forced to have a divisive leadership campaign.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Oct 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> That is why I say "informal".  The runner up goes to the GG with support from the third party.  It isn't inconceivable that say the liberals and NDP informally come to an agreement that one of the two forms government and agrees to some of the other party's platform.  So say the liberals agree to bring forward the NDP childcare program in exchange for 9 months of peace to refill the coffers and election war chests.  Stephen Harper would likely leave and_ the CPC forced to have a divisive leadership campaign_.




All leadership campaigns are, inherently, divisive... the only exception that comes to mind is 1948 when the Liberal Party (the cabinet and the _national executive_) was virtually wholly united in wanting Louis St Laurent to succeed Mackenzie King. Some leadership conventions (think the PCs in 1967, and the Liberals in 1968 (Trudeau vs e.g. Winters (and LaMarsh)) and 1990 (Chrétien vs Martin) are very divisive and create long lasting feuds, in fact I would argue that the Liberal ideological _split_ or civil war than began in 1968 persists to this very day.

The CPC, _it seems to me_, is less divided, within itself, than the others: there is a fairly prominent left <> right divide but the CPC also has, now, a pretty substantial _centrist_ group that clearly outnumbers both the old _Red Tories_ and the hard right, the _centrists_ may even have a "lock" on the leadership. _I believe_ that Stephen Harper's legacy to the Conservative Party is that the _centre_ is now the _*vital ground*_ which the party understands it must seize and hold, if you'll forgive the military analogy.


----------



## observor 69 (3 Oct 2015)

Joyce Bateman, Tory Candidate, Lists Retired General Among 'Enemies' Of Israel

 The Huffington Post Canada    |  By  Ryan Maloney
 Posted:  10/03/2015 2:18 pm EDT    Updated:  18 minutes ago 

A Conservative incumbent sparked boos at a debate this week after reading out a list of Liberal candidates and volunteers she identified as "enemies" of Israel.

But those jeers reportedly turned to cries of "shame" when Joyce Bateman, running again in Winnipeg South Centre, got to Andrew Leslie, the Liberal candidate in the Ontario riding of Orléans. 

Leslie is a retired Canadian Forces Lieutenant-General who commanded troops during the war in Afghanistan.


More at link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/10/03/joyce-bateman-andrew-leslie-israel_n_8238104.html?ncid=tweetlnkcahpmg00000002


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Oct 2015)

"enemies of Israel"...  :facepalm:  what is with the candidates of this particular election campaign and their feet or keyboards in their mouths?


----------



## agc (3 Oct 2015)

NDP offers Quebec right to opt out of federally funded programs

An NDP government would allow Quebec -- but no other province -- to opt out of new federally funded social programs and receive its share of the money with no strings attached.

The policy reflects the NDP's full embrace of asymmetrical federalism and is a marked departure from the approach taken by Conservative and Liberal governments, which have generally been careful to give all provinces the ability to opt out, even if Quebec was typically the only one to take up the offer.

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair has confirmed that the policy would apply to his promises to boost funding to the provinces for health-care initiatives, including creation of a national prescription drug plan.

But that could be a recipe for conflict with the other provinces. Already, Ontario is signalling that it would demand equal treatment.

"We welcome new health-care investment," said a spokesperson for Premier Kathleen Wynne's office. "We would expect that the same rules apply to all provinces."

The issue first came up in last week's French-language leaders' debate when Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe pressed Mulcair to explain whether he intended to make his promises of new health funding conditional on provinces accepting his health-care priorities.

"When it comes to Quebec: a right to opt out; full compensation; no conditions," Mulcair responded.
On Thursday, Mulcair did not directly answer when asked if other provinces would have the same right to opt out.
He referred instead to the Sherbrooke Declaration, the NDP's 10-year-old policy on Quebec, noting that it spells out that "when it's a federal expenditure in an area of exclusive (provincial) jurisdiction, Quebec would be allowed to opt out."
The declaration's embrace of asymmetrical federalism was intended to lay to rest one of the most divisive issues of the past -- one which Mulcair said had led many Quebecers to conclude the only solution "was to break apart this extraordinarily successful, wonderful country that is Canada."

While Quebec could unconditionally opt out and take the money from the NDP's promises to create a drug program, boost home care and hire more doctors, Mulcair said the basic principles of the Canada Health Act, to which Quebec has signed on, would continue to apply. The act stipulates that federal health transfers to the provinces are conditional on the health system being universal, publicly administered, comprehensive, accessible and portable.

Under the terms of the Sherbrooke Declaration, the opt-out policy would also apply to the NDP's promised national, $15-a-day child-care program, and other social program initiatives. Mulcair has said, however, that his child-care program would be flexible, taking into account different programs already offered by each of the provinces.

Senior campaign adviser Brad Lavigne confirmed that the opting-out policy applies only to Quebec.

"If the provinces agree to the creation of a national program in an area of provincial jurisdiction, Quebec would be the only province that is able to opt out . . . with compensation under Sherbrooke," Lavigne said an email.

He did not respond when asked why other provinces aren't entitled to the same treatment.

The Sherbrooke Declaration touts asymmetrical federalism as "the best way to consolidate the Canadian federal state with the reality of Quebec's national character" and the province's challenge of "preserving the French fact in America."
"This asymmetry vis-a-vis Quebec can be applied in real terms through opting-out with compensation. The right to opt out applies where the federal government, on its own or with the agreement of the provinces, intervenes in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction (in particular health and social services, education, family policy, housing, municipal infrastructure, etc.) In such case, no conditions or standards should be applied to Quebec without its consent, obtained after consultation and negotiation."

Keith Banting, a Queens University political scientist and social policy expert, said the "calculated ambiguity"of the declaration's wording raises the possibility that the opt-out policy is meant to apply to all manner of federal social policy initiatives, including direct federal transfers to individuals like the universal child-care benefit. That would be a big change that would court "intense controversy," he said.

In the past, efforts to resolve the issue have centred strictly on programs whose cost is shared by the federal and provincial governments and they've attempted equal treatment for all provinces.

The failed Meech Lake and Charlottetown constitutional accords in the early 1990s proposed to give all provinces the right to opt out of cost-shared programs, provided they spent their federal share of the money on programs of their own with comparable objectives. Critics of the accords feared that would result in a patchwork quilt of social programs across the country, with no national standards.

In the 1999 Social Union Framework Agreement, which remains in force although Quebec never signed it, the federal government agreed it wouldn't use its spending power to create new shared-cost programs without the consent of a majority of the provinces and that dissenting provinces could opt out with compensation, provided they established equivalent or comparable programs.

In 2004, the federal government and provinces negotiated a 10-year health funding accord, in which the federal cash was tied to provincial agreement to meet certain reform targets, including reduction of hospital wait times. Quebec insisted on a separate agreement adapted to the province's "specificity," although it accepted the overall principles and objectives of the accord.

While that was hailed or criticized by some as asymmetrical federalism, the targets ended up being unenforceable so Quebec's separate agreement was largely symbolic.

There has been the odd exception over the years, but generally Banting said: "Intergovernmental relations have functioned okay with asymmetry if the same offer (to opt out) is made to other provinces," whether or not they take it up.

Cutting separate deals for Quebec alone has led to trouble, he said, pointing to the Canada-Quebec immigration accord, under which only Quebec gets a say in the selection of immigrants and a disproportionate share of funding for settlement services. Ontario, which receives the lion's share of newcomers, has strenuously objected that it has not been offered a similar deal.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Oct 2015)

If that's not going to drive people away from the NDP outside of Quebec, I don't know what will. The Liberals don't really have to do anything, just sit and watch the NDP implode and gather their votes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Oct 2015)

Conrad Black offers his views on the leaders in this opinion piece which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/conrad-black-the-ndp-still-isnt-ready-but-it-turns-out-trudeau-may-be


> The NDP still isn’t ready, but it turns out Trudeau may be
> 
> Conrad Black | October 2, 2015 | Last Updated: Oct 3
> 
> ...




This is, mainly, an analysis of why M Mulcair is foundering but I think Lord Black (is he still a lord?) is right that Prime Minister Harper will have difficulty unless he has a very strong majority.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Oct 2015)

It will be interesting to see what happens if the Torries manage a bare majority. I expect the usual culprits will lodge court challenges to tightly contested ridings... all the while ignoring similar results in favour of the Liberals or NDP.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Oct 2015)

Given "An NDP government would allow Quebec -- but no other province -- to opt out of new federally funded social programs and receive its share of the money with no strings attached" and "This agreement would never come into effect unless it's ratified in the House of Commons, and I will not put before the House of Commons an agreement that sacrifices the family farms of hard-working people across Canada who right now are prospering under supply management", I hope the NDP gets spanked hard.


----------



## Altair (4 Oct 2015)

Trudeau is on it, no worries.

I'm just kidding for those with no sense of humor.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Oct 2015)

Not everyone will like this video of Bob Rae taking to Steve Pakin (TVO/Agenda) about the substance of his book, _What's Happened to Politics?_ I don't agree with everything he says but I do agree that too many Canadians are "politically illiterate," we get _fed_ all the _spin_ through and by a politically 'engaged' (which is to say biased) media. (I also agree with Mr Rae that almost all _politics_ is "filtered" through the media.) But, _I think_ that he has bought into the _spin_ business when he says, for example, (8'30") that as circumstances change the politicians must change, quickly, too. He faults Prime Minister Harper, for example for being repetitive and says that leaders cannot take time to ponder changing circumstances ~ those pesky "events" ~ _in my opinion_ changing circumstances often require a pause for reflection but the media wants "instant gratification" and the spin doctors are eager to provide it, considered,. correct or not.

_I worry_ (12'50") that Mt Rae is wrong; I'm not sure that all the leaders have a clear _vision_ of "where they want to go." I am, of course, repeating my _fear_ that M Trudeau is little more than a sock puppet for the Kathleen Wynne/Gerald Butts faction of the Liberal Party. _My best guess_ is that Prime Minister Harper and M Mulcair do have their own _visions_, but _I'm less sure_ that their party bases will follow.

_I agree_ (15'45") that IF Canadians are going to decide much of anything they will do so over and in the week after the Thanksgiving holiday.


----------



## Remius (4 Oct 2015)

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/nanos-polls

Again the Nanos poll has the Liberals trending up.  NDP down and CPC holding.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/nanos-polls
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Bob Hepburn, writing in the _Toronto Star_ agrees but says Stephen Harper needn't worry, "because, as past close elections have shown, the impact of strategic voting has been minimal, affecting only a handful of extremely tight races in individual ridings."


    "In recent days, Mr Hepburn writes, near-panic has started to emerge among progressive voters who fear Harper and the Conservatives will be re-elected, possibly with a majority government, in the election just over two weeks from now.
     
     Their worries are sparked by recent polls showing the Conservatives starting to break the three-way log jam with the New Democrats and Liberals that has marked this campaign for months and edging ever closer to a majority.

     In hopes of derailing Harper, loose groups of progressive voters, such as Leadnow.ca, are urging voters to end vote splitting between the Liberals, NDP and Green Party that allows the Tories to win ridings with less than 50 per cent of the votes cast.

     Instead, they want strategic voters to choose either the Liberal or NDP candidate with the best chance of defeating the Tory in their riding.

     Proponents insist strategic voting will be huge and that more and more voters are seeking information to assist them in deciding which candidate to back."

Further:

    "Why, Mr Hepburn asks, doesn’t strategic voting generally work?

     First, strategic voting groups are fairly unorganized and underfunded, which results in them being unable to get information out to large groups of voters, such as which of the 338 ridings are in play.

     Second, there is little serious research into which candidate is best in which riding. Ultimately that means casual voters must guess on which candidate to support. Too many emotions are at play, with NDP voters believing their
     candidate is best to defeat the Tory while Liberal voters stick with their candidate as the best choice. That’s especially true for people who want to vote with their heart.

     Third, neither Liberals nor New Democrats really like the notion of strategic voting. They see the idea as being a rejection of their own candidate, their own leader and their own policies. Indeed, there is more bad blood between the
     Liberals and NDP than at any time in recent memory. Lately they’ve spent more time fighting with each other on everything from what Canada’s role should be in fighting Islamic extremists to the rules around Quebec separation
     than they do uniting to fight together against the Conservatives.

     Fourth, polling experts suggest it requires up to 60 per cent of NDP or Liberal voters to switch to the other party’s candidate in order for that candidate to garner enough votes to defeat the Tory opponent. The odds of that many voters loyal
     to another party switch their allegiance in the privacy of a polling booth must be astronomical.

     Ultimately, strategic voting seems like a great idea for those who want to see Harper defeated. In reality, it may work in a few ridings, but isn’t too effective on a national scale."


----------



## Altair (4 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Bob Hepburn, writing in the _Toronto Star_ agrees but says Stephen Harper needn't worry, "because, as past close elections have shown, the impact of strategic voting has been minimal, affecting only a handful of extremely tight races in individual ridings."
> 
> 
> "In recent days, Mr Hepburn writes, near-panic has started to emerge among progressive voters who fear Harper and the Conservatives will be re-elected, possibly with a majority government, in the election just over two weeks from now.
> ...


 Strategic voting may not work, but wholesale shift in voter intentions happens pretty often.

Most recently in England when there was a prospect of a coalition that would include the Scottish nationalist party.

Here in Canada, when the orange wave was happening,  liberal support collapsed and a lot of it went to the Tories to prevent the ndp from wining when the polls showed they were surging.

I expect in the final days of this campaign, progressive voters will look at the polls and see who is doing better, trudeau or mulcair, and vote for the guy with the best chance to beat harper. Right now that's trudeau but we'll see what the situation is in 2 1/2 weeks.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Oct 2015)

An event:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/us-australia-reportedly-reach-deal-on-pharma-protection-in-tpp/article26643347/

Two more long times and a sleep to go.


----------



## Remius (5 Oct 2015)

Looking more and more like a trend.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/nanos-polls

I'm not sure the TPP is going to qualify as an event.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2015)

The three day _Nanos_ numbers at a glance:











                        >>>>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->>

Two points:

     1. Other polls _may_, most likely will, show other, perhaps quite different, results; and

     2. There are, now, two full weeks of hard, full throttle, no holds barred campaigning to go ~ including the Thanksgiving weekend.

Oh, and yes, effective today, _I think_ the polls matter because _I believe_ ~ there is some, but not a whole lot of evidence to support me ~ that polls matter to voters. The (scarce and conflicting) evidence suggests that some voters are enticed to switch, to _back the winner_, if you like, which would, right now, help M Trudeau to gather up some soft NDP supporters ~ see _strategic voting_, just above. The other factor is that polls seem to energize the undecided, _silent majority_, the one "behind the lace curtains," as appears to have happened in the UK, and if that happens here it will likely favour the CPC.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2015)

Six brand new CPC attack ads: all attack Justin Trudeau, very directly, and all deal with "pocketbook" issues

1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxU72UJsARs   )
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoVr_ICZ0zo        } Theme: It's Decision Time
3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHMjguZBQGA  )
And
4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k38Yv8kfOec     )
5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b6ARwRfxeM   } Theme: Economically Clueless
6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeFdqzIINxY      )


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2015)

In this report, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, John Ibbitson discusses (also referring back to the UK election) how the TPP trade deal might impact the vote:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tpp-deal-could-be-a-boon-for-harper-mulcair-for-entirely-different-reasons/article26648455/


> TPP deal could be a boon for Harper, Mulcair – for entirely different reasons
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




First point: the trade deal isn't signed ... yet. It was supposed to have been announced yesterday evening but, reports say, envoys are pulling an "all nighter" in an effort to clear the last hurdles ... which may include pressuring Canada into agreeing to tougher dairy trade quotas.

Second point: the TV ad wars appear to be Harper <> Trudeau <> Harper, M Mulcair is not, apparently, a factor ... this week.

-----

New Liberal ad:

1. https://youtu.be/0yWe8JleMx8


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2015)

OK, a tentative trade deal has been agreed. _CTV News_ says, "parts will be controversial in Canada. Cars will be allowed without tariffs, as long as they have 45-per-cent content from the TPP region -- lower than the 62.5 per cent regional-content provision under NAFTA ... Canada's protected dairy sector remains mostly intact, with a modest increase in permitted imports for supply-managed sectors."

At the same time, Justin Trudeau is making his major platform announcement in Waterloo, ON.

It will be interesting to see which story "leads" in the media. Trade is infinitely more important but far, far less sexy than M Trudeau making promises.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Oct 2015)

Both CBC and CTV cut away from Trudeau to go to Harper's announcement.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Both CBC and CTV cut away from Trudeau to go to Harper's announcement.




You don't suppose, do you, that the Canadians dragged these talks out, through an all night, _negotiate by exhaustion_ session, just to capture the 10:00 AM news slot?  :nod:


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It depends upon the security classification/designation applied ~ presumably for some good reason ~ to the original document. The public servant who leaked the document should be called to account for his or her _choice_ ... and _I believe_ (s)he made one. I must assume that someone had a valid reason for designating that document, in some way, as being "for official use only" or SECRET or whatever; perhaps it was a briefing related to a Cabinet Confidence, in which case the public servant who leaked it is guilty of a very, very serious "crime" against one of the foundation stones of our, _Westminster_, style of parliamentary government.


Well, I guess we'll find out in the fullness of time ....


> The Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development has called in the RCMP to conduct an investigation into a leak last week to The Globe and Mail newspaper of an internal Foreign Affairs briefing document warning senior federal government insiders that Canada’s clout in the international community is diminishing.
> 
> “Any unauthorized disclosure of information is investigated and, in cases involving suspected criminal wrongdoing, the department works with the RCMP. The RCMP has been notified of the incident in question. We do not comment on ongoing investigations,” Joséphine Laframboise, a Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development spokesperson, told The Hill Times in an email last week.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2015)

I have said a few times, that the suburbs around Toronto, especially, and Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa and so on, are the key battlegrounds. This article reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ looks at the famous 905 belt around Toronto: 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/torontos-905-suburbs-turning-into-race-between-tories-and-liberals/article26646089/


> Toronto’s 905 suburbs turning into race between Tories and Liberals
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




It looks to me as if the six new Conservative ads are aimed squarely at middle class families in those very suburbs.


----------



## Remius (5 Oct 2015)

I've mentioned it before.  as much as the TPP is a bigh deal, the average Canatdian has no clue what it emans and likely care less.  Those Canadians taht will catre are the auto sector ridings and some rural ridings where support for the deal is not exactly warm.  I suspect this is why we are seeing 4 billion dollars over 15 years to protect the farming sector but I'm not sure that will quell their fears.

Both types of ridings especially in Ontario are key to both the Liberals and the CPC.   One only has to look at Glenngarry-Prescott to see the type of battle that is shaping in some rural ridings.


----------



## Altair (5 Oct 2015)

I don't believe it's that big an issue.

The only really big issue this election has been the NDP dropping the ball on the niqab.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Oct 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> I've mentioned it before.  as much as the TPP is a bigh deal, the average Canatdian has no clue what it emans and likely care less.  Those Canadians taht will catre are the auto sector ridings and some rural ridings where support for the deal is not exactly warm.  I suspect this is why we are seeing 4 billion dollars over 15 years to protect the farming sector but I'm not sure that will quell their fears.
> 
> Both types of ridings especially in Ontario are key to both the Liberals and the CPC.   One only has to look at Glenngarry-Prescott to see the type of battle that is shaping in some rural ridings.



Well.  If our largest trading partners are all members of the TPP, that sort of drags us into it as well.  To remain out of it would only ruin our economy.  If Mulcair wants to take us out of it, if he is elected, then he is no better than Chretien and J. Trudeau with their halting military purchases in spite of the Conservative Governments signed contracts.  Another case of throwing money into the wind and getting nothing in return; while at the same time hurting our own Industry.


----------



## Altair (5 Oct 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well.  If our largest trading partners are all members of the TPP, that sort of drags us into it as well.  To remain out of it would only ruin our economy.  If Mulcair wants to take us out of it, if he is elected, then he is no better than Chretien and J. Trudeau with their halting military purchases in spite of the Conservative Governments signed contracts.  Another case of throwing money into the wind and getting nothing in return; while at the same time hurting our own Industry.


No contract is signed with regards to the f-35 and Lockheed Martin has already said that Canadian industry contribution to the plane would continue whether or not canada bought any.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> No contract is signed with regards to the f-35 and Lockheed Martin has already said that Canadian industry contribution to the plane would continue whether or not canada bought any.



Perhaps no contract on actual purchase of the F-35, but billions in R&D.


----------



## Altair (5 Oct 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps no contract on actual purchase of the F-35, but billions in R&D.


True.

I can only imagine any other supplier of aircraft would agree to build them in partnership with canada, I think dassault has already said as much,  I don't remember about SAAB.

Probably a wash at the end of the day, no?

Besides, wasn't the F35 being reevaluated after the AG report anyways?


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I don't believe it's that big an issue.
> ...





			
				Remius said:
			
		

> I've mentioned it before.  as much as the TPP is a bigh deal, _the average Canatdian has no clue what it emans and likely care less.  Those Canadians taht will catre are the auto sector ridings and some rural ridings where support for the deal is not exactly warm._  I suspect this is why we are seeing 4 billion dollars over 15 years to protect the farming sector but I'm not sure that will quell their fears.
> 
> Both types of ridings especially in Ontario are key to both the Liberals and the CPC.   One only has to look at Glenngarry-Prescott to see the type of battle that is shaping in some rural ridings.




Sadly, I'm afraid you're both right. Bob Rae said that most of us are _politically illiterate_, _I suspect_ that our apparent inability to appreciate the consequences (great (global) and small (personal)) of trade deals is part of what he meant.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The three day _Nanos_ numbers at a glance:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The _Globe and Mail_'s Election Forecast, which is based on recent polls and riding-by-riding analysis is still showing an upward trend (from a 50% chance of forming a government, to 55%, to 58% and, now, to a whopping 65% chance of forming a government) in its latest forecast which is for a:

     65% chance that the Conservatives get the most seats

     10% chance that the NDP gets the most seats

     26% chance that the Liberals get the most seats

And

     21% chance that the Green party gets more than one seat

     13% chance that all three main parties win 100 seats or more

     2% chance that any party gets a majority


Conservative lead widens as NDP slide in polls

Paul Fairie
Special to The Globe and Mail

*UPDATE OCT. 5:*

Polls released in the last week seem to be in general agreement on the slide by the NDP, driven largely by a decline in their vote share in Quebec, which is what the new Globe Election Forecast reflects. However, the polls have disagreed about what else is happening in the national race.

Polls by both Forum and Angus Reid showed the Conservatives leading by a reasonably healthy six-to-seven-percentage-point margin, with the NDP and Liberals tied for second. If these polls ended up being the final result, the Conservatives would likely win a strong minority government, with the two remaining parties battling for Official Opposition status.

Just as this narrative was emerging, three pollsters have, in the last few days, put the Liberals in first by a small margin. Léger and Innovative Research had the Liberals ahead by two percentage points, while the latest Nanos three-day rolling poll puts the Liberals ahead of the Conservatives by five, and a full 13 points ahead of the NDP.

These last few polls might be picking up the beginnings of a Liberal surge, but in the context of the last week of polls, it’s still not quite clear enough. If there is a real increase in the Liberal vote, they will surely be able to repeat their performance over the next few days of polling. If this is the case, the forecast will accordingly become more favourable to them. If, instead, the mixed messages of the last week are repeated, the Forecast should remain steady.

SEPT. 25: The Conservatives have re-taken the lead in the Globe Election Forecast for two reasons. First, a strong performance in an EKOS poll gave the party 35 per cent of the national vote, compared to just 26 per cent for the Liberals and 25 for the NDP. If these results are repeated by other firms in the next few days, this is very good news for the government; if the poll is an outlier, this will become clear in short order, and its effect in the Forecast will wash out. Second, the NDP have polled somewhat weaker than usual in Quebec, most notably in the most recent Léger poll. While still in first, and down compared to earlier polls in the range of eight percentage points, losing grip on even 10 seats in a three-way race reduces any party's chances of winning the most seats.

Sept. 22: Public opinion data has been streaming in since the federal leaders' debate last Thursday, and all evidence suggests that voters remain as divided as ever.

Winning a debate isn't the same thing as winning an election. A better measure of who won can be seen by looking at who moved the most votes. Here, too, signals are mixed. While the Nanos 3-day tracking poll showed its usual three-way race, Ipsos had the Liberals taking a small lead. The last time they had the Liberals in first was back in late May when they were tied at 31 per cent with the Conservatives. Similarly, the Liberals continue their gradual improvement in the Globe Election Forecast.

Sept. 14: As the polls draw even to a three-way split in the popular vote, so do the odds of each party winning the most seats. While the NDP and Conservatives remain ahead, the Liberals continue to improve their chances of winning the largest parliamentary caucus primarily as a result of their recent strong polling performances in Ontario.

Friday, Sept. 8: The close three-way race in the federal election has become even tighter in the last week. A diminished Conservative vote coupled with growing Liberal support now gives all three parties with a realistic shot of winning the most seats in October. A consequence of this three-way race is seen in the Election Forecast's estimate of the likelihood of a majority government: just 2.2 per cent.

Wednesday, Sept. 2: The Globe’s forecast now predicts that the NDP are the most likely party to win the largest number of seats, with the party leading in 53 per cent of the simulations. This follows a string of seven consecutive national polls each showing a lead of between 1 and 10 percentage points for the New Democrats.

The seven poll lead was reported by seven different pollsters, using three different methods: traditional telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and online surveys. The New Democrats have only had such a string of good polling on two separate occasions during this parliament: earlier this year in June, and in the May-June period of 2012.

In good news for the Liberals, three recent polls, by Nanos, Ipsos Reid and Forum, have showed the party in second place, ahead of the Conservatives. Furthermore, polls consistently suggest the gap between first and third place is under 5 percentage points.

This all reinforces how unusual this election is: the best a third-place party has ever done in terms of vote share was in 1988, when the Ed Broadbent-led NDP won 20.4 per cent of the vote. Currently, we’re in a situation where whatever party is polling in third is earning 25 per cent popular support.

_Paul Fairie is a University of Calgary political scientist who studies voter behaviour, who designed The Globe’s Election Forecast._


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> No contract is signed with regards to the f-35 and Lockheed Martin has already said that Canadian industry contribution to the plane would continue whether or not canada bought any.



Are you certain you "quoted" Lockheed-Martin correctly?  The information you note above is incorrect.

It would be appropriate to refer to facts, and in this case, those provided by the Government of Canada specifically regarding the agreement between the GoC and prime-contractors Lockheed-Martin and Pratt & Whitney, to wit: 


Public Works and Government Services Canada - National Fighter Procurement Secretariat: FAQs



> 9. Opportunities for Canadian Industry - Joint Strike Fighter Program
> 
> *Industrial Participation Report - Fall 2014*
> 
> ...



Seems like those facts as stated are pretty clear.

Current contacts with Canadian industry won't be cancelled, but exercising of options and entering into new contracts is very much dependant on Canada's participation.


:2c: (with references...)

G2G


----------



## Altair (5 Oct 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Are you certain you "quoted" Lockheed-Martin correctly?  The information you note above is incorrect.
> 
> It would be appropriate to refer to facts, and in this case, those provided by the Government of Canada specifically regarding the agreement between the GoC and prime-contractors Lockheed-Martin and Pratt & Whitney, to wit:
> 
> ...


Agreed, current contracts would continue, future ones would not be. Same page here.

But would those future contracts not be offset by whatever plane Canada would end up buying? Dassault has said that they would go as far as to build the planes* in Canada, and I think SAAB has said so as well.

Now I have no idea which plane would win a open completion, but I'm sure industrial benefits to Canada would play a part in deciding which aircraft would be purchased.

* http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-s-french-rival-pitches-canadianized-fighter-jet-1.2577234


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2015)

Some Canadian actors (you know they're actors 'cause the video tells you they are) explain how you can "piss of the Conservatives" in this NDP ad.


----------



## McG (5 Oct 2015)

F-35 opens the doors to future contracts where Canada is a supplier to the world.  Other aircraft would only open doors to future contracts where Canada is a supplier to itself.  One of these options is more potential value.


----------



## Altair (5 Oct 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> F-35 opens the doors to future contracts where Canada is a supplier to the world.  Other aircraft would only open doors to future contracts where Canada is a supplier to itself.  One of these options is more potential value.


Fair enough.

So it wouldn't be a total loss to get another jet, but not as benificial as the F35.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2015)

Vote efficiency is illustrated by Éric Grenier of ThreeHundredEight.com in his work for the _CBC_; he provided Minimum, Low, Average, High and Maximum seat totals for the parties, based on his wide survey of polls, and offers these numbers:

                                   *Seat Projection*
                             Min  Low  Avg  Hi   Max
Conservatives:     94   106     122   151   198
Liberals:                47     90     118   132   143
NDP:                      59     80       96   109   129 

According to M Grenier the CPC are the only party with even a remote hope of forming a majority, and although the Liberals are, generally, leading in the polls, _it appears to me_ that the CPC vote distribution is much more _efficient_ and that is why he, and Prof Paul Fairie at the _Globe and Mail_ predict a CPC victory on election night.


Edited: to change _Globe and Mail_ to CBC ~ thanks Altair


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2015)

Paul Dewar posted this ad, aimed at the university students here in Ottawa Centre; it's a good, positive ad.


----------



## Altair (5 Oct 2015)

Fixed.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Some Canadian actors (you know they're actors 'cause the video tells you they are) explain how you can "piss of the Conservatives" in this NDP ad.



Pretty soon Justin Bieber will have all his Bielibers shilling for Angry Tom. With about the same effect. People that listen to actors, to decide how to vote, are sad.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Do you mean his work for the CBC?




Fixed it, thanks for the heads up.


----------



## Remius (5 Oct 2015)

Someone updated the ABC veterans thread.

Along the same line as ABC, Danny Williams offers his opinion on the PM.  

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/danny-williams-stephen-harper-election-1.3256756


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2015)

According to this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, Ontario Premier Wynne is back on the campaign train for M Trudeau:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/kathleen-wynne-urges-voters-to-elect-justin-trudeaus-liberals


> ‘You are darn right I am going to fight back’: Kathleen Wynne urges voters to elect Justin Trudeau’s Liberals
> 
> The Canadian Press | October 5, 2015
> 
> ...



I'll repeat my contention that Premier Wynne is _most_ popular where M Trudeau needs the _least_ help, and where he needs the _most_ help she is the _least_ popular.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (5 Oct 2015)

Nanos keeps having the Liberal lead climbing but it is pretty much unique.  Today's Ipsos Reid has the Conservatives ahead.  It isn't over yet.  Because they call 400 every day, I wonder if Nanos hasn't gotten lazy and keeps calling back cooperative people.  Once I spent 30 minutes answering a poll and swore never again.  I kept getting called back regularly for 6 months until they gave up.

http://www.electionalmanac.com/ea/canada-election-polls/


----------



## Remius (5 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Nanos keeps having the Liberal lead climbing but it is pretty much unique.  Today's Ipsos Reid has the Conservatives ahead.  It isn't over yet.  Because they call 400 every day, I wonder if Nanos hasn't gotten lazy and keeps calling back cooperative people.  Once I spent 30 minutes answering a poll and swore never again.  I kept getting called back regularly for 6 months until they gave up.
> 
> http://www.electionalmanac.com/ea/canada-election-polls/



In all fairness Eric Grenier and his poll tracker shows the Liberals climbing as well and gaining in Ontario.  However it shows despite the liberals leading, that the Conservatives still have the more effective seat count.  But his recent prediction only shows a 4 seat difference.  The CPC needs gains.  stagnancy won't help,if the Liberals keep the momentum up.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (5 Oct 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> Someone updated the ABC veterans thread.
> 
> Along the same line as ABC, Danny Williams offers his opinion on the PM.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/danny-williams-stephen-harper-election-1.3256756



Danny Williams, isn't he dead?  In my opinion Danny Williams is one bitter and twisted cranky old man.  I suspect that the Newfoundland transition from have-not to have hasn't gone well in his opinion.  To see one of only four have provinces crying the blues??  Note that its newfound wealth has arisen under, in his opinion, an economically incompetent Conservative government.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (5 Oct 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> In all fairness Eric Grenier and his poll tracker shows the Liberals climbing as well and gaining in Ontario.



My point is, if you take away Nanos, there is no Liberal lead and Grenier counts Nanos as 54% and hasn't reported Ipsos Reid's Conservative lead.


----------



## Remius (5 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Danny Williams, isn't he dead?  In my opinion Danny Williams is one bitter and twisted cranky old man.  I suspect that the Newfoundland transition from have-not to have hasn't gone well in his opinion.  To see one of only four have provinces crying the blues??  Note that its newfound wealth has arisen under, in his opinion, an economically incompetent Conservative government.



No doubt.  But I'm sure he still has sway there. He certainly holds a grudge.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Oct 2015)

Any poll that puts the Tories or Liberals ahead, I take with a grain of salt. I really see them in a statistical tie, with both climbing as the NDP fades into the rearview mirror.

The real story in this election might be how the NDP snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, almost similar to the Liberals in 2011, although I don't see them dropping that far in the seat count.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Oct 2015)

The NDP is tanking because, like the scorpion, the party can't change its nature.  The NDP is not ready to be a federal party until it learns to control the message (eg. extremist sub-factions) and put the needs of the many (all Canadians) before the needs of the few (narrow interests).

Leap Manifesto.

Pandering to QC (commitments to nerfing the Clarity Act, special opt-out provisions, federal money to add to daycare pot, particular fragments of the TPP).

Blathering on about the middle class and jobs while missing concrete chances to stand in favour of - or at least not appear to disfavour - economic growth and jobs (resource extraction, pipelines, LAVs, TPP).  Workers may have figured out that the NDP has been captured by academics, celebrities, and comfortably well-off upper white collar posers and is no longer the party of the working man.  (Neither is the LPC, which is not far from the NDP on most of these issues - antipathetic if not outright hostile.)


----------



## Altair (5 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The NDP is tanking because, like the scorpion, the party can't change its nature.  The NDP is not ready to be a federal party until it learns to control the message (eg. extremist sub-factions) and put the needs of the many (all Canadians) before the needs of the few (narrow interests).
> 
> Leap Manifesto.
> 
> ...


All of these issues were on the table before and the ndp was right in the mix.

The NDP is tanking because their quebec nationalists wing is revolting over the niqab issue. And as their sky high quebec support levels drop their national numbers drop. As people who want the CPC out of goverment look at these dropping numbers they figure the ndp cannot defeat CPC the ndp support drops in the ROC.

The ndp had one job, appease their quebec nationalist base and they went and pissed them off.


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> According to this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, Ontario Premier Wynne is back on the campaign train for M Trudeau...



Personally, I would rather all Provincial Premiers stayed out of the federal election. It feels like something unseemly and smacks of having two kicks at the cat. Particularly when those same campaigners get a knot in their collective faces if the federal government appears to be influencing a provincial election.

That being said, the more Ms Wynne can do for Mr Harper, the better.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2015)

I have a _sense_ that some Conservatives are planning on sitting this election out. They believe that Prime Minister Harper and, indeed, the whole Conservative "brain trust" have run out of ideas, that their _vision_ is tired and dated and that they need a rest from governing in order to recharge the party ~ a new leader ~ and reshape the _vision_. (This _sense_ is based on a very, very small sample of people I know, I would not be prepared to call it a trend or anything like that.) A few of those Conservatives are, actually, prepared to vote for other parties but most just plan to stay away from the polls. (I'm not one of them, despite the fact that I have many problems with the current governing party and even more problems with both the viable government-in-waiting parties, _I will go out and vote_ because _I believe_ it is a civic duty.)

But, I suspect that Premier Wynne's re-entry into the campaign may change a few minds. Premier Wynne is reported to be keen on five issues: Climate change; Refugees and international trade (why they are grouped together is beyond me); Infrastructure and transit; Aboriginals and Pensions. _I believe_ that her views on at least one and, in a few cases, all five of those issues will be enough to drive some reluctant Conservatives out from behind their "lace curtains," and to the polling stations. The key question is: how many? _Are those "reluctant Conservatives" enough, as they were in the UK, this spring, to shift the balance, or not?_


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Sadly, I'm afraid you're both right. Bob Rae said that most of us are _politically illiterate_, _I suspect_ that our apparent inability to appreciate the consequences (great (global) and small (personal)) of trade deals is part of what he meant.




But, not everyone agrees: John Ibbitson, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, suggests that both the great and small aspects are at play, and that the deal works _against the Liberals_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/liberals-need-tpp-pact-to-fade-quickly-as-an-issue/article26676589/


> Liberals need TPP pact to fade quickly as an issue
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




Of course, this deal _is_ a policy "win" for the Conservatives and it might be a political/campaign "win" too, if they can _spin_ it correctly: at the personal, pocket book level, for the "average" middle class suburbanite living around the Golden Horseshoe, in Greater Vancouver and so on across the country.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2015)

Another poll: this one from _Mainstreet_/_Postmedia_:

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




(A point of minor importance: the _Mainstreet_ margin of error is 1.9% 19 times out of 20, the _Nanos_ margin is 2.6%. MOEs are tricky and less important that _what_ questions are asked, _how_ they are asked and _how respondents are selected _(land-line phone only; a mix of land-line and mobile, etc.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2015)

Margaret Wente, who is a generally _*c*_onservative columnist in the _Globe and Mail_, contrasts and compares Justin Trudeau and Prime Minister Stephen Harper in this opinion piece which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/if-trudeau-is-the-bridge-harper-is-the-wedge/article26664422/


> If Trudeau is the bridge, Harper is the wedge
> 
> MARGARET WENTE
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Those who follow my meandering musing here on Army.ca will not be surprised to learn that I agree with Ms Wente.

_I like_ M Trudeau ~ who doesn't? He's a most likeable young man. I also admire his courage in articulating a _contrarian_ economic/fiscal policy. But _I also believe_, firmly, that he is a nice, pleasant, wholly vacuous young man who regurgitates "slogans on a T-shirt" because he hasn't any _vision_ beyond _Kumbaya_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Another poll: this one from _Mainstreet_/_Postmedia_:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bryan Breguet (University of British Columbia) adds some thoughts on polls and poling in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Too Close To Call_:

http://www.tooclosetocall.ca/2015/10/new-mainstreet-poll-shows-huge.html?m


> Too Close To Call
> New Mainstreet poll shows a huge Conservative lead
> 
> Bryan Breguet
> ...




I reiterate: it is the _trends_ identified nationally *and* regionally in *all* the polls that matter, not just _Nanos_ or _Maintreet_ or any of the others.


Edit: capitalization & spelling  :-[


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2015)

Also from Too Close To Call, here are their latest seat projections:

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




These are fairly consistent with e.g. the _Globe and Mail_ and David Akin's _Predictionator_, except for the _99.1% _chance to win the most seats.


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Oct 2015)

I guess it is about time to start thinking what the GG will do in the event of non-confidence. He is a scholarly expert in constitutional matters like this. I believe this is why Harper had him appointed. 

The GG is not necessarily bound to follow convention, this is one thing he has made clear on this matter. I do not believe he will ask any 2 parties with diametrically opposing views to have a coalition and hold the reigns of power. 
My guess is that he may reply with "hold a runoff election, or start working with the opposition." There is no legal or constitutional bar to that, and quite arguably there is a strong argument to be made that convention need not be followed.


----------



## YZT580 (6 Oct 2015)

Is the Bloc really that weak or do they have a reasonable chance to ruin the prospects of both the liberals and NDP in Quebec?


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Oct 2015)

Just finished voting here at work.  I surprised myself and voted differently then I would have ever expected to do so.  The choice became clear when I was handed the list of candidates running in my riding.  It's nice to be able to give the finger to the big four and still vote for someone.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2015)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I guess it is about time to start thinking what the GG will do in the event of non-confidence. He is a scholarly expert in constitutional matters like this. I believe this is why Harper had him appointed.
> 
> The GG is not necessarily bound to follow convention, this is one thing he has made clear on this matter. I do not believe he will ask any 2 parties with diametrically opposing views to have a coalition and hold the reigns of power.
> My guess is that he may reply with "hold a runoff election, or start working with the opposition." There is no legal or constitutional bar to that, and quite arguably there is a strong argument to be made that convention need not be followed.




My take is that the sovereign's (therefore the GG's) _first duty_ is to ensure that the country has a functioning government ~ one that can secure the confidence of the House of Commons for, at least, _supply_, that is to vote the money necessary to meet day-to-day operations.

Convention _seems to me_ to dictate that, unless or until he resigns, Prime Minister Harper should be allowed to try to form a government that can secure the confidence of the house. If he will not (resigns because he took a drubbing at the polls) or cannot (loses a vote) then the GG has choices.

One course open to Prime Minister Harper, at the head of a minority government that seems doomed to fall, _might be_ to:

     1. Announce his resignation and call a Conservative Party leadership convention for, say, mid Feb 2016;

     2. Meet the House and ask for a vote of _interim supply_ ~ enough spending authority to keep the government running until May or Jun 2016;

     3. Ask the GG to _prorogue_ parliament (until after the CPC leadership convention).

There is a _political convention_, a "gentlemen's agreement" if you like, that parties do not call or force elections while one of them (the main ones) is having a leadership convention. (If the election comes out as the polls indicate then, perhaps, both the CPC and NDP will want to have leadership contests in the winter of 2015/16.)

A new Conservative PM might then recall parliament in, say, March and produce a throne speech and start leaking details of an election budget. The opposition would, very likely, vote down the throne speech and then the GG would drop the writs, again, for another general election in, say, May.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Just finished voting here at work.  I surprised myself and voted differently then I would have ever expected to do so.  The choice became clear when I was handed the list of candidates running in my riding.  It's nice to be able to give the finger to the big four and still vote for someone.




Good for you! I sincerely hope everyone on Army.ca will get out and vote. Spoil your ballot, if you must, but show up and be counted. Hopefully all of us, like JJT, can find at least one worthy candidate.


----------



## Kilo_302 (6 Oct 2015)

One thing that has stood out in this election has been the focus on the niqab and Islamic "terror" all out of proportion to the actual threat. The proposed "barbaric cultural practices" hotline is particularly disgusting. These are shades of true fascism, though no one will say that just yet. Now might be a good time for some self-examination as Canadians. Do we really want to live in a country where our government is elected on a platform of xenophobia? 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-neil-macdonald-muslims-1.3257892



> This fearsomely titled law is actually just a few amendments to the Immigration Act and Criminal code that outlaw a few things that are mostly already against the law in Canada — polygamy, forcing children into arranged marriages, and so-called honour killings, otherwise known as murder.
> 
> But the phrase "barbaric cultural practices" invokes so much more, especially as "barbaric" is not a legal descriptor, it's an emotive.
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Oct 2015)

I'm not sure what to make of Quebec. For the 2011 election they took 10% of the vote and won 49 seats. Polls currently have them averaging 4-6%, and if their vote is efficient, that might put them at about 14 seats. Is that enough to be the spoiler? I don't think so. I think they need to be in the 40 range to have any real effect. I also personally think that they might be more disposed to keeping a Conservative led minority going than an NDP one. Considering that they have campaigned almost exclusively against the NDP this time out.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Interesting review of Minorities and Coalitions by the Hansard Society of the UK.
> 
> http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/A-Numbers-Game-Hansard-Society.pdf
> 
> ...



I quote myself.  I find that it is rare that I disagree with me.  ;D

This is based on the notion that the Sovereign in the land is Queen, or in Canada's case the GG in right of the Queen, and it is dangerous to have an unfettered Queen roaming the boards.  The Queen must always be checked, or governed, or in parliamentary language "counselled".  In British history it is not without precedence for the Sovereign to disregard Parliament and it would be a great opportunity for an independently minded Sovereign, or GG*, to say to a divided House that if you can't get your act together then I will govern with the Privy Council until you lot get your act together.  Hence the Parliamentary insistence that the Sovereign must never be deprived of counsel and it is a lesser risk to have a defeated Prime Minister to continue counselling the Sovereign than to deprive the Sovereign GG of counsel and offer them the opportunity to act independently.

Remember who signs your Commissioning Scrolls and to whom you swear your oaths.  It isn't to anybody in parliament.

Edit: * the names Byng and Gough Whitlam immediately come to mind.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> One thing that has stood out in this election has been the focus on the niqab and Islamic "terror" all out of proportion to the actual threat. The proposed "barbaric cultural practices" hotline is particularly disgusting. These are shades of true fascism, though no one will say that just yet. Now might be a good time for some self-examination as Canadians. Do we really want to live in a country where our government is elected on a platform of xenophobia?
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-neil-macdonald-muslims-1.3257892



I wish the _niqab_ and _barbaric cultural practices_ were not issues ~ I really _wish_ the _barbaric cultural practices_ were all left in the "old country" ~ but it appears that less than 10% of Canadians know or care much about important issues like defence, 10% to 20% care about issues like trade, 40-50% care about pocket books issues, 20%-30% will vote the party line, regardless of issues, _*but*_ 60%-85% care about the _niqab_ and the _barbaric cultural practices_. I'm sorry, but as distasteful as it may be, the issues _matter_ to most Canadians and they are legitimate fodder for the campaign.


----------



## Kilo_302 (6 Oct 2015)

I agree, but it's also a "chicken and the egg" situation. I'm sure most of us are aware of the arrival of Harper's new political advisor from Australia and his history of campaign work there. The Conservatives were on the ropes until quite recently, and the turn around coincides quite nicely with a shift to all things "Muslim."

Governments the world over have taken to playing on racial/cultural fears for political gain in the past. Ours is no different unfortunately. But it DOES put them in some very distasteful company. We've had an attack in Quebec on a woman wearing a niqab last week. It's clearly impossible to lay that at the feet of anyone but the perpetrator,  but Conservative political strategists know exactly what they're doing and it's a very dangerous game. If it keeps working, they'll keep hammering it home and where does it stop? These things have a nasty habit of getting out of hand, and it seems our government is eager to paint itself into a corner over this.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Oct 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> One thing that has stood out in this election has been the focus on the niqab and Islamic "terror" all out of proportion to the actual threat. The proposed "barbaric cultural practices" hotline is particularly disgusting. These are shades of true fascism, though no one will say that just yet. Now might be a good time for some self-examination as Canadians. Do we really want to live in a country where our government is elected on a platform of xenophobia?



Perhaps you would prefer a truly fascist nation ruled under Sharia Law?   

Sorry, but the cases of non-Canadians (and some new Canadians), no matter how few they are, are becoming more prevalent in the News with their use of our Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to manipulate our tolerant society to meet their agendas and in doing so are awakening the nation to the slow erosion of our tolerant culture to one that may not be what Canada has stood for over its 148 years.  If you think that this awakening to threats to our culture and outcries from the Public to protect our culture from barbaric and primitive practices is fascist, then perhaps you are part of the problem, not the solution.  Your example of the nijab, and lets include the burka, has had just as many Muslims as non-Muslims state that it should not be permitted.  For the tail to wag the dog, to appease a non-Canadian cultural believer in voting for a certain Political Party, is very distasteful to some (perhaps many).


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Oct 2015)

I find it both interesting (and telling) that progressives are all for women's rights and feminism...right up until that woman is a Muslim. Then, religion seems to trump everything.

If we were to extend that to say, Catholics, where exactly would (or should) the Canadian mainstream stand on the issue of both birth control and abortion?


----------



## George Wallace (6 Oct 2015)

Many Canadians, Muslim and non-Muslim, are coming forward now to defend Canada's "open face" policy that has been OUR cultural norm for the past century and a half, and even before Confederation.  It has been the norm in our culture that the only adults who covered their faces were the criminal element of our society.  It has been a symbol of "trust".  Even with two forms of ID being presented while Voting, without uncovering one's face does not properly identify one as being the person on those ID cards.  I am sure we could insist on fingerprinting or using retinal scans to identify these individuals; but I foresee them turning again to our Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to abuse our societal norms and declare those means as being another "invasion of their privacy".  Time to stop this madness in the bud.


----------



## Remius (6 Oct 2015)

Back to things that matter.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada-election-2015-tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-auto-dairy-fears-milewski-1.3258048

Good news for the CPC in those ridings that had worries over the TPP.  But I suppose it won't stop the unions and NDP from crying wolf.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (6 Oct 2015)

Being a cynic, 308.com is now CBC Polltracker.  Mulcair and Trudeau have each offered CBC in excess of $ 100 million.  A cynic might think they are avoiding  the polls with the Conservatives in a commanding lead for reasons of obvious self-promotion.


----------



## Kilo_302 (6 Oct 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I find it both interesting (and telling) that progressives are all for women's rights and feminism...right up until that woman is a Muslim. Then, religion seems to trump everything.
> 
> If we were to extend that to say, Catholics, where exactly would (or should) the Canadian mainstream stand on the issue of both birth control and abortion?



Definitely a complex conversation, but you can easily turn that around  and look at the clear cases of "barbaric cultural practices" or terrorist attacks that our government is NOT focused on. It's quite clear that the intent of the hotline for example is not for the polygamists in BC or the fundamentalist Jewish sects in Quebec.

Similarly, the stripping of citizenship seems to be solely focused on Muslim terrorists versus terrorists of other persuasions. "Progressives" are reacting (I think) to these obvious double standards. And there are indeed many women who willingly wear the niqab for example. I personally don't agree with it, but it's a piece of clothing. It's hard turf for the government to intervene on.




			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps you would prefer a truly fascist nation ruled under Sharia Law?
> 
> Sorry, but the cases of non-Canadians (and some new Canadians), no matter how few they are, are becoming more prevalent in the News with their use of our Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to manipulate our tolerant society to meet their agendas and in doing so are awakening the nation to the slow erosion of our tolerant culture to one that may not be what Canada has stood for over its 148 years.  If you think that this awakening to threats to our culture and outcries from the Public to protect our culture from barbaric and primitive practices is fascist, then perhaps you are part of the problem, not the solution.  Your example of the nijab, and lets include the burka, has had just as many Muslims as non-Muslims state that it should not be permitted.  For the tail to wag the dog, to appease a non-Canadian cultural believer in voting for a certain Political Party, is very distasteful to some (perhaps many).



That's a false binary. It's not a choice between our government playing up racist fears and our nation falling "under Sharia Law" at all. But that's the narrative the government would have you believe, because this is their political strategy. Your statement is proof that it's working. 

When I say that this policy has shades of fascism, I am of course referring to the numerous historical examples of ethnic and religious groups being singled out as "threats to our culture" and our "way of life." 

If you want to understand the true motivation behind these policies just look at how ineffective they would be. First off, has Neil Macdonald states in his article, how do we define "barbaric?" This is not a legal term. Murder is already illegal, as is any form of physical abuse, so one has to wonder what people could possibly be reporting that _they already wouldn't be._

On the niqab front, only 2 women in the history of Canada have become citizens while wearing one. This is simply a non-issue has E. R. Campbell pointed out above. It's quite clear that the intent of these policies is not to protect our way of life (a nebulous phrase at best) but to stoke fears of Muslim culture. Did Islam really become such a risk in the last few weeks, right about the time Lynton Crosby arrived from Australia?


----------



## Altair (6 Oct 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Is the Bloc really that weak or do they have a reasonable chance to ruin the prospects of both the liberals and NDP in Quebec?


They are that weak.

That said, they really only threaten the NDP.

The Liberals historical have the greater Montreal area as their quebec base, cosmopolitan urban voters and the suburbs. In the countryside it's the rural vote that would go bloc, but went NDP last time. If the bloc were to make a resurgence it would be there more than the greater Montreal area.


----------



## GR66 (6 Oct 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Many Canadians, Muslim and non-Muslim, are coming forward now to defend Canada's "open face" policy that has been OUR cultural norm for the past century and a half, and even before Confederation.  It has been the norm in our culture that the only adults who covered their faces were the criminal element of our society.  It has been a symbol of "trust".  Even with two forms of ID being presented while Voting, without uncovering one's face does not properly identify one as being the person on those ID cards.  I am sure we could insist on fingerprinting or using retinal scans to identify these individuals; but I foresee them turning again to our Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to abuse our societal norms and declare those means as being another "invasion of their privacy".  Time to stop this madness in the bud.



I disapprove of the whole idea of the Niqab.  Like many others I find discomfort in the entire concept of hiding your identity.  That being said, I think there is a whole lot of unneccessary "hype" being thrown up around this issue.  I think it needs to be made clear that in this case there was no question of the individual wearing the Niqab not being "properly identified" at the citizenship ceremony.  They removed the Niqab so that their identity could be confirmed before the ceremony, but wanted the right to replace it during the "public" portion of the ceremony.  The woman involved had no issues with removing the Niqab in order to be properly identified.

I very firmly believe that the collective rights of Canadians demand that the Niqab NOT be used to hide your identity when there is a need for lawful authorities to confirm who you are.  To me that includes when accepting your ballot on election day, when engaged with law enforcement or the courts, or when receiving government benefits, etc.  

However, although I disapprove of the concept of the Niqab in general I find it hard to impose my opinion on any women who CHOSES to wear that form of dress.  So long as they are not being forced to wear the Niqab and that in wearing it they do not use it to unlawfully hide their identity from authorities then I think it should be their choice.

In some ways it's like free speech.  It's harder to support it when you disagree with what's being said but it's still required.  As far as references to "feminism", I guess a true feminist might argue that freedom doesn't mean that women are all free from a particular cultural practice, but rather that they are free to choose which cultural practices they wish to follow.


----------



## Privateer (6 Oct 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps you would prefer a truly fascist nation ruled under Sharia Law?



No one is proposing that in this discussion.  Non sequitur.



> Sorry, but the cases of non-Canadians (and some new Canadians), no matter how few they are, are becoming more prevalent in the News with their use of our Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to manipulate our tolerant society to meet their agendas and in doing so are awakening the nation to the slow erosion of our tolerant culture to one that may not be what Canada has stood for over its 148 years.  If you think that this awakening to threats to our culture and outcries from the Public to protect our culture from barbaric and primitive practices is fascist, then perhaps you are part of the problem, not the solution.  Your example of the nijab, and lets include the burka, has had just as many Muslims as non-Muslims state that it should not be permitted.  For the tail to wag the dog, to appease a non-Canadian cultural believer in voting for a certain Political Party, is very distasteful to some (perhaps many).



What are these "barbaric and primitive practices" that we are discussing, exactly?  And which are are not already covered by existing criminal code provisions? 

If you want to foster a free, democratic, respectful society, then you need to focus on properly funding the education system, so that our children are immersed in those values from an early age.  Telling an adult that he or she is prohibited from wearing an item of faith is not going to accomplish anything.  And why should a grown adult be told that he or she cannot wear clothing of their choosing?  Nuns can wear habits (and I still see that on the street, though rarely), priests wear vestments, (some) Jews wear kippahs / yarmulkes.  Why should an adult Muslim be told that she cannot wear a niqab, if that is what she wants to wear?

It's clear that this government, and the Bloc Quebecois, are trying to foster fear and hate of a segment of our population in order to secure votes.  It may be effective, but it is something that I find repulsive.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Oct 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> Back to things that matter.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada-election-2015-tpp-trans-pacific-partnership-auto-dairy-fears-milewski-1.3258048
> 
> Good news for the CPC in those ridings that had worries over the TPP.  But I suppose it won't stop the unions and NDP from crying wolf.



Wow. Even _Saint Terry of Laurentia_ is admiting the CPC deal isn't bad. Even if he can't bring himself to say it out loud in plain language. It must of been heart wrenching to watch him pen that article. 8)


----------



## Altair (6 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Being a cynic, 308.com is now CBC Polltracker.  Mulcair and Trudeau have each offered CBC in excess of $ 100 million.  A cynic might think they are avoiding  the polls with the Conservatives in a commanding lead for reasons of obvious self-promotion.


Eric Grenier has built a reputation for being one of the most accurate election prediction gurus out there.

It's the reason he gets sit beside nik nanos and talk about polls. I doubt, really really doubt, he sacrifices his professional reputation and model of accuracy in order to become a corporate hack.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Oct 2015)

Privateer said:
			
		

> No one is proposing that in this discussion.  Non sequitur.



Why yes, Kilo did.  He is accusing our Government of becoming fascist; or did you miss that as being what I responded to?  The opposite of course would be the acceptance of a truly fascist philosophy as proposed by those who would invoke Sharia Law on us.  

And let's not confuse an item of clothing being religious, when in fact it is only cultural.  We have covered that point ad nauseam......so using your words "Non sequitur".  Plus, in our "Open society", hiding ones face is not the norm, and never has been, no matter what habits, turbans, kippahs, or other vestments that individuals have worn. Please do not compare these articles of clothing with a face covering of any type.   In our culture, the only adults who wore masks, or disguises, were members of the criminal element.  It is this fact that most Canadians, whether they have been here for generations or just recent arrivals, of all faiths, recognize.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Oct 2015)

GR66 said:
			
		

> I disapprove of the whole idea of the Niqab.  Like many others I find discomfort in the entire concept of hiding your identity.  That being said, I think there is a whole lot of unneccessary "hype" being thrown up around this issue.  I think it needs to be made clear that in this case there was no question of the individual wearing the Niqab not being "properly identified" at the citizenship ceremony.  They removed the Niqab so that their identity could be confirmed before the ceremony, but wanted the right to replace it during the "public" portion of the ceremony.  The woman involved had no issues with removing the Niqab in order to be properly identified.
> 
> I very firmly believe that the collective rights of Canadians demand that the Niqab NOT be used to hide your identity when there is a need for lawful authorities to confirm who you are.  To me that includes when accepting your ballot on election day, when engaged with law enforcement or the courts, or when receiving government benefits, etc.
> 
> ...



Good post GR66.

I share your opinions.  I don't want a blanket ban on the Niqab (did I just say that?).  I have problem with France and Ataturk in that exact example.  

However I don't believe that it is over much to ask that when someone attends an official function here in Canada that they attend it bare-faced.

That is who you, as Canadians are.  It is not for us, as foreigners, to demand accommodation.  And yes it is easy for this foreigner to accommodate you as I share most of the same cultural values.


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Oct 2015)

Privateer might have that individual on ignore as I do, as such, I miss everything  Kilo says.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Oct 2015)

GR66 said:
			
		

> I disapprove of the whole idea of the Niqab.  Like many others I find discomfort in the entire concept of hiding your identity.  That being said, I think there is a whole lot of unneccessary "hype" being thrown up around this issue.  I think it needs to be made clear that in this case there was no question of the individual wearing the Niqab not being "properly identified" at the citizenship ceremony.  They removed the Niqab so that their identity could be confirmed before the ceremony, but wanted the right to replace it during the "public" portion of the ceremony.  The woman involved had no issues with removing the Niqab in order to be properly identified.
> 
> I very firmly believe that the collective rights of Canadians demand that the Niqab NOT be used to hide your identity when there is a need for lawful authorities to confirm who you are.  To me that includes when accepting your ballot on election day, when engaged with law enforcement or the courts, or when receiving government benefits, etc.
> 
> ...



I can agree with your thoughts.  My concern, is as you have mentioned, is that this is not just an issue at the Polling Station, but on the streets when LEOs may have to identify a person.  This is a broader issue than what takes place solely in taking the Oath of Allegiance or voting at a Polling Station.  It is a problem when the identity of the individual is in question by LEOs, employers, and other events that require identification of individuals attending.  It is also a disruptive act in the eyes of a good number of the general public, who may take offence to that cultural practice.   Like you, I will fall back on a statement from PET, in that we have no place in the bedrooms (or homes) of the individual.  What they do within their own homes that does not contravene the Law, is their business.  What they do in society is another matter though.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Oct 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> One thing that has stood out in this election has been the focus on the niqab and Islamic "terror" all out of proportion to the actual threat. The proposed "barbaric cultural practices" hotline is particularly disgusting. These are shades of true fascism, though no one will say that just yet. Now might be a good time for some self-examination as Canadians. Do we really want to live in a country where our government is elected on a platform of xenophobia?
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-neil-macdonald-muslims-1.3257892



You beg the question by stating that the Government's platform is xenophobic.

I will qualify my response, by "un-begging the question" and say that I want to live in a country where this:

Shafia Trial Verdict: Honour Killing Jury Finds All Accused Guilty Of First-Degree Murder

...is UNACCEPATABLE, both to the Courts AND to Canadian society as a whole.

G2G


----------



## Altair (6 Oct 2015)

The fact that people are talking about the niqab can only be considered a win for the conservative party. 

Honestly. How many women in Canada wear the niqab? As far as people can tell, only 2 have even tried to do the citizenship ceremony wearing one, out of over 600 000.

Perfect use of wedge politics by the conservative party. They were getting hammered by the Duffy Trial,  the recession, their long time in office, the refugee crisis, and with 2 weeks to go till election day all people are talking about is the niqab and the TPP.

The  CPC has remained the initiative and is now leading the discussion. It would be best if the LPC and NDP simply stopped talking about these two issues. Like when the CPC didn't even respond to trudeau's child care plan lest people start paying attention to it, the best thing for the opposition parties would be to try to switch the discussion back to topics that favor them. The niqab and TPP are not those issues.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (6 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Like when the CPC didn't even respond to trudeau's child care plan lest people start paying attention to it,



The Conservatives prefer giving cash to mothers who can then decide whether working is economical.  Trudeau wants to take away that cash.  Mulcair wants to give $15 daycare to millionaires.


----------



## Kilo_302 (6 Oct 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> You beg the question by stating that the Government's platform is xenophobic.
> 
> I will qualify my response, by "un-begging the question" and say that I want to live in a country where this:
> 
> ...



Right, and it IS unacceptable. It's murder. Last I checked we didn't need any new laws around that, nor did we need a hotline to prevent it.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Oct 2015)

The media won't let the NDP and LPC not talk about niqabs, because they're on the wrong side of public opinion. Much like the media wouldn't give up questions about Duffy ad naseum, LPC and NDP won't be able to shake it. Everyone ignored the LPC child care plan because it had absolutely no details, and was left to rot as a uncosted promise, much like every other uncosted promises tossed out on an election campaign.

If the NDP and LPC start to ignore the TPP, they will be signing their own death warrants for the election. Its a major issue for businesses and people across the country and across multiple sectors, good or bad. Pretending its not shows how out of touch they would be on national issues.

Also, the CPC didn't get "hammered" for their long time in office, that's never been an issue. You were grasping at straws trying to colour the niqab as a red herring much like half of your things the CPC was "hammered" about daily.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Oct 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Right, and it IS unacceptable. It's murder. Last I checked we didn't need any new laws around that, nor did we need a hotline to prevent it.



Tangential reference to the debate.  Murdering a homosexual is murder.  Does it require qualification as a hate crime?  The poor guy is dead.  He was killed.  A jury has found that the evidence supports the finding that somebody charged with the crime committed the crime.  End.  

Motive doesn't enter into it.  Does it?  "Let the deed shaw".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Oct 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> , nor did we need a hotline to prevent it.



Tell Crimestoppers that...........it's a MAJOR tool in the fight against those who act outside our acceptable conduct.

EDIT:Maybe if this was set up back in 2009 these poor souls might still be alive......


----------



## George Wallace (6 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Tangential reference to the debate.  Murdering a homosexual is murder.  Does it require qualification as a hate crime?  The poor guy is dead.  He was killed.  A jury has found that the evidence supports the finding that somebody charged with the crime committed the crime.  End.
> 
> Motive doesn't enter into it.  Does it?  "Let the deed shaw".



I might add, the murder of a woman encompasses murdered aboriginal women.  Yet that is an election issue.


----------



## Altair (6 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The media won't let the NDP and LPC not talk about niqabs, because they're on the wrong side of public opinion. Much like the media wouldn't give up questions about Duffy ad naseum, LPC and NDP won't be able to shake it. Everyone ignored the LPC child care plan because it had absolutely no details, and was left to rot as a uncosted promise, much like every other uncosted promises tossed out on an election campaign.
> 
> If the NDP and LPC start to ignore the TPP, they will be signing their own death warrants for the election. Its a major issue for businesses and people across the country and across multiple sectors, good or bad. Pretending its not shows how out of touch they would be on national issues.
> 
> Also, the CPC didn't get "hammered" for their long time in office, that's never been an issue. You were grasping at straws trying to colour the niqab as a red herring much like half of your things the CPC was "hammered" about daily.


I'm giving credit where credit is due. Can one not compliment the CPC on a good strategy? 

They needed to turn their campaign around and they have managed to do so. I don't like it, but it's the reality of the situation. 

And sure, the media can continue to ask them about it, but a simple "we'll look into it further as more details become available" would stop the TPP from becoming too big an election issue. Especially since it appears most Canadians don't know what's in it. As for the niqab a simple, "I'll leave it to the courts to decide" might make it go away as a wedge issue. Just my take on it. 

As for what the CPC were getting grilled on in the media before the niqab and TPP became issues, well, as I say so often, agree to disagree. 



			
				Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> The Conservatives prefer giving cash to mothers who can then decide whether working is economical.  Trudeau wants to take away that cash.  Mulcair wants to give $15 daycare to millionaires.


 If that's what you want to believe.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> The fact that people are talking about the niqab can only be considered a win for the conservative party.



Perhaps it is a good sign.  If Canadians are concerned about the erosion of their culture by foreign cultures and are discussing it as an elections issue, then perhaps there may be an increase in voter turn out to assert their wishes.


----------



## Altair (6 Oct 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps it is a good sign.  If Canadians are concerned about the erosion of their culture by foreign cultures and are discussing it as an elections issue, then perhaps there may be an increase in voter turn out to assert their wishes.


 Or its sad that in a election with so much global turmoil,  economic uncertainty, three different takes on how best to run the economy and goverment, it's the niqab that might decide the election.

If 2 women out of over 600000 people turns out to be the most important issue facing this country...meh, might go back to not voting.


----------



## Kilo_302 (6 Oct 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I might add, the murder of a woman encompasses murdered aboriginal women.  Yet that is an election issue.



And it should be one. Over 1000 disappearances and murders of Aboriginal women since 1980 (with a questionable response by law enforcement in many cases) versus 15 confirmed "honour killings" and some of those were Sikh, not Muslim. 

Again, it's what the government is choosing to emphasize that makes it so clear this is about a political strategy versus addressing a real issue.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (6 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> "The Conservatives prefer giving cash to mothers who can then decide whether working is economical.  Trudeau wants to take away that cash.  Mulcair wants to give $15 daycare to millionaires. "
> 
> If that's what you want to believe.



What is the error?

Hasn't Harper given hundreds of dollars per month per kid?  Hasn't Trudeau said he is going to reverse much of that money?  Has Mulcair said that rich people aren't going to get $15 daycare?  I think that paying people to look after their own kids is much cheaper than providing government funded daycare and a few less dysfunctional kids might be created.


----------



## Altair (6 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> What is the error?
> 
> Hasn't Harper given hundreds of dollars per month per kid?  Hasn't Trudeau said he is going to reverse much of that money?  Has Mulcair said that rich people aren't going to get $15 daycare?  I think that paying people to look after their own kids is much cheaper than providing government funded daycare and a few less dysfunctional kids might be created.


As I understand it, trudeau was going to stop giving childcare checks to people making over a certain amount and redistribute that money to everyone else. Also the closer one would be to that cutoff the less they would get.

Means tested.


----------



## Lumber (6 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Privateer might have that individual on ignore as I do, as such, I miss everything  Kilo says.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Or its sad that in a election with _so much global turmoil_,  economic uncertainty, three different takes on how best to run the economy and goverment, it's the niqab that might decide the election.
> 
> If 2 women out of over 600000 people turns out to be the most important issue facing this country...meh, might go back to not voting.




Part of that "global turmoil" is a _war_ that some Islamists/Islamist organizations have declared on Canada and other members of the liberal, democratic, _secular_ West (and East, too, come to that). The _niqab_ imbroglio is just one manifestation of the fear and uncertainty that many, many Canadians feel about the Islamist threat and our (Canada's) reactions to it: our _military_ response, our political/_strategic _response and the varying responses of the political parties. 

The Syrian refugee crisis is the reverse of the _niqab_ coin: we _want_ to be open and generous to people in need, it's been about the response I would expect from most Canadians, BUT when we open our our hearts and our homeland and our wallets to unfortunate people we _want_ them (the "others," the newcomers) to adapt themselves to our customs and traditions.

On a personal level, I agree pretty much with what GR66 said earlier, but the general public, 80+% of them anyway, if I've read the polls correctly, doesn't. The _niqab_ is not, for them, about a woman's right to _privacy_, it is, rather, a threat to "_our_ way of life."


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

>



Sorry, that went right over my head a light speed.


----------



## YZT580 (6 Oct 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Similarly, the stripping of citizenship seems to be solely focused on Muslim terrorists versus terrorists of other persuasions. The law would also apply to an Irish nationalist who attacked an "orange day" parade (does such a thing still exist here?) in Toronto.  Or perhaps a Sikh stirring up troubles in Vancouver.   It just so happens that at this juncture Islamists are the major problem.
> 
> That's a false binary. It's not a choice between our government playing up racist fears and our nation falling "under Sharia Law" at all. But that's the narrative the government would have you believe, because this is their political strategy. Your statement is proof that it's working.



Speaking from personal knowledge, a prominent member of the Islamist clergy in the middle east told me that if they can obtain a 5% population level in any country they can effect serious change and at 15 to 20% they expect to be enable to initiate legal changes to implement Sharia.  Look no further than the no-go zones in Malmo, London, Brussels and Paris to see that this is accurate so no, the government is not blowing smoke.  I wish that was true.




[Edit to insert [ /quote ] code.  I had to go back and forth between what Kilo posted and what is posted here to figure out what initially looked like a malicious edit.    -   George]


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2015)

There is an interesting _Twitter_ exchange ongoing between Andrew MacDougall, a former senior aide to Stephen Harper, and Gerald Butts, the _éminences grise_ to M Trudeau, on the topic to arms sales to Saudi Arabia, hypocrisy in foreign policy and even more hypocrisy on the campaign trail.


----------



## Altair (6 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Part of that "global turmoil" is a _war_ that some Islamists/Islamist organizations have declared on Canada and other members of the liberal, democratic, _secular_ West (and East, too, come to that). The _niqab_ imbroglio is just one manifestation of the fear and uncertainty that many, many Canadians feel about the Islamist threat and our (Canada's) reactions to it: our _military_ response, our political/_strategic _response and the varying responses of the political parties.
> 
> The Syrian refugee crisis is the reverse of the _niqab_ coin: we _want_ to be open and generous to people in need, it's been about the response I would expect from most Canadians, BUT when we open our our hearts and our homeland and our wallets to unfortunate people we _want_ them (the "others," the newcomers) to adapt themselves to our customs and traditions.
> 
> On a personal level, I agree pretty much with what GR66 said earlier, but the general public, 80+% of them anyway, if I've read the polls correctly, doesn't. The _niqab_ is not, for them, about a woman's right to _privacy_, it is, rather, a threat to "_our_ way of life."


If the niqab is seriously the most important thing Canadians care about, whether liberal, conservative or new democratic party, I honestly cannot be bothered to care about the political process.

There are so many issues facing canada, so many different takes on how best to approach them. Yet all anyone is talking about is a court case that effected 0.0000033333 percent of people taking a citizenship ceremony.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2015)

Well, _Canadian Business_ (speaking for Canadian business?) is pretty happy with the TPP deal. M Mulcair promises to scrap it, and M Trudeau says ... what, exactly?


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> If the niqab is seriously the most important thing Canadians care about, whether liberal, conservative or new democratic party, I honestly cannot be bothered to care about the political process.
> 
> There are so many issues facing canada, so many different takes on how best to approach them. Yet all anyone is talking about is a court case that effected 0.0000033333 percent of people taking a citizenship ceremony.




Because it is something about which they _can_ think. It's something they understand. It's a stand-in for the real, substantive, important debate that in which no one, including Prime Minister Harper and M Trudeau, wants to engage. It will have to do ...


Edit: typo


----------



## Altair (6 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Because it is something about which they _can_ thank. It's something they understand. It's a stand-in for the real, substantive, important debate that in which no one, including Prime Minister Harper and M Trudeau, wants to engage. It will have to do ...


In my opinion it borders on disgraceful. 

Economic policy effects 99 percent of Canadians.

Childcare effects both businesses and families.

The politics in Ottawa effects...well, those who follow politics in Ottawa,  one in 5, one in 10?

Niqab? This effect almost no one. 0.0000033333 percent of people, and maybe those in the room when it happens. And considering only 2 women have tried, I would put that number under a 100.

And yet, this is what we get for a debate on chosing the leadership of Canada? In 2011 I didn't vote because I was disgusted with everyone involved. I'm bordering that level of disgust again.


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> If the niqab is seriously the most important thing Canadians care about, whether liberal, conservative or new democratic party, I honestly cannot be bothered to care about the political process.
> 
> There are so many issues facing canada, so many different takes on how best to approach them. Yet all anyone is talking about is a court case that effected 0.0000033333 percent of people taking a citizenship ceremony.



The Grand Canyon started with a drop of water. Many Canadians see the niquab issue as the same thing.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Oct 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> And it should be one. Over 1000 disappearances and murders of Aboriginal women since 1980 (with a questionable response by law enforcement in many cases) versus 15 confirmed "honour killings" and some of those were Sikh, not Muslim.
> 
> Again, it's what the government is choosing to emphasize that makes it so clear this is about a political strategy versus addressing a real issue.



So your saying that more deaths and indigenous background is more wrong than fewer and immigrant-based cultural killings?

By your original logic, murder is murder is murder.  The laws are there to be used as the judiciary sees fit.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Oct 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> And it should be one. Over 1000 disappearances and murders of Aboriginal women since 1980 (with a questionable response by law enforcement in many cases) versus 15 confirmed "honour killings" and some of those were Sikh, not Muslim.
> 
> Again, it's what the government is choosing to emphasize that makes it so clear this is about a political strategy versus addressing a real issue.



Can you cite some specific examples where responses by law enforcement agencies were questionable?

We're all aware of the Picton case and I'd tend to agree with that being a "questionable response".


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> In my opinion it borders on disgraceful.
> 
> Economic policy effects 99 percent of Canadians.
> 
> ...




Don't despair, Altair!    Watch this video and then go out and vote for almost anyone ... because some of these dimwits are probably going to vote, you need to add some intelligence to the process.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (6 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> If the niqab is seriously the most important thing Canadians care about, whether liberal, conservative or new democratic party, I honestly cannot be bothered to care about the political process.



Yes it probably is the issue that concerns more Canadians than anything else and may win the election for Harper.

A lot of people look upon this as a women's issue.  Looking back several decades much of the Arab world did not place their women in sacks.  It is now becoming commonplace where once it was much more limited in scope.  There is an implicit threat of violence to women who do not conform to the new cultural norm.  30 or 40 years ago Iranian women used to wear bikinis.  Did they switch to sacks of their own free will?  I'm betting not.


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Oct 2015)

Several posts have stated that nobody is forcing these women to wear the niqab/burka. Well that's incorrect. Their husbands/fathers are forcing them to wear this form of dress. It is degeneration of women and it should stop.

What would your wife for example, tell you to do if you told her how to dress?


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2015)

Global News' poll tracker:






Source: http://globalnews.ca/news/2262339/friendly-fire-canadian-veterans-clash-over-election-politics/


----------



## Privateer (6 Oct 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Several posts have stated that nobody is forcing these women to wear the niqab/burka. Well that's incorrect. Their husbands/fathers are forcing them to wear this form of dress. It is degeneration of women and it should stop.
> 
> What would your wife for example, tell you to do if you told her how to dress?



Probably, in some cases.  But in others, it's a "free" choice governed by adherence to a religion.  Just as "free" as the choice to go to confession for Catholics.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Oct 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> What would your wife for example, tell you to do if you told her how to dress?



She would not take kindly to my suggestions. The cast iron frying pan is in the bottom of the stove.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2015)

Bob Rae, in this opinion piece which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, sees a fair bit of hope for a Liberal victory:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/two-weeks-to-go-the-campaign-is-about-to-get-nasty/article26684453/


> Two weeks to go: The campaign is about to get nasty
> 
> BOB RAE
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




I agree with Mr Rae that a Liberal victory _is_ a possibility ... what I don't think it is, yet, is a probability.


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Oct 2015)

Privateer said:
			
		

> Probably, in some cases.  But in others, it's a "free" choice governed by adherence to a religion.  Just as "free" as the choice to go to confession for Catholics.



But the free choice to go to confession or not does not come with the implied threat of violence from one's male family members.


----------



## Privateer (6 Oct 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> But the free choice to go to confession or not does not come with the implied threat of violence from one's male family members.



It boils down to this:  If an adult Muslim woman tells "the state" that she chooses to wear the niqab, should the state tell her that her choice is wrong and compel her to take it off?  I mean outside of specific situations of legitimate state interest, such as identifying herself before a government tribunal.  Should the state say, in these circumstances, that her statement as to choice is wrong, or invalid, or that the state just knows better?  I do not think so.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2015)

The _Globe and Mail_ has a new Election Forecast to kick off the last two weeks of the campaign. The data suggests that there is a:

74% chance that the Conservatives get the most seats

5% chance that the NDP gets the most seats

22% chance that the Liberals get the most seats

And a

19% chance that the Green party gets more than one seat

7% chance that all three main parties win 100 seats or more

8% chance that any party gets a majority


The analysis is:

     Conservative lead widens as NDP slide in polls

     Paul Fairie
     Special to The Globe and Mail

     UPDATE OCT. 5:

     Polls released in the last week seem to be in general agreement on the slide by the NDP, driven largely by a decline in their vote share in Quebec, which is what the new Globe Election Forecast reflects. However, the
     polls have disagreed about what else is happening in the national race.

     Polls by both Forum and Angus Reid showed the Conservatives leading by a reasonably healthy six-to-seven-percentage-point margin, with the NDP and Liberals tied for second. If these polls ended up being the final result,
     the Conservatives would likely win a strong minority government, with the two remaining parties battling for Official Opposition status.

     Just as this narrative was emerging, three pollsters have, in the last few days, put the Liberals in first by a small margin. Léger and Innovative Research had the Liberals ahead by two percentage points, while the latest
     Nanos three-day rolling poll puts the Liberals ahead of the Conservatives by five, and a full 13 points ahead of the NDP.

     These last few polls might be picking up the beginnings of a Liberal surge, but in the context of the last week of polls, it’s still not quite clear enough. If there is a real increase in the Liberal vote, they will surely be able
     to repeat their performance over the next few days of polling. If this is the case, the forecast will accordingly become more favourable to them. If, instead, the mixed messages of the last week are repeated, the Forecast
     should remain steady.

     SEPT. 25: The Conservatives have re-taken the lead in the Globe Election Forecast for two reasons. First, a strong performance in an EKOS poll gave the party 35 per cent of the national vote, compared to just 26 per cent
     for the Liberals and 25 for the NDP. If these results are repeated by other firms in the next few days, this is very good news for the government; if the poll is an outlier, this will become clear in short order, and its effect in the Forecast
     will wash out. Second, the NDP have polled somewhat weaker than usual in Quebec, most notably in the most recent Léger poll. While still in first, and down compared to earlier polls in the range of eight percentage points, losing grip
     on even 10 seats in a three-way race reduces any party's chances of winning the most seats.

     Sept. 22: Public opinion data has been streaming in since the federal leaders' debate last Thursday, and all evidence suggests that voters remain as divided as ever.

     Winning a debate isn't the same thing as winning an election. A better measure of who won can be seen by looking at who moved the most votes. Here, too, signals are mixed. While the Nanos 3-day tracking poll showed its usual
     three-way race, Ipsos had the Liberals taking a small lead. The last time they had the Liberals in first was back in late May when they were tied at 31 per cent with the Conservatives. Similarly, the Liberals continue their gradual
     improvement in the Globe Election Forecast.

     Sept. 14: As the polls draw even to a three-way split in the popular vote, so do the odds of each party winning the most seats. While the NDP and Conservatives remain ahead, the Liberals continue to improve their chances of winning the
     largest parliamentary caucus primarily as a result of their recent strong polling performances in Ontario.

     Friday, Sept. 8: The close three-way race in the federal election has become even tighter in the last week. A diminished Conservative vote coupled with growing Liberal support now gives all three parties with a realistic shot of winning the most seats
     in October. A consequence of this three-way race is seen in the Election Forecast's estimate of the likelihood of a majority government: just 2.2 per cent.

     Wednesday, Sept. 2: The Globe’s forecast now predicts that the NDP are the most likely party to win the largest number of seats, with the party leading in 53 per cent of the simulations. This follows a string of seven consecutive national polls each
     showing a lead of between 1 and 10 percentage points for the New Democrats.

     The seven poll lead was reported by seven different pollsters, using three different methods: traditional telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and online surveys. The New Democrats have only had such a string of good polling on two separate
     occasions during this parliament: earlier this year in June, and in the May-June period of 2012.

     In good news for the Liberals, three recent polls, by Nanos, Ipsos Reid and Forum, have showed the party in second place, ahead of the Conservatives. Furthermore, polls consistently suggest the gap between first and third place is under 5 percentage points.

     This all reinforces how unusual this election is: the best a third-place party has ever done in terms of vote share was in 1988, when the Ed Broadbent-led NDP won 20.4 per cent of the vote. Currently, we’re in a situation where whatever party is
     polling in third is earning 25 per cent popular support.

     _Paul Fairie is a University of Calgary political scientist who studies voter behaviour, who designed The Globe’s Election Forecast._


----------



## George Wallace (6 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Don't despair, Altair!    Watch this video and then go out and vote for almost anyone ... because some of these dimwits are probably going to vote, you need to add some intelligence to the process.





OH GOD!  Those are the people who elected Kathleen Wynne.   Torontonians.    :

That was as bad a Rick Mercer's piece on Americans.  I am sure only the dumbest answers were kept and all correct answers edited out, but still a discouraging look at what we have as an electorate.


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Oct 2015)

I am deriving much pleasure at the Stuka impression the Dipper campaign is displaying.  Very talented, that lot.  I can even hear the horns of Jericho siren wailing under the wings.   Question is, will they pull up or lawn dart?


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2015)

Privateer said:
			
		

> It boils down to this:  If an adult Muslim woman tells "the state" that she chooses to wear the niqab, should the state tell her that her choice is wrong and compel her to take it off?  I mean outside of specific situations of legitimate state interest, such as identifying herself before a government tribunal.  Should the state say, in these circumstances, that her statement as to choice is wrong, or invalid, or that the state just knows better?  I do not think so.




I agree ... there are (some) legitimate reasons to _require_ everyone to show their face. Public ceremonies do not meet the test.

That being said, it it my understanding that the Muslim _"dress regulations, women"_ have nothing much to do with Islam, _per se_, but are, rather, a reflection of 8th century Arab culture. I _wish_ people would leave their old culture in their old country ... but conservatives, for example, love Eastern European folk dancing, so what's so wrong with a _niqab_?


----------



## George Wallace (6 Oct 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Speaking from personal knowledge, a prominent member of the Islamist clergy in the middle east told me that if they can obtain a 5% population level in any country they can effect serious change and at 15 to 20% they expect to be enable to initiate legal changes to implement Sharia.  Look no further than the no-go zones in Malmo, London, Brussels and Paris to see that this is accurate so no, the government is not blowing smoke.  I wish that was true.



This 'attack' on our culture, is what many are starting to fear as affecting their future.  The MSM are in a way stirring this fear through the internet, and in reporting.  Omissions in reporting are also painting the Israel as conducting attacks on Palestinians and other Muslims, in ignoring the numerous attacks on and murders of Israelis.  The plight of the Muslims fleeing in the face of IS is reported, but very little is said of the other religious minorities that are being more brutally persecuted.  Slowly the Western and Canadian public are opening their eyes to seek the truth.  Perhaps their fears are more legitimate than some would make them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I am deriving much pleasure at the Stuka impression the Dipper campaign is displaying.  Very talented, that lot.  I can even hear the horns of Jericho siren wailing under the wings.   Question is, will they pull up or lawn dart?




And Brian Gable, drawing in the _Globe and Mail_ agrees ...






Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorial-cartoons-for-october-2015/article26577881/


----------



## George Wallace (6 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree ... there are (some) legitimate reasons to _require_ everyone to show their face. Public ceremonies do not meet the test.
> 
> That being said, it it my understanding that the Muslim _"dress regulations, women"_ have nothing much to do with Islam, _per se_, but are, rather, a reflection of 8th century Arab culture. I _wish_ people would leave their old culture in their old country ... but conservatives, for example, love Eastern European folk dancing, so what's so wrong with a _niqab_?



What is wrong with the veil, be it nijab or burka?  The Western cultures have evolved to a state that covering of the face is NOT a signal of "Trustworthiness"; but an indicator of deception.  None of the other symbolism's from the cultures that we have eventually accepted have involved a permanent 'disguise' of any sort covering the face.  Nor are those cultural symbols, be they clothing, dance, etc. for the most part, a daily display in the society at large.

One can also question why we are slowly removing religious symbolism from our society with one exception.  Are all other religions to be considered less devote than Islam?  Something is wrong with that picture.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What is wrong with the veil, be it nijab or burka?  The Western cultures have evolved to a state that covering of the face is NOT a signal of "Trustworthiness"; but an indicator of deception.  None of the other symbolism's from the cultures that we have eventually accepted have involved a permanent 'disguise' of any sort covering the face.
> 
> One can also question why we are slowly removing religious symbolism from our society _with one exception_.  Are all other religions to be considered less devote than Islam?  Something is wrong with that picture.




Disagree ... I see crosses everywhere, and what about turbans and _kirpans_? We tolerate things about which we disapprove, on various grounds, but which do us no real harm. _I think_ the _niqab_ is an unwelcome reminder of a socio-cultural phenomenon that we would all, Arab and Anglo, Muslim and Mexican, be better off without, and I strongly object to the notion that some women are forced, by husbands and fathers and so on, to wear it, but I also_ believe_ that some women choose, freely, to wear it as an affirmation of their faith in their god ... and why is that wrong?


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2015)

Michael De Tandt, in an article in the _National Post_ says, "A review of Tory attack ads over the past three years confirms this is the final battle the Conservative leader has long anticipated. It’s also the one the Trudeau Liberals have prepared for, husbanding their ground game for a full-on, final push to reclaim their old perch as Canada’s “natural governing party.” Every recent poll suggests that epic struggle is now upon us, with Tom Mulcair’s New Democrats slipping by the day. This means the next couple of weeks will be ugly; an alley fight, no Queensberry Rules ... [and] ... the stage is now set for a big move away from the New Democrats and toward the Liberals, as so-called “Anybody But Harper” voters coalesce behind the party most likely to unseat the government. That in turn would catalyze a last-ditch Conservative move to ignite their base, to prevent the hated Liberals’ returning from the dead, while the New Democrats rush to save the furniture."


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Oct 2015)

So we finally have a substantial and meaningful election issue - the TPP - and three distinguishable positions - ratify, reject, slow-walk to death - on which voters might take a position.

And I see that some of the media, rather than launch into exploring the issue and the parties' respective positions, would rather bury it and lament that we aren't making the decision on the issue of their play-by-play and colour commentary of the Duffy trial, or the issue of not allowing that to be the issue, or the issue of whether people in public places have no reasonable expectation of privacy.  Also we have Wynne trying to square the circle that her mandate somehow obligates the federal government to do something, and trying to redefine the well-established meaning of "payroll tax" to "contribution", in some fuzzy attempt to reach the conclusion "Harper bad".

Finally, we have the repeated nebulous NDP/LPC promises of economic growth and jobs, which presumably will have to come from the eco-humanitarian employment fairy which lives on the edge of the unicorn pasture at the end of the rainbow, because all of the real-world opportunities which present themselves (oil extraction, pipelines, trade with countries with messy human rights records, TPP) are insufficiently pure.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (6 Oct 2015)

I live in a apartment building and earlier this year I was laying on my hammock reading a book and sipping on my favourite brewski.  Below, I noticed a young Muslim couple with their youngster down below. The wife was dressed head-to-toe in black even her hands were covered. But her husband was dressed in running shoes, blue jeans and a short sleeved shirt. So my question is, how come only the women are dressed in the "traditional" form of dress? How come the males always get to adopt a more comfortable form dress? Why aren't they (men) dressed in "traditional" Arab dress (robes, headdress, etc)?

My :2c: worth.


----------



## larry Strong (6 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Yes it probably is the issue that concerns more Canadians than anything else and may win the election for Harper.
> 
> A lot of people look upon this as a women's issue.  Looking back several decades much of the Arab world did not place their women in sacks.  It is now becoming commonplace where once it was much more limited in scope.  There is an implicit threat of violence to women who do not conform to the new cultural norm.  30 or 40 years ago Iranian women used to wear bikinis.  Did they switch to sacks of their own free will?  I'm betting not.
> 
> ...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (6 Oct 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> I live in a apartment building and earlier this year I was laying on my hammock reading a book and sipping on my favourite brewski.  Below, I noticed a young Muslim couple with their youngster down below. The wife was dressed head-to-toe in black even her hands were covered. But her husband was dressed in running shoes, blue jeans and a short sleeved shirt. So my question is, how come only the women are dressed in the "traditional" form of dress? How come the males always get to adopt a more comfortable form dress? Why aren't they (men) dressed in "traditional" Arab dress (robes, turban, etc)?
> 
> My :2c: worth.



Really.  So there isn't a separate dress code for men and women who are "real Canadians"...of which I am not one, as I am also an immigrant to this wonderful country.

Did you happen to also look from your balcony and see young Canadian (for you, read white) girls of, say 10-12 years old that were dressed in a distressingly sexualized manner?  Did you notice the well heeled and well dressed soccer Mom next to her slovenly fat and ill-dressed (white) husband?

Did you also notice the dress code for Canadian girls of Jamaican, Chinese, Korean, Slovenian, Ukrainian and Russian decent?  And how their "dress code" differed from the men that they were with?

I'm fine with you being a racist xenophobe - it is a free country....but I will insist that you admit it.


----------



## Altair (6 Oct 2015)

I really feel like this niqab thing needs it's own thread.


----------



## Lumber (6 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I really feel like this niqab thing needs it's own thread.



The only thing  that is less of an issue than the Niqab issue is the issue that the Niqab issue isn't an issue!


----------



## a_majoor (7 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> So we finally have a substantial and meaningful election issue - the TPP - and three distinguishable positions - ratify, reject, slow-walk to death - on which voters might take a position.
> 
> And I see that some of the media, rather than launch into exploring the issue and the parties' respective positions, would rather bury it and lament that we aren't making the decision on the issue of their play-by-play and colour commentary of the Duffy trial, or the issue of not allowing that to be the issue, or the issue of whether people in public places have no reasonable expectation of privacy.  Also we have Wynne trying to square the circle that her mandate somehow obligates the federal government to do something, and trying to redefine the well-established meaning of "payroll tax" to "contribution", in some fuzzy attempt to reach the conclusion "Harper bad".
> 
> Finally, we have the repeated nebulous NDP/LPC promises of economic growth and jobs, which presumably will have to come from the eco-humanitarian employment fairy which lives on the edge of the unicorn pasture at the end of the rainbow, because all of the real-world opportunities which present themselves (oil extraction, pipelines, trade with countries with messy human rights records, TPP) are insufficiently pure.



Brad, when are you founding your political party? I'm ready to join now.......


----------



## Scott (7 Oct 2015)

Today's niqab is yesterday's kirpan.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a report from John Ibbitson about one area; it also, tangentially, notes how "the old German settler culture has receded, replaced by a more modern and more multicultural dynamic," which, _I expect_, (maybe just hope) will be what we are saying about 99% of Muslim Canadians 100 years from now:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/inside-the-race-in-kitchener-waterloo-a-key-bellwether-battleground/article26689109/


> Inside the race in Kitchener-Waterloo, a key bellwether battleground
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I am old enough to have seen many of the changes that frightened entire generations of Canadians: many of my high school classmates were interned in camps during the Second World war, a few were born in them. I went to high school with "DPs" (displaced persons) from Europe who had little for comfort to except for the familiar warmth of their "old country" culture. But their kids and grandkids are very, very much like my kids. I think there are more, many more sophisticated, well educated, _secular_ Muslims, like my friend and colleague Sabah, from Iraq, who was horrified during Gulf Wars I and II but understood, beneath the pain, that _we_, a group within which he included himself, were trying, albeit clumsily, to make things better.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Oct 2015)

Meanwhile, in other non-niqab news, shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the _Copyright Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42)_ .... ....


> *New Democrats, if elected on Oct. 19, promise to maintain stable defence spending and equip the military to resume leadership in the United Nations peacekeeping, with an eye to making Canada the top troop contributor among western nations within a few years.*
> 
> The pledge is one of the cornerstones of the party's defence policy set to be released Friday along with other elements of the party's platform.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2015)

More polling data, this time from Ekos, 3-5 Oct, _n_=1658, MOE=2.4% 19 times out of 20:






If you swap the red and orange we are closing in on (_trending_ towards) a repeat of 2011 (the Liberals are almost exactly where the NDP were four years ago, the NDP is only 3% above where the Liberals ended up, and the CPC is 4+% away from a majority).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Oct 2015)

Gun owners too lazy to vote just had a fire lit under their ass by The Hairdo. :facepalm:



> Graeme Hamilton
> | Oct 07, 2015 | Last Updated: Oct 07, 2015 - 4:00 UTC
> Seemingly undaunted by their experience with the ill-fated 1995 long-gun registry, the Liberals are positioning themselves as the toughest gun-control proponents in the federal campaign.
> 
> ...



For the sake of this threads clarity, technical discussion can take place here: http://army.ca/forums/threads/28692/post-1393354.html#msg1393354


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Gun owners too lazy to vote just had a fire lit under their ass by The Hairdo. :facepalm:
> 
> For the sake of this threads clarity, technical discussion can take place here: http://army.ca/forums/threads/28692/post-1393354.html#msg1393354




This is part of the battle between the Liberals and NDP in the urban ridings, where gun control is still popular amongst those who vote. 

The suburbs, where the Liberals want to make gains, too, are not monolithically conservative. Many of the _ethnic_ communities, especially East and South Asian, that the CPC has been courting so assiduously, are neutral on or in favour of gun control.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2015)

The Liberals and the NDP are not the only ones dumping _fruitcake_ candidates ... the CPC has dumped "Jagdish Grewal, a candidate in suburban Toronto who defended therapies that attempt to turn gays straight and who penned an editorial that referred to homosexuality as "unnatural behaviour" and heterosexuals as "normal.""


----------



## Scott (7 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Liberals and the NDP are not the only ones dumping _fruitcake_ candidates ... the CPC has dumped "Jagdish Grewal, a candidate in suburban Toronto who defended therapies that attempt to turn gays straight and who penned an editorial that referred to homosexuality as "unnatural behaviour" and heterosexuals as "normal.""



Good. Because that dude brought stupid to a whole new level.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2015)

Notwithstanding some good _editorial_ advice from the _Globe and Mail_, it appears, according to an article in the _Ottawa Sun_ that the CPC will keep flogging the _niqab_ horse because, _I suspect_, their own polling shows that's a winner ~ and not just in _Franco_ Quebec. I have seen data that suggests that as many as 85% of Canadians support _*banning*_ the _niqab_ and _burqa_, despite the decisions of court after court that there is no justifiable reason to do so.

I reiterate that _I think_ this is just part of a larger but inchoate Canadian worry (_fear_, in many cases) about the threat that _radical Islam_ poses to our Western, _secular_, liberal values. Most of us, _I believe_, are unwilling or unable to articulate those worries in more reasoned discourse so we focus on one, tiny, visible, comprehensible symptom of what we perceive to be a larger problem.

The reasons for our _fears_ are as many and as varied as we, ourselves, some are well grounded in facts, others are manifestations of xenophobia or simple, stupid racism ... but we have those _fears_ and the _niqab_ debate allows us to express them. One might doubt the validity of the _niqab_ debate, one should, certainly, say it's in bad taste, but one ought not to doubt its importance to many voters, and, therefore, its validity as a campaign issue.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2015)

And another poll, this one from _ABACUSDATA_ showing the CPC and LPC tied at the top and the NDP well back, in third place:







_n_ =1632 (committed voters, only)


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2015)

Good news for the Liberals; _ABACUSDATA_ says that they have come _waaaaay_ up in a key category: people who think they _can_ win the election:






That is what _Momentum_ is made from ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Globe and Mail_ has a new Election Forecast to kick off the last two weeks of the campaign. The data suggests that there is a:
> 
> 74% chance that the Conservatives get the most seats
> 
> ...




The _Globe and Mail_'s Election Forecast has been updated this morning, there is now a:

75% chance that the Conservatives get the most seats _~ that's up, very slightly_

4% chance that the NDP gets the most seat_s ~ that's down, also very slightly_

22% chance that the Liberals get the most seats _~ unchanged_

And a

20% chance that the Green party gets more than one seat

7% chance that all three parties win 100 seats or more

5% chance that any party gets a majority _~ that's down from 8%, a statistically considerable drop in one day_


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2015)

Not so good news for the Liberals: even Jeffrey Simpson, a usually reliable _shill_ for the (generally Liberal) _Laurentian Consensus_, has some real doubts about M Trudeau's capability to keep his promises which he explains in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/liberals-platform-promises-much-but-how-much-can-they-deliver/article26690262/


> Liberals’ platform promises much, but how much can they deliver?
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




Put simply: if you believe the Liberal platform then I have bridge that's for sale ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Oct 2015)

This late in the campaign, how many folks outside of their base out there will really be paying attention to the small details like that.  Might it be too little information too late to be noticed?  (If it's honestly a real concern.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> This late in the campaign, how many folks outside of their base out there will really be paying attention to the small details like that.  Might it be too little information too late to be noticed?  (If it's honestly a real concern.)




At this stage of the campaign, if I was a CPC tactician, I would want to say three things, over and over again:

     1. "Look, folks, even Jeffrey Simpson says that Justin Trudeau's 'pledge to run deficits to kick-start the economy through infrastructure ... is misleading.' You cannot trust him; he doesn't have a plan, except to take money out of your pockets;"

     2. "Justin Trudeau wants to let convicted terrorists stay in Canada, and he wants to let them continue to force their sisters to hide their faces behind _niqabs_;" and

     3. "We've just signed the world's biggest, best ever, free trade deal: *I'm for it*, _Mulcair's against it_, and Justin Trudeau just doesn't understand it."


----------



## Retired AF Guy (7 Oct 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Really.  So there isn't a separate dress code for men and women who are "real Canadians"...of which I am not one, as I am also an immigrant to this wonderful country.
> 
> Did you happen to also look from your balcony and see young Canadian (for you, read white) girls of, say 10-12 years old that were dressed in a distressingly sexualized manner?  Did you notice the well heeled and well dressed soccer Mom next to her slovenly fat and ill-dressed (white) husband?
> 
> ...



Rather than waste space here, we can carry this conversation by PM.


----------



## Lumber (7 Oct 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Rather than waste space here, we can carry this conversation by PM.



What?! And deny the rest of us the show?!


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2015)

This image is now showing up on social media:






It is good _Conservative blue_ but doesn't have the CPC logo.

It's a good piece of advertising, no matter who made it.


----------



## Altair (7 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This image is now showing up on social media:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


speaking of advertising, I hope that who ever wins power stops letting political parties lie in their advertising


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> speaking of advertising, I hope that who ever wins power stops letting political parties lie in their advertising




It's deceptive rather than being an outright lie.

All those quotes are real enough, albeit incomplete, of course ... no "but," or "excepts." All were made in the no too distant past, while Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government was in power, but they are not all, current, 2015, statements.


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> speaking of advertising, I hope that who ever wins power stops letting political parties lie in their advertising


Yeah, the Liberals would have gotten hammered for the "CPC would put troops with guns in the streets" campaign in 2006 (or was it 2011).


----------



## Retired AF Guy (7 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> What?! And deny the rest of us the show?!



Naw, some other time..


----------



## larry Strong (7 Oct 2015)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Naw, some other time..




Aw, come on......



Larry


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Oct 2015)

1. So the NDP "promise to maintain stable defence spending and equip the military to resume leadership in the United Nations peacekeeping", and "readily acknowledge the F-35 joint strike fighter is not something that belongs in peacekeeping arsenal", and envision "a refined Canadian military", and "would 'maintain budgetary expenditures on defence to meet our commitments.'"

They have figured out that the key to lowering military spending is to lower the requirements.  Think about everything that isn't needed to monitor a cease-fire and zero it out refine it.

2. Simpson's article about the LPC "middle class" spending proposals prompts the question: why does the middle class need any more tax breaks or transfers?  (My view: personal income tax rates need not be lowered any further; non-refundable tax credits - expenditures - need to monotonically decline; transfers to families are already generous enough.)  The LPC is promising a retrograde step.

3. The garment ("niqab") pig-wrestle actually has two aspects.  Currently it suits the anti-Harper factions to use it as a point of attack against Harper, arguing "xenophobia" or "racism".  Absent Harper, the second aspect would be preeminent and the anti-Harper factions would mostly reverse their opposition: most women are not choosing to wear the garments, but are forced to do so by men.  Yes; surely there are a few women who freely choose to do so who are not under the thumb of fathers, uncles, husbands, brothers, sons, etc.  Now do a gut-check and think about the cultures and cultural pressures in question: how likely do you really think that is?  People who believe or claim there is a lot of free choice involved are clinging to an implausibly slender reed.


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> 2. Simpson's article about the LPC "middle class" spending proposals prompts the question: why does the middle class need any more tax breaks or transfers?  (My view: personal income tax rates need not be lowered any further; non-refundable tax credits - expenditures - need to monotonically decline; transfers to families are already generous enough.)  The LPC is promising a retrograde step.



The middle class is where most of your economic engine is based off of.

Also keep in mind that families are driving the economy. Kids need things, lots of things. More food, bigger home, bigger car, clothes, healthcare, etc. Putting money back into the pockets of those families is going to have them spend it to get things they need or want to support those children.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The middle class is where most of your economic engine is based off of.
> 
> Also keep in mind that families are driving the economy. Kids need things, lots of things. More food, bigger home, bigger car, clothes, healthcare, etc. Putting money back into the pockets of those families is going to have them spend it to get things they need or want to support those children.



True, but putting that money in the hands of government administrators will likely have the opposite effect.


----------



## Altair (8 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> What is the error?
> 
> Hasn't Harper given hundreds of dollars per month per kid?  Hasn't Trudeau said he is going to reverse much of that money?  Has Mulcair said that rich people aren't going to get $15 daycare?  I think that paying people to look after their own kids is much cheaper than providing government funded daycare and a few less dysfunctional kids might be created.


I actually found the LPC child care plan.

You can read it if you like. Be warned, it doesn't fit the narrative the attack ads give. Might be because there are more than a few lies in those attack ads.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Oct 2015)

Why the f@%k should my tax dollars go there anyways?   If the Govt. can hand out this money then it shouldn't have been collected in the first place.


----------



## Altair (8 Oct 2015)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Why the f@%k should my tax dollars go there anyways?   If the Govt. can hand out this money then it shouldn't have been collected in the first place.


 Considering all three major parties are doing some form of it, Tim Moen might be more your style.

https://www.libertarian.ca/


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (8 Oct 2015)

The question still stands...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Oct 2015)

Given the average Canadian family of four has between 40-45% of its income taken by taxes and government fees (different studies come up with different figures, depending on the methodologies, but they all end up on the same region), the real way to boost the middle class is to roll back government spending and cut fees and taxes. Imagine the effect on the middle class and the Canadian economy if the average family of four received the equivalent of a 10% pay increase by reducing the tax burden from 40% to 30%......


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Liberals and the NDP are not the only ones dumping _fruitcake_ candidates ... the CPC has dumped "Jagdish Grewal, a candidate in suburban Toronto who defended therapies that attempt to turn gays straight and who penned an editorial that referred to homosexuality as "unnatural behaviour" and heterosexuals as "normal.""




But how, please, does the case of this NDP candidate differ, materially, from that of the former CPC candidate ... except that the NDP candidate's apology is accepted while the Conservative is forced to resign?


----------



## Scott (8 Oct 2015)

My guess: he not only apologized, but he says he's changed his tune.

Meanwhile, the punted CPC neanderthal defends his views.


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I actually found the LPC child care plan.
> 
> You can read it if you like. Be warned, it doesn't fit the narrative the attack ads give. Might be because there are more than a few lies in those attack ads.



It starts off "the typical *one parent* family...". After that that sentence alone, the entire document became suspect to me. It is very obvious who this plan is targeting and more importantly, who would have a harder time qualifying.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2015)

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that journal, _Bloomberg Business_ looks at the Canadian election and, more specifically, at Prime Minister Harper:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-08/canada-s-harper-is-unpopular-except-with-those-who-worship-him


> Canada's Harper Is Unpopular Except With Those Who Worship Him
> 
> Theophilos Argitis
> 
> ...




It's those suburbs, especially the ones in the _Golden Horseshoe_, again ... the key battlegrounds, full of relatively new, _ethnic_ Canadians, who don't, mostly, wear _niqabs_ and don't care, overly, about those who do.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2015)

More on suburbs, this time in the National Capital Region, where the _Ottawa Sun_ reports on three ridings in the region (one in Quebec and two in Ontario) where the Liberals doing surprisingly well: all three are virtual dead heats. The two Ontario ridings (Kanata-Carleton and Nepean) were thought, earlier, to be fairly safe for the CPC.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2015)

Bruce Anderson, who, despite his protests to the contrary I judge to be a Liberal partisan, gives his views on what needs to happen _over the next 10 days_ in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/what-the-ndp-tories-and-liberals-need-to-do-in-the-home-stretch/article26716079/


> What the NDP, Tories and Liberals need to do in the home stretch
> 
> BRUCE ANDERSON
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...


----------



## Altair (8 Oct 2015)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> It starts off "the typical *one parent* family...". After that that sentence alone, the entire document became suspect to me. It is very obvious who this plan is targeting and more importantly, who would have a harder time qualifying.


I screen shot that section because it had the chart in it. The section above has a part that starts with "the typical 2 two parent family with two kids"

Sorry for the misunderstanding.


----------



## Pencil Tech (8 Oct 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Really.  So there isn't a separate dress code for men and women who are "real Canadians"...of which I am not one, as I am also an immigrant to this wonderful country.
> 
> Did you happen to also look from your balcony and see young Canadian (for you, read white) girls of, say 10-12 years old that were dressed in a distressingly sexualized manner?  Did you notice the well heeled and well dressed soccer Mom next to her slovenly fat and ill-dressed (white) husband?
> 
> ...


 :nod:


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> More polling data, this time from Ekos, 3-5 Oct, _n_=1658, MOE=2.4% 19 times out of 20:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




_Source_ for all three graphs, below, is: http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/after-20-day-lead-conservatives-now-find-themselves-in-a-statistical-tie/


And here is _Ekos_ just a day later:






It's a statistical tie.


This graphic, which suggests _Liberal Momentum_ is building at just the right time, is more interesting:







But there is bad news for the LPC, too, in this graphic which shows that support for the Conservatives rises in step with likelihood of voting:






M Trudeau's only statistical strength lies with those least likely to vote.


----------



## Altair (8 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _Source_ for all three graphs, below, is: http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/after-20-day-lead-conservatives-now-find-themselves-in-a-statistical-tie/
> 
> 
> And here is _Ekos_ just a day later:
> ...


Same goes for the NDP.

It's looking more and more like the NDP are going to get smacked hard on election day. I wonder who is best positioned to take a run at the ndp leadership after this. Because if Mulcair doesn't step down on the night of October 19th or morning of Oct 20th the knives will be sharpened by the 21st.


----------



## runormal (8 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> M Trudeau's only statistical strength lies with those _least likely_ to vote.



It will be very interesting to see if the young voter turnout increases drastically this year.

I`ve noticed especially during this election that the majority of my Facebook "traffic" is young voters encouraging other young voters to vote.  At the university I`m currently attending I`ve also noticed a major increase in Elections Canada`s staff and signage compared to 2011. 

Will it make a difference? Who knows, it is a lot _easier _to click "share" than to actually go out and vote so we shall see.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Oct 2015)

I remember Trudeaumania. Young female students enamoured with his antics and continental style. He was voted in on these qualities by new and inconsistent voters.

We're still feeling the ill effects of those decisions.

Let's hope this time around the students, etc aren't suckered in by the same thing for his son.

However, I highly doubt the future is on their minds in the voting booth.

Most students are liberal (or NDP) until they start working for their own wage


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Globe and Mail_'s Election Forecast has been updated this morning, there is now a:
> 
> 75% chance that the Conservatives get the most seats _~ that's up, very slightly_
> 
> ...




More good news for the Liberals and a further indication that _Liberal Momentum_ is real from the _Globe and Mail_'s Election Forecast which has been updated again today and says that there is a:

69% chance that the Conservatives get the most seats

3% chance that the NDP gets the most seats

29% chance that the Liberals get the most seats

And a

20% chance that the Green party gets more than one seat

7% chance that all three parties win 100 seats or more

3% chance that any party gets a majoriy

Most of the Liberal gain came at the expense of the CPC, and the chance of a majority becomes slimmer, again.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This image is now showing up on social media:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				Altair said:
			
		

> speaking of advertising, I hope that who ever wins power stops letting political parties lie in their advertising




The CPC is now spreading the same information under its own name, from a _National Post_ article:






Jason Kenney posted the graphic above ... they must think it is going to have some effect as a counter to all M Trudeau's complaints.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2015)

Interesting "refinement" over time of the Conservatives' view of facial & other coverings ....

August 2013:  _"Federal Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney is weighing in with muted concern over Quebec’s plans to legislate a new approach to minority accommodation.  Quebec Premier Pauline Marois has confirmed a bill is coming, but her government has not commented on a report that the province plans to ban the wearing of religious symbols or clothing by public-service workers.  “Well, first of all, we haven’t seen any actual proposed law,” Mr. Kenney told reporters at an event in Ottawa. “As I have said, obviously, Canadians believe that freedom of religion and conscience are universal values and we would hope that these are values and principles that would be respected.” ...."_
September 2013:  _"The federal government will review any law Quebec passes that bans public servants from wearing religious symbols while on the job, Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney says.  "If it's determined that a prospective law violates the constitutional protections to freedom of religion to which all Canadians are entitled, we will defend those rights vigorously," Kenney told reporters Tuesday in the foyer of the House of Commons ...."_
October 2015:  _"Conservative Leader Stephen Harper says his government would consider banning public servants from wearing the niqab, but rejects the suggestion that recent assaults against Muslim women should stifle debate about the issue ...."_


----------



## Rocky Mountains (8 Oct 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Interesting "refinement" over time of the Conservatives' view of facial & other coverings ....



The  points are not the same.  The first two concern religious symbols.  The Conservatives are presently concerned specifically with face coverings.  

Personally, I don't believe a representative of the government should ever wear a religious symbol.


----------



## AgentSmith (8 Oct 2015)

Well according to the CBC poll tracker, the Liberals have a slight lead. This makes me extremely happy. I hope this trend keeps going.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> The  points are not the same.  The first two concern religious symbols.  The Conservatives are presently concerned specifically with *face coverings*.


The the then-proposed Quebec law dealt with face coverings, too ....




(source of image)


			
				AgentSmith said:
			
		

> Well according to the CBC poll tracker, the Liberals have a slight lead. This makes me extremely happy. I hope this trend keeps going.


Wikipedia actually has an interesting chart of how the pre-election polling's been going:


----------



## Rocky Mountains (8 Oct 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The the then-proposed Quebec law dealt with face coverings, too ....



Plus 100   other things including big crosses.  The Conservatives are not objecting to religious symbols per se.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Plus 100   other things including big crosses.  The Conservatives are not objecting to religious symbols per se.


Maybe, but it appears they've gone from "We'll have to take a close look at any law Quebec passes that makes it illegal for public servants to cover their faces due to cultural practices" to "We might consider not allowing Canadian public servants to cover their faces due to cultural practices."


----------



## George Wallace (8 Oct 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Maybe, but it appears they've gone from "We'll have to take a close look at any law Quebec passes that makes it illegal for public servants to cover their faces due to cultural practices" to "We might consider not allowing Canadian public servants to cover their faces due to cultural practices."



Although appropriate, I don't think I would feel comfortable with the staff at Revenue Canada wearing bandanas over their faces.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2015)

Now the _Globe and Mail_ reports that "The Liberals have caught up to the NDP in Quebec, as voters in the province increasingly see Justin Trudeau’s team as the party most likely to defeat the Conservatives, according to the latest Léger poll ... the New Democrats’ massive lead in Quebec has steadily evaporated during the campaign, as growing numbers of strategic voters turn to the Liberals, pollster Jean-Marc Léger said."

The _Liberal Momentum_ becomes more and more apparent, just when it's needed.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Oct 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Although appropriate, I don't think I would feel comfortable with the staff at Revenue Canada wearing bandanas over their faces.


----------



## Lumber (8 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Liberal Momentum_ becomes more and more apparent, just when it's needed.



You almost sound excited.  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> You almost sound excited.  ;D




Nope; I'm just fascinated by the ebbs and flows of politics, generally, and especially by the dynamics of campaigns. My main interest is in the potential _Constitutional_ consequences of a minority government after this election. 

I said, several weeks ago, when it looked as though M Mulcair might be our next prime minister, that 


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The numbers are fun, the _strategies_ and _tactics_ are fascinating ...
> ...
> I will not welcome an NDP government, if that's who we all choose. But I doubt it will do real, serious, long term harm to our country, despite my mistrust of the economic and fiscal motivations of M Mulcair's back-bench and _base_.
> 
> ...




I stand by that. If M Trudeau's Liberals are elected to govern I expect them to do several dumb things, just as a CPC government has done and a NDP government would do. But I also expect that he will have some good ministers and that the civil service will keep his party from doing too much damage.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> At this stage of the campaign, if I was a CPC tactician, I would want to say three things, over and over again:
> 
> 1. "Look, folks, even Jeffrey Simpson says that Justin Trudeau's 'pledge to run deficits to kick-start the economy through infrastructure ... is misleading.' You cannot trust him; he doesn't have a plan, except to take money out of your pockets;"
> 
> ...




And, here, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, Jeffrey Simpson suggests that the CPC needs to campaign, all out, on three "T"s ~ trade, Trudeau and terror:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/jeffrey-simpson-tories-hone-final-strategy-down-to-a-t-or-three/article26730706/


> Tories hone final strategy down to a T, or three
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I pretty much agree with Mr Simpson.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2015)

Too Close To Call confirms that the Liberals have the _Momentum_ but suggest that it is not, yet, enough to prevent a CPC victory in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from its website:

http://www.tooclosetocall.ca/2015/10/new-polls-show-liberal-on-rise.html


> Too Close To Call
> New polls show Liberal on the rise, especially in Ontario
> 
> Bryan Breguet
> ...



 And, don't forget to factor in the "age" thing (see Jeffrey Simpson, above) and it should be no surprise that despite have the Momentum, the Liberals still lag behind ... for now.


----------



## GAP (9 Oct 2015)

Interesting article in the local news last night.

Elections Canada has, since Monday, had 4 popup advance polls, mainly at Universities. Advance polls don't start here until Today, but they had these to catch the younger crowd.

It might have a good effect on "the hair"


----------



## runormal (9 Oct 2015)

GAP said:
			
		

> Interesting article in the local news last night.
> 
> Elections Canada has, since Monday, had 4 popup advance polls, mainly at Universities. Advance polls don't start here until Today, but they had these to catch the younger crowd.
> 
> It might have a good effect on "the hair"



Just figured I'd shed some additional light on this. These went on this week ( October 5-9) . There were posters that were put up the week prior (Sept 28- 2 October) as well as election's Canada Staff positioned directly in front of the residence buildings so it was impossible to miss it. The staff was extremely helpful and explained the procedure very quickly.  It was also incredibly easy to vote, I only needed my drivers license and nothing else. They looked me up in the system saw that I registered to vote in my home riding and then they gave me a book of all the candidates and I wrote the individuals name who I wanted to vote for. In and out in 10 minutes ;D. 

While I can't speak across the country my parent university in a different province seemed to have a similar system going on.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Oct 2015)

They had one of the student voting organizers on the news last night, she said that about 45K students had voted this week so far.  The young are apparently motivated to vote this election moreso than in the past.  I would expect that most of their votes would be going to the left vs the right side of the coin.  Despite the engagement of the kids (and that's fantastic in and of its own), it's the old bastards like me that are going to be the armoured fist in making an impact as “Quantity has a quality all its own.” ― Joseph Stalin.  Which way the grey wave breaks ashore will be interesting to see.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Oct 2015)

CBC has some footage of two climate change protestors who were ejected from the PM's rally.  One rushed the stage and got within a couple feet of him and the other wanted to get her point across from the audience.  One was rushed off by his security detail and the other was escorted off by others.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2015)

Jane Taber, writing in her Political Notebook in the _Globe and Mail__ reports on speculation from inside the Liberal and NDP camps about what they might do in the event of a Conservative minority:

     *Not a coalition*

     With the election too close to call, and predictions of a minority government, NDP and Liberal insiders are looking at scenarios as to who will form the government if Stephen Harper and his Conservatives win the most seats on
     Oct. 19, but not a majority.

     No formal discussions have taken place yet, but insiders from both parties have mused that the 1985 “accord” between the Ontario Liberal leader David Peterson and NDP leader Bob Rae could serve as a template for the path to power.

     Mr. Peterson and Mr. Rae negotiated the accord after the incumbent Progressive Conservative government did not win a majority in the May, 1985, provincial election.

     The accord guaranteed two years of stable government with David Peterson as premier. It was not a coalition government. Rather, the NDP, which had the fewest seats, agreed to support a Liberal government for 24 months if some of its
     priorities were put in place.

     A Liberal insider noted that there were no discussions between the Ontario Liberals and NDP during the 1985 election campaign. Right now, he says, he sees “no appetite for such discussions before the election at all.”

     A veteran NDP insider floated this theory of how election night could unfold, suggesting that if the Conservatives win fewer than 165 seats – a majority is 170 – NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau will talk
     that night and could issue a letter or statement of their intention to try to govern.

     The NDP is the Official Opposition and went into the election with 95 seats; the Liberals are the third party, entering the campaign with 36 seats. There are 30 new federal seats in this election, bringing the seat count to 338.

     The NDP insider says the “nature of the relationship” between the NDP and Liberals will be “determined in large part by the numbers” each side wins on election night. For example, he says, a “longer, deeper relationship might be
     possible” if the Liberals win 140 seats and the NDP 120. This would be the “accord” scenario. However, if the Liberals are at 160 seats and the NDP at 80, then a formal accord is less likely.

     Two years would also give the parties a chance to replenish their election war chests after the lengthy campaign. The Conservatives have no trouble raising money, and one senior Tory official noted to The Globe and Mail that,
     if they win a minority, they could easily afford to go to the polls again in five to seven months.

     The nightmare scenario for the Trudeau Liberals, the NDP insider says, is if the Conservatives win 150 seats, the NDP wins 130 and the Liberals win 60. And then Mr. Harper quickly introduces his Speech from the Throne, using the
     Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal as the linchpin.

     Does the Liberal Leader support Mr. Harper’s government and vote for the Throne Speech, giving the Conservatives the ability to say they have the confidence of the House of Commons? Or does he vote it down, after saying on
     the campaign trail that his party is “resolutely pro-trade”?

     “Agony,” the NDP insider says about Mr. Trudeau’s choices.

     The NDP Leader, meanwhile, has been clear that he would not ratify the trade deal._


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2015)

The _Ottawa Citizen_ reports that:

     "A new poll by Mainstreet Research for Postmedia shows 33 per cent of decided voters nationally favouring the Conservative party, with the Liberals close behind at 31 per cent. Now distinctly
     in the rear, the New Democratic Party had just 18-per-cent support in the poll conducted Oct. 6 and 7.

     Furthermore, 36 per cent of “_*leaning and decided*_” voters backed the Conservatives, with the Liberals at 35 per cent. The NDP had just 20-per-cent support among this group.

     Ontario figures put the Liberals up 44 per cent to 37 for the Tories among leaning and decided voters, with the NDP fading to 14 per cent.

     But more startling were the findings in Quebec, home of the “orange wave” in the 2011 federal election that catapulted the NDP into opposition status. There, the pollsters found, the three parties were virtually tied among
     decided and leaning voters: The Conservatives and Liberals both claimed 27-per-cent support, with the NDP at 25. After two strong debate performances by Leader Gilles Duceppe, the Bloc Québécois stood at 17 per cent."


----------



## Altair (9 Oct 2015)

Yes, yes the ndp vote just needs to keep withering away. The vote split looks to be aiding the LPC.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Oct 2015)

Civic duty complete, just voted in the advance poll.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (9 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Yes, yes the ndp vote just needs to keep withering away. The vote split looks to be aiding the LPC.



As the NDP go down, both the Liberals and Conservatives have gone up.  I suspect voters balancing an NDP/Liberal vote as opposite of a Conservative vote is fiction.  It appears that the Conservatives may have even attracted more than half the NDP losses.  Maybe people aren't as doctrinaire as many believe nor are there as many true Harper Haters as believed.  In my opinion, it would take a pretty determined voter to want Trudeau as PM.  Perhaps a lot of NDP supporters like a little more brains at the top.


----------



## McG (9 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> As the NDP go down, both the Liberals and Conservatives have gone up.  I suspect voters balancing an NDP/Liberal vote as opposite of a Conservative vote is fiction.  It appears that the Conservatives may have even attracted more than half the NDP losses.  Maybe people aren't as doctrinaire as many believe nor are there as many true Harper Haters as believed.  In my opinion, it would take a pretty determined voter to want Trudeau as PM.  Perhaps a lot of NDP supporters like a little more brains at the top.


Alternately, as the NDP and LPC leadership each seems to better fit the other party, the NDP base is bleeding to the LPC while LPC base is more slowly moving to the CPC; each group trying to find something closer to what they might historically have voted.


----------



## Altair (9 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> As the NDP go down, both the Liberals and Conservatives have gone up.  I suspect voters balancing an NDP/Liberal vote as opposite of a Conservative vote is fiction.  It appears that the Conservatives may have even attracted more than half the NDP losses.  Maybe people aren't as doctrinaire as many believe nor are there as many true Harper Haters as believed.  In my opinion, it would take a pretty determined voter to want Trudeau as PM.  Perhaps a lot of NDP supporters like a little more brains at the top.


I think that conservative bump is coming from quebec. I don't think the conservatives are going to win too many seats in Quebec even with this bump.

It's ontario where they need gains and I don't see that as of now.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Civic duty complete, just voted in the advance poll.




Me, too. Very, very large turnout at my advance poll in Ottawa Centre: predominately people over 40,_ I think_, many over 60 from the looks of 'em but some young folks, too. If I had to _guess_: 50% 0ver 60; 35% 35-60; 15% 18-35.


----------



## JesseWZ (9 Oct 2015)

Just voted at work. A common theme seemed to be members who had elected to change their electoral district in years past, still showing up in their district of recruitment.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> They had one of the student voting organizers on the news last night, she said that about 45K students had voted this week so far.  The young are apparently motivated to vote this election moreso than in the past.  I would expect that most of their votes would be going to the left vs the right side of the coin.  Despite the engagement of the kids (and that's fantastic in and of its own), it's the old bastards like me that are going to be the armoured fist in making an impact as “Quantity has a quality all its own.” ― Joseph Stalin.  Which way the grey wave breaks ashore will be interesting to see.




Heard the same figure today ... I'm very glad to see this initiative even if, at a purely partisan level, it will work against the _immediate_ interests of the CPC. In the mid to long term the CPC needs to ditch some of the policies and positions that are anathema to younger Canadians and adopt much more moderate, _liberal_ social policy positions.


----------



## AgentSmith (9 Oct 2015)

Just voted in the advanced poll as well. I was surprised to see how many people there were. When I got there the line up was out the door. From what I've seen I hope this means voter turn out will be a lot higher this election.


----------



## Altair (9 Oct 2015)

I wonder if Eric Grenier can do it again

Because the cbc poll tracker has

LPC 132

CPC 123

NDP 80

BQ 2

GRN 1

Last election he predicted the seats counts to withing 6 for each party, and nailed the bloc with exactly 4 seats.


----------



## AgentSmith (9 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I wonder if Eric Grenier can do it again
> 
> Because the cbc poll tracker has
> 
> ...



Well I'm very happy with those numbers. I'm really curious if Eric will be as accurate this time.


----------



## Lumber (9 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I wonder if Eric Grenier can do it again
> 
> Because the cbc poll tracker has
> 
> ...



I find it interesting how, if you scroll down to the sources, that the Nanos poll is the one given the lowest weight in the average, yet it's the one that keeps getting shared around on the news and social media (probably because it comes out every night and because it usually shows the Liberals in the lead).


----------



## Lumber (9 Oct 2015)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> Just voted at work. A common theme seemed to be members who had elected to change their electoral district in years past, still showing up in their district of recruitment.



There's away around that: don't vote by special ballot. If they don't want to vote for the district that they were in when they got recruited, they can still go vote in the riding they actually live in. They can register in advance at the local returns office, or on election day at their poling station. 

It's kind of like getting the option during an election of where to vote... the one on your statement of ordinary residence, or the one you live in (since you can't change your SOR during an election which I think isn't right).


----------



## Altair (9 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I find it interesting how, if you scroll down to the sources, that the Nanos poll is the one given the lowest weight in the average, yet it's the one that keeps getting shared around on the news and social media (probably because it comes out every night and because it usually shows the Liberals in the lead).


I think* he counts nanos as a 3 day poll of 400 people, so 1200 dropping off the last day while replacing it with the newest.

I also believe he weights nanos higher due to their accuracy in the past.

*someone explained that to me, no idea if it's 100% accurate.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> There's away around that: don't vote by special ballot. If they don't want to vote for the district that they were in when they got recruited, they can still go vote in the riding they actually live in. They can register in advance at the local returns office, or on election day at their poling station.
> 
> It's kind of like getting the option during an election of where to vote... the one on your statement of ordinary residence, or the one you live in (since you can't change your SOR during an election which I think isn't right).



There is no option to vote locally unless you have so designated your SOR.  If you do so, it's contrary to the Elections Act.


----------



## Infanteer (9 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> There's away around that: don't vote by special ballot. If they don't want to vote for the district that they were in when they got recruited, they can still go vote in the riding they actually live in. They can register in advance at the local returns office, or on election day at their poling station.
> 
> It's kind of like getting the option during an election of where to vote... the one on your statement of ordinary residence, or the one you live in (since you can't change your SOR during an election which I think isn't right).



Wrong, and against the law as well.  Read the election act, specifically section 192 and 193.  They can vote in the district they reside in if they submit a SOR designating it as their riding prior to the writ being dropped.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-2.01/page-58.html#h-76


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Oct 2015)

Whoever sits as government, I hope Parliament has the sense to ratify the TPP.  More countries will join.  Eventually China will be one of them (~1.4 billion people), and probably Indonesia (~.25 billion), and who knows - maybe geography will be stretched a little to admit India (~1.25 billion).  It might eventually include at least half the people in the world. Canada needs to be part of that.  Charter membership will have advantages.

It was difficult for the parties to reach an agreement.  I suppose if any country opts out now, the remainder will still go ahead.  I also suppose that once the agreement is in force among some nations, they will essentially dictate terms to new applicants.   If Canada turns away now, we will not get more favourable terms later.  The TPP partners are unlikely to accommodate a domestic Canadian political tantrum.

The TPP is "the" election issue, although I doubt many people realize it.  In a few years none of the other FUD being thrown up by all parties is going to matter.


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Oct 2015)

Just voted. Went to the advance poll at 1330 (opened at 1200). Two hundred people there for the three polls (one desk for each). Dozens walking away.

Went back at 1600, probably seventy-five there. Dozens walking away. Waited 3/4 of an hour then to Elections Canada office, 1 1/2 wait for the (ten !!) people in front of us to vote using a special ballot. 

Announced to everyone in our line at 1600, free drinks at Whiskey Jacks around the corner, but nobody left.


----------



## ballz (9 Oct 2015)

Luckily my SOR is still Fort McMurray - Cold Lake so I was able to vote for a Libertarian... at least now I know we'll get at least one vote this election.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2015)

For those still undecided, the _Globe and Mail_ has a useful Platform Comparison on their web site. It looks pretty fair (unbiased) to me.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2015)

Here is another take on _strategic voting_ ... Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre is telling all Liberals that only he can ensure the CPC doesn't win in his riding. (I have heard _rumours_ that the polling _suggests_ that if the Liberal candidate (Catherine McKenna) is able to steal too many votes from Mr Dewar (Liberal Momentum, and all that) then there is a "danger" (to the Harper Haters™) that the Conservative (Damian Konstantinakos) could, possibly, sneak "up through the middle," and _steal_ the seat.)


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Oct 2015)

How is it that Konstantinakos would "steal" a seat if voters vote for whomever they please?

The notion of "vote-splitting" is idiocy (rhetorical sleight-of-hand, to be fair).  There are more than two candidates in most ridings.  The candidate with the most votes wins.  Nothing is "stolen" or "split"; there is no reason to characterize a LPC-supporting vote as theft of a NDP-supporting vote.

(This isn't meant as a personal attack.  The aforementioned notion poisons public discourse and should be removed from it.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> How is it that Konstantinakos would "steal" a seat if voters vote for whomever they please?
> 
> The notion of "vote-splitting" is idiocy (rhetorical sleight-of-hand, to be fair).  There are more than two candidates in most ridings.  The candidate with the most votes wins.  Nothing is "stolen" or "split"; there is no reason to characterize a LPC-supporting vote as theft of a NDP-supporting vote.
> 
> (This isn't meant as a personal attack.  The aforementioned notion poisons public discourse and should be removed from it.)




I actually agree with you, but those words and phrases: "danger," "sneak," "steal" and "up through the middle" were direct quotes from a friend of mine who is well plugged into one of the campaigns ~ not the CPC one.

In the case of both the Liberals and the NDP, Ottawa-Centre is "theirs" almost by _right_ (it's only gone Conservative once in most people's memory (Robert René de Cotret held it, for the PCs, in the 1970s)) and they would, indeed, regard a Conservative "up through the middle" victory, as _theft_ ~ almost a case of a crime against nature.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2015)

As expected, Canada's largest and arguably most influential newspaper, the _Toronto Star_, has endorsed Justin Trudeau as their choice to be our next prime minister.

The _Star_ says, "Canadians are a decent, progressive people who deserve a decent, progressive government that holds out the prospect of a better and more constructive future. [and] Fortunately, when they go to the polls on Oct. 19 voters will be able to choose a strong, hopeful alternative to the Harper Conservatives: Justin Trudeau and the Liberal party. They have crafted an alternative vision for the country that deserves the support of those who believe Canada can be more generous, more ambitious and more successful."


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Oct 2015)

>I actually agree with you, but those words and phrases: "danger," "sneak," "steal" and "up through the middle" were direct quotes from a friend of mine who is well plugged into one of the campaigns ~ not the CPC one.

And, on reflection, I partly disagree with myself.  When parties split or splinter, it is meaningful to talk about vote splits.  I suppose what I dislike is the characterization of the third-party beneficiary of a shift of votes from one candidate to another which allows neither to win.

Weak candidates - people lacking both policy sense and the gift of bullsh!t, or people with policy sense but lacking the ability to sell themselves - should confirm the floor of strongly aligned voters for their respective parties.  A single strong candidate in a riding should draw most of the unaligned or weakly - perhaps also moderately - aligned vote.  But if another party finds a strong candidate, the return of that party's voters to the fold is not theft.

Not knowing Dewar's riding, I'm not sure if it's a proper example; the question is this: was he the past beneficiary of voters who ordinarily support Liberals, or are NDP voters slipping away?

All I can see so far is that the anti-Harper vote has finally coalesced behind one party - as most expected it to - and has moved to the Liberals.  The NDP forgot - or ignored - that much of their support was among people who are not normally NDP voters, and got so high on the smell of themselves (polls) that they forgot to guard their tongues.  Trudeau, meanwhile, had two bars to clear: the bar of low expectations set by the CPC, and the bar of competence to be PM.  He cleared the first one via the debates; he has not cleared the second, but many voters have conflated the two.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2015)

The _Ottawa Citizen_ also has a "How The Parties Differ" _Platform Guide_ on their web site. It has a more comprehensive (than the _Globe and Mail_'s) Defence and Foreign Policy section.


----------



## Ostrozac (10 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Not knowing Dewar's riding, I'm not sure if it's a proper example; the question is this: was he the past beneficiary of voters who ordinarily support Liberals, or are NDP voters slipping away?



Ottawa Centre is two things -- transient and gentrifying. Government workers move -- more often than many people, and the new condo builds and rising home prices and rents in the downtown core, Chinatown, Little Italy, the Glebe and Westboro are changing the dynamics of the riding. Does that mean that it's absolutely lost to the NDP? Absolutely not. But all parties should realize that just because a riding was once held by Ed Broadbent doesn't mean that it is the NDP's by right forever -- many of the people that voted for Ed will now be living in the suburbs, and have been replaced by younger professionals.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_ is an interesting look at the politics of the holiday long weekend:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/pass+politics+thanksgiving+weekend+plays+crucial+part+election/11430515/story.html


> Pass the politics: Thanksgiving weekend plays crucial part in election as families gather to discuss voting
> 
> BRUCE CHEADLE, THE CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> ...




The Conservative insiders, Tom Flanagan and Andrew MacDougall, seem skeptical about the weekend effect ... or are they just camping down expectations?


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> They had one of the student voting organizers on the news last night, she said that about 45K students had voted this week so far.  The young are apparently motivated to vote this election moreso than in the past.  I would expect that most of their votes would be going to the left vs the right side of the coin.  Despite the engagement of the kids (and that's fantastic in and of its own), it's the old bastards like me that are going to be the armoured fist in making an impact as “Quantity has a quality all its own.” ― Joseph Stalin.  Which way the grey wave breaks ashore will be interesting to see.




_Factoid_ from David Akin of _Sun News_: 

In #elxn41: Voter turnout 18-34: 42%. For all voters 35+: 64.8% : #elxn41 turnout rates pretty similar over last 4 elections.

We, they, whoever have to convince _millions_ of younger Canadians to vote; 45,000 is a good start, 450,000 would have been better.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I actually agree with you, but those words and phrases: "danger," "sneak," "steal" and "up through the middle" were direct quotes from a friend of mine who is well plugged into one of the campaigns ~ not the CPC one.
> 
> In the case of both the Liberals and the NDP, Ottawa-Centre is "theirs" almost by _right_ (it's only gone Conservative once in most people's memory (Robert René de Cotret held it, for the PCs, in the 1970s)) and they would, indeed, regard a Conservative "up through the middle" victory, as _theft_ ~ almost a case of a crime against nature.



So it is supposed to be a toss up between the civil service unions or the civil service managers?


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> So it is supposed to be a toss up between the civil service unions or the civil service managers?




Actually, _I think_ that the civil service _unions_ will be disappointed with any of the _big three_. Civil servants are adequately to well to very well paid ... as a broad generality: the higher up you go the less great the pay is. Equally: the Conservatives and Liberals are _friends_ of civil service _management_ ~ the pressure on things like sick leave and so on is not purely political. Many, many civil service managers, especially senior managers, _believe_ that the civil service needs to look more and more and more like the private sector, and that includes in compensation and benefits.

If M Trudeau becomes PM there will not be wholesale changes amongst the deputies and senior PCO staff. The very top of the civil service heap knows how to serve both the CPC and the LPC and would, fairly quickly, if the situation arose, adapt to the NDP, too. (And, in the case of the NDP, there would be some adaptation to the civil service _policy culture_ in Ottawa.)

The ferociously smart, hard working _Mandarins_ in sober "power suits" in Ottawa's political centre have a master plan for Canada. It can adapt itself to almost any policy notions that Conservative or Liberal governments might toss its way. The _Mandarins_ may have to tack and temporise but, generally, broadly speaking, they get their way: their way is moderate, prudent, _liberal_ in outlook and _conservative_ in execution.

The vast majority of the civil service is ordinary, average, unexceptional, slightly overpaid, sometimes (not always) slightly underworked, and could be easily replaced, in most cases, if there was an outbreak of plague. The _Mandarins_ are exceptional; _I suspect_ every minister and prime minister, past and present, agrees with that; ministers may not like the _Mandarins_ but they respect them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2015)

There is an interesting article in the _Globe and Mail_ by Doug Saunders who is not, _in my opinion_, a friend of Prime Minister Harper, about the ethnic/immigrant vote. Mr Saunders reports that:

    "There are three things political observers from other countries find surprising about Stephen Harper’s party.

     The first is that the Conservatives became a preferred party of immigrants and of many racial and religious minorities. In the 2011 federal election, the Tories attracted 42 per cent of the vote from foreign-born Canadians,
     higher than their 37-per-cent share among native-born Canadians ...

     The second is that after accomplishing this, Mr. Harper’s party has run a 2015 campaign built on ethnic and religious distrust, fear and divisiveness ...

     That leads to the third surprise: This does not appear to have cost the Conservatives support among immigrants and members of most minorities.

      And an expert in public-opinion analytics says that “there is no evidence that immigrants are becoming less likely to vote Tory as the campaign goes on. In fact, if anything, the opposite appears true.”

Mr Saunders goes on ... "It shows that the politics of intolerance, as well as the more benign social and economic appeals to small-c conservatism, are at least as likely to appeal to minority immigrants as they are to “white” Canadians." and, further that "David Cameron, Britain’s Tory Prime Minister, ran a re-election campaign this year larded with tough messages about detaining and sending back immigrants; he not only won a majority but also doubled his party’s support among ethnic minorities, attracting a million visible-minority Britons."

Mr Saunders calls this a "dangerous game," and concludes that "in Canada's system of democratic pluralism, those private divisions are kept in the background, subsumed under a larger values of mutual respect, cooperation and equal treatment. Playing on these histories for electoral gain goes against Canada’s basic values."

_I think_ Mr Saunders misunderstands the two very large and very sophisticated minority communities that Prime Minister Harper has courted most assiduously: the East and South Asians. They, too, are afraid of _extremism_ of any and all sorts, and some, especially in the South Asian communities have recent experience of it, right here in Canada. Prime Minister Harper isn't appealing to their worst nature any more than appeals to your or mine: he is raising concerns that many, many people have. You and I might wish that these concerns could go unspoken. but ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And here is the latest _Predictionator_ from David Akin, the Parliamentary Bureau Chief of _Sun News_:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




How do you spell _Liberal Momentum_?

Take a look at the HUGE change to Davbid Akin's _Predictionator_:





Source: http://blogs.canoe.com/davidakin/politics/9-days-to-go-and-predictionator-has-a-narrow-liberal-minority/

And here's what he says about some Conservatives:

Fisheries Minister _Gail Shea_ trails the Liberals in Egmont
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development _Bernard Valcourt_ appears to be a lost cause in Madawaska–Restigouche (lost to the Liberals)
Immigration Minister [size=14pt]_Chris Alexander_ trails in Ajax in a re-match with Liberal Mark Holland.
Minister of State_ Gary Goodyear_ trails in Cambridge — also in a rematch with a Liberal who he’s beaten before, Bryan May.
Two weeks ago, I had Finance Minister _Joe Oliver_ up by 7 points on Liberal Marco Mendocino. Now I have Mendocino up 7 on Oliver. Watch this space for more volatility!
Minister of State_ Ed Holder_ is down five points to the Liberals in London West.
Here’s something worth watching: I have Foreign Affairs _Rob Nicholso_n down two points in a toss-up race in Niagara Falls. Toss-up with the Liberals. The NDP vote here, if it grows a bit, could be what Nicholson needs to survive. But right now …
Associate Minister of National Defence _Julian Fantino_ is 7 points down to a Liberal named Sorbara (which in that riding is a big deal.)
Revenue Minister _Kerry-Lynne Findlay_ is trailing the Liberals by a hair in a toss-up race in Delta.[/size]


----------



## Infanteer (10 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The TPP is "the" election issue, although I doubt many people realize it.  In a few years none of the other FUD being thrown up by all parties is going to matter.



Agreed, just like NAFTA was two three decades ago.  Too bad we are talking about niqabs....


----------



## dapaterson (10 Oct 2015)

Best prediction so far.



> Andrew Coyne ‏@acoyne
> My own current projection, based on elaborate guesswork/hunches:
> 
> Fascists 123
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Oct 2015)

That predictionator just made my stomach turn. Justin Trudeau as PM spells minor disaster. 

But maybe he'll make it, fail at his budget, people will see him for the daft airhead that he is and in the subsequent election the adults will step back in.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Oct 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> That predictionator just made my stomach turn. Justin Trudeau as PM spells minor disaster.
> 
> But maybe he'll make it, fail at his budget, people will see him for the daft airhead that he is and in the subsequent election the adults will step back in.



Using Ontario as a model, I think you may be wrong.  In fact, I might go as far as to say that he might have a multiple-run.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Oct 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Using Ontario as a model, I think you may be wrong.  In fact, I might go as far as to say that he might have a multiple-run.


I probably am. That guy is so daft I just cannot believe he's going to win.

But then again, Ontario went for Wynne.  :/

He's selling the future in order to buy the vote.  And my pocketbook just got lighter, and I say bend over, because as bad as the conservative government has been with foreign policy, this guy will take us from the top and turn us into a laughing stock.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Agreed, just like NAFTA was two three decades ago.  _Too bad we are talking about niqabs...._




This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _The Economist_, is about Germany but it highlights a broad _thing_ about _people_, everywhere, and their anxieties and _fears_ about "others." Many of us may wish that the _niqab_ wasn't such a big deal because we find it just a wee bit distasteful that we, 85% of us, anyway, if recent polls are to be believed, care more about the people down the street or across town or in the next province than they do about (vitally important) trade deals ...

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21672296-after-historic-embrace-refugees-german-public-opinion-turning-merkel-her-limit


> Merkel at her limit
> *After a historic embrace of refugees, German public opinion is turning*
> 
> Oct 10th 2015 | BERLIN | From the print edition
> ...




Rest assured, neither a Liberal nor an NDP government is going to do much different about refugees or _accommodation_ than the current, Conservative, government is doing, and that, CPC, government will do less than promised if re-elected. Why? Because two important groups don't want more done: the senior civil service, including the security services, are worried about a sudden influx of people who are ill-equipped to adapt to Canada and who _may_ be being used as a smoke screen for terrorist deployments (but that's a secondary concern); and the _Canadian people_  (that 85% again) quite simply don't want them here. The latter matter.

The Conservatives are, indeed, exploiting an unseemly side of our national character, one that borders on pretty ugly racism but which is, mainly, a smug, self satisfied concern for ourselves. But it is _we_ who are providing the ammunition ~ the Conservative campaign didn't invent this issue; it's here, in your town, on your street, maybe even in your home.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Oct 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I probably am. That guy is so daft I just cannot believe he's going to win.
> 
> But then again, Ontario went for Wynne.  :/
> 
> He's selling the future in order to buy the vote.  And my pocketbook just got lighter, and I say bend over, because as bad as the conservative government has been with foreign policy, this guy will take us from the top and turn us into a laughing stock.



Every time I flip a light switch in my house (in Ontario) and think of the insanely disproportionate increase in out of pocket expenses (electricity in particular, but there are many), I'm reminded of the success of this methodology, by one of the Young Dauphin's mentors, Mme Wynne.

 :-\


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2015)

_CTV News_ has a summary of Pocketbook Issues, here, for those who are still making up their minds.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Oct 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I probably am. That guy is so daft I just cannot believe he's going to win.
> 
> But then again, Ontario Toronto went for Wynne.  :/
> 
> He's selling the future in order to buy the vote.  And my pocketbook just got lighter, and I say bend over, because as bad as the conservative government has been with foreign policy, this guy will take us from the top and turn us into a laughing stock.




TFTFY


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2015)

It wasn't just Toronto or even the _golden horseshoe_ that voted *for* Premier Wynne; a substantial share of Ontarians voted _*against*_ Tim Hudak, in some part because he and his ilk were around too long and in another part because of a well funded, effective anti-Hudak campaign organized and conducted by Big Labour. 

Premier Wynne wasn't anyone's favourite, but Ontarians saw her, and appear, now, to see M Trudeau, as the best of a bad lot.

Still and all, there is one _"long time in politics"_ to go, and _"events"_ can still happen ...


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It wasn't just Toronto or even the _golden horseshoe_ that voted *for* Premier Wynne; a substantial share of Ontarians voted _*against*_ Tim Hudak, in some part because he and his ilk were around too long and in another part because of a well funded, effective anti-Hudak campaign organized and conducted by Big Labour.
> 
> Premier Wynne wasn't anyone's favourite, but Ontarians saw her, and appear, now, to see M Trudeau, as the best of a bad lot.
> 
> Still and all, there is one _"long time in politics"_ to go, and _"events"_ can still happen ...



I think another problem there was that Hudak failed in clearly defending his position, leaving too many holes in his platform undefended.  He failed to clearly define his platform, nor defend it from the opposition's attacks on it.


----------



## runormal (11 Oct 2015)

Didn't see it so I figured I'd post it.

VICE News had a "Meet the Leader" session with Justin Trudeau roughly a week ago.  

You Can watch the video here.

http://en.daily.vice.com/page/vice-meets-justin-trudeau

"On Monday, October 5th, 2015 VICE Canada interviewed Liberal Party leader Justin Trudeau live at the Great Hall in Toronto.

The event was MC'd by Damian Abraham, a member of Canadian punk band Fucked Up, and focussed on issues of importance to *young Canadians* like the environment, missing and murdered Aboriginal women, cybersecurity, LGBT rights, and, well, weed."


and in just a few a days a Similar Event will be happening with Tom Mulcair



"VICE Canada will be sitting down beard-to-beard with NDP leader Tom Mulcair at a town hall meeting Tuesday to discuss the issues that are important to *young Canadians. *

The interview, to take place at Toronto's Great Hall on Tuesday, October 13 at 5:30 PM EST, will be MC'd by Damian Abraham, VICE Canada host and frontman for punk band Fucked Up. It will be open to the public and live-streamed on the Daily VICE hub.

Members of the audience and VICE Canada staff will ask Mulcair where he stands on a number of issues we've been covering, including missing and murdered Indigenous women, Indigenous water access, weed legalization, Bill C-51, and transgender health rights.

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/vice-canada-to-meet-tom-mulcair-in-final-week-of-campaign

For the Conservatives

"This is the second event in VICE Canada's Meet The Leaders series. The Conservatives have declined our request for a similar event with Harper."

Seeing how the youth vote _could_ have already voted in advance polls,  it will be interesting to see if Mr. Muclair can change any of the youth voters who are still on the fence.


----------



## AgentSmith (11 Oct 2015)

I can't see the NDP coming back too strong after all this. I think the most they can hope for is a few more seats but come election day I can see them still being third place.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Oct 2015)

AgentSmith said:
			
		

> I can't see the NDP coming back too strong after all this. I think the most they can hope for is a few more seats but come election day I can see them still being third place.



The phrase you're looking for is "regression to the mean".


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is yet another survey, of sorts, about "what's at stake" in this election. I'm posting it because of the highlighted bit which repeats what I have said a couple of times and something _I think _bears repeating:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/thanksgiving-politics-with-a-side-of-turkey/article26741796/
My _emphasis_ added


> Thanksgiving politics, with a side of turkey
> 
> MARGARET WENTE
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I'm not quite as sanguine as Ms Wente, _I suspect_ we are about to elect the worst of a bad lot, but, on looking at all the other "lots" out there, in the USA, for example, then our "bad lot," even the worst of it, looks like it's pretty acceptable.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting comment on the_ niqab _debate:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/a-court-a-niqab-and-a-powerful-lesson-in-humanity/article26729938/


> A court, a niqab and a powerful lesson in humanity
> 
> DAVID BUTT
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...




A few points:

First: I am one of those who doesn't know anyone who wears a _niqab_; I don't think I've ever met someone who wears it, much less spoken to them.

Second: I firmly support any person's right to wear whatever she wants, in most circumstances, including a face mask, if it satisfies a deeply held belief. In fact, I'll go further and say that I support anyones right to wear whatever they want, in most circumstances, just to satisfy a whim. BUT: I oppose forcing any woman to wear a veil or a face covering or a body covering just to satisfy some men's medieval notion of _modesty_.

Third: _I do not believe_ the _niqab_ debate is inherently _racist_, although I am sure some people doing some of the talking are just plain, simple _racists_. _I think_ that what we are hearing and reading is an inchoate response to _fear_, some reasoned, some unreasoned, of the global situation, especially in North Africa, the Middle East and West Asia; Islam, and the _cultures_ associated with it are all tied together in that _fear_. Most people cannot even understand, much less explain what frightens them so they focus on one, simple, visible symptom: the _niqab_.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting comment on the_ niqab _debate:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/a-court-a-niqab-and-a-powerful-lesson-in-humanity/article26729938/
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:

I don't consider myself racist and take offence to being called one because I oppose face coverings, whether they are the niqab, burka, or any mask of any sort except as protective clothing in a work environment (such as a Welder's Mask or a dust mask), Halloween or a Masked Ball.  

We are proud to have a Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, but at the same time it has been used against us, in my opinion, to allow foreign influences to change our cultural values, not necessarily in all cases for the good.  I would hate to see these legalities used to make our culture and society subservient to foreign cultures.  So, yes, fear is a concrete point in the discussion of the matter of face coverings.  I believe this may be why Quebec legislaters, and now the Conservatives, want to create laws or policies that will address these fears.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (11 Oct 2015)

I still think it is a toss-up and there might be a Conservative bump as old people are more likely to actually vote.

The latest poll I can find Angus Reid of October 9 shows:

Conservative 33
Liberal          31
NDP             25
Bloc              6
Green            3
??                 2
                ----
                100
                ===
A lot of the polls other than Nanos have the Conservatives ahead.  Nanos, because it is sponsored by CTV seems to be widely reported.  It ain't over yet.

Then there's EKOS of the same day - Liberal 33.8; Conservative 33.7; NDP 20.4; Green 7.2; Bloc 3.5

Without NANOS it seems to be a draw.


----------



## Altair (11 Oct 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> That predictionator just made my stomach turn. Justin Trudeau as PM spells minor disaster.
> 
> But maybe he'll make it, fail at his budget, people will see him for the daft airhead that he is and in the subsequent election the adults will step back in.


don't worry about your stomach,  you get used to it. I had to do 9 years of Stephen Harper,  I didn't die.


----------



## RocketRichard (11 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> don't worry about your stomach,  you get used to it. I had to do 9 years of Stephen Harper,  I didn't die.



Hear hear.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Oct 2015)

The debate about garments always has to include an accusation of racism or fear, doesn't it?

Human communication and assessment of others relies primarily on three things: what is said (content and tone), body language, and facial expression.

If Butt genuinely felt fear near age 50 upon encountering a veiled woman, his issues are deep and he will just have to deal with them.  There are plenty of people nowadays dressed more unusually than women (or men) in traditional cultural garb, and aside from thinking people shouldn't wear pajamas in public and kids should pull up their pants and some people really shouldn't wear tight clothes, I doubt there is much fear or antipathy except among those who claim to find it in themselves so that they can rationalize leveling the accusation against others..

When dealing with other people, most people want to be able to read faces.  This is doubly important in a commercial or government service context.  And that is both a necessary and sufficient condition warranting a bright line in law.


----------



## AgentSmith (11 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> I still think it is a toss-up and there might be a Conservative bump as old people are more likely to actually vote.
> 
> The latest poll I can find Angus Reid of October 9 shows:
> 
> ...



That's an old poll. From what I saw of NANOS today it has the Liberals in the lead by 5% with CPC in second place. Which in my books is very good. If it keeps going we're all set for a strong minority. A majority may be possible but I think it's unlikely. 

The whole niqab debate...that's just dirty politics to me and trying to divide Canadians on something that's really a non-issue.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> A few points:
> 
> First: I am one of those who doesn't know anyone who wears a _niqab_; I don't think I've ever met someone who wears it, much less spoken to them.
> 
> ...



One of the real challenges in discussing the issue is the declaration that those opposed to the niquab are labeled racist in order to shut down the discussion. The word itself has far more power than it deserves, and has become the de facto answer to any opposing viewpoint. There are many well reasoned opinions rendered on why we should not allow face coverings at citizenship events, but as I read through the opposing viewpoints, they all boil down to "you're a racist", followed by "you're an islamiphobe". Personally, I think that there have been sufficient judgements by Islamic scholars to establish that this is not a racially based argument - it is one of culture. Perhaps Canadians, new and old, fear that their culture is about to be subsumed by something they see as foreign. On the other hand, perhaps it's no more than the pendulum swinging back after being held away from the middle for so long.




			
				AgentSmith said:
			
		

> The whole niqab debate...that's just dirty politics to me and trying to divide Canadians on something that's really a non-issue.



Not much division when those opposed are frequently counted in the high 80s to low 90s.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (11 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Third: _I do not believe_ the _niqab_ debate is inherently _racist_, although I am sure some people doing some of the talking are just plain, simple _racists_. _I think_ that what we are hearing and reading is an inchoate response to _fear_, some reasoned, some unreasoned, of the global situation, especially in North Africa, the Middle East and West Asia; Islam, and the _cultures_ associated with it are all tied together in that _fear_. Most people cannot even understand, much less explain what frightens them so they focus on one, simple, visible symptom: the _niqab_.



I agree that fear is the driver in this issue.  I also believe that the root emotion of racism is not hate, it is fear.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (11 Oct 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I agree that fear is the driver in this issue.  I also believe that the root emotion of racism is not hate, it is fear.



Fear as opposed to a rational belief that photo ID should actually ID something?  I presume we are going to now have untold thousands of people voting, in costume, without any meaningful photo ID.  I have an innate ability to spot when something is purely stupid and I neither fear nor hate anyone.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Oct 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I agree that fear is the driver ...



Agree entirely. Fear of Harper.  

The long war against Harper has been promotion of fear - of his "hidden agenda", of his "reform roots", of his "icy eyes", of his lack of public displays of affection or other emotions.  

Those that vote with the heart.  Those that vote with the head.  Separate logic.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2015)

AgentSmith said:
			
		

> The whole niqab debate...that's just dirty politics to me and trying to divide Canadians on something that's really a non-issue.



Actually, no more dirty than anything else that has been said and posted on the Election.  Probably the dirtiest election I have seen.  All parties have been telling and posting lies about each other.  What I find most offensive though, is the third party groups, the PSAC and Veteran's who are running the "Hate Harper" ads and slogans.  We have very little choice with what we have running as candidates without organizations not affiliated with any of the Parties, using smear tactics.  This sort of trash politics seems to be escalating since the last Ontario Provincial election, where I first really noticed it in action.  

I really don't trust the polls.  The last Federal Election saw many flaws in what the polls predicted.  This will indeed be an interesting election.  I think, statistically, that we have already had many more voters show up at Advance Polling Stations than in any of the previous elections.  Hopefully it is an indication that a larger percentage of Canadians will turn out to vote, rather than the voter apathy we have seen in previous years.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Fear as opposed to a rational belief that photo ID should actually ID something?  I presume we are going to now have untold thousands of people voting, in costume, without any meaningful photo ID.  I have an innate ability to spot when something is purely stupid and I neither fear nor hate anyone.



Actually, there have already been untold numbers of Canadians who have voted in the Advance Polls wearing face coverings of all types:

https://www.facebook.com/itsjustgail/videos/10156030500060417/

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/mummers-potato-sacks-and-clown-masks-why-people-are-voting-in-silly-face-coverings/ar-AAfjc7l?ocid=sf

Voters are protesting what they believe to be a judgement that is wrong.  Judges are not infallible.  It is not unusual for Laws and Statutes to be amended or changed as the culture and society of a nation evolve.  In this case, many feel that the Judges who came to this decision were outright outside of their lanes in coming to the conclusion that they did.  

I am sure that these actions will result in some sort of reaction by the Government to ensure that proper identity checks are performed in future elections.  Bio-metrics come to mind, but I FEAR certain sects will use the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms to claim that they infringe on their privacy.


----------



## thehare (11 Oct 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I think, statistically, that we have already had many more voters show up at Advance Polling Stations than in any of the previous elections.  Hopefully it is an indication that a larger percentage of Canadians will turn out to vote, rather than the voter apathy we have seen in previous years.



Personally I hope so as well, even if it does mean that the party I support ends up losing this election. I am personally tired of hearing the typical excuses of "my vote doesn't matter" or "none of the major parties represent my interests" for not actually going out and voting. You always have the option of going out and spoiling your ballot, and in my opinion that sends more of a message to the governing powers than not voting at all.

In the end though, I think one of the largest ways we as a country can kill voter apathy is to get rid of our FPTP (first past the post) system. A system based on proportional representation doesn't come without it's own set of flaws, but at least it gives voters more of a sense that their vote is actually counting towards something. Which in turn may help reduce voter apathy and may help increase the interest in politics that this nation so desperately needs.

*As a Conservative voter in a very strong Conservative riding, I cannot help but feel that my vote is being wasted as anything more than the required number of votes to win my riding is just non consequential. It doesn't matter if my chosen MP wins by 1 vote or by 500 votes, in the end the result is the same, 1 riding for my party. Likewise, a Liberal voter in my riding would likely feel the same way. Our votes may play a role in helping our party win our local ridings, but they often do little to assist our parties on the federal scale.


----------



## AgentSmith (11 Oct 2015)

thehare said:
			
		

> Personally I hope so as well, even if it does mean that the party I support ends up losing this election. I am personally tired of hearing the typical excuses of "my vote doesn't matter" or "none of the major parties represent my interests" for not actually going out and voting. You always have the option of going out and spoiling your ballot, and in my opinion that sends more of a message to the governing powers than not voting at all.
> 
> In the end though, I think one of the largest ways we as a country can kill voter apathy is to get rid of our FPTP (first past the post) system. A system based on proportional representation doesn't come without it's own set of flaws, but at least it gives voters more of a sense that their vote is actually counting towards something. Which in turn may help reduce voter apathy and may help increase the interest in politics that this nation so desperately needs.
> 
> *As a Conservative voter in a very strong Conservative riding, I cannot help but feel that my vote is being wasted as anything more than the required number of votes to win my riding is just non consequential. It doesn't matter if my chosen MP wins by 1 vote or by 500 votes, in the end the result is the same, 1 riding for my party. Likewise, a Liberal voter in my riding would likely feel the same way. Our votes may play a role in helping our party win our local ridings, but they often do little to assist our parties on the federal scale.



Well if the Liberals get in they will look into election reform. I'm in the same boat as you, CPC dominated riding and I felt my vote was wasted. They need to get a better system the FPTP


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Oct 2015)

>I really don't trust the polls.

For myself, I distrust the ones that don't tell me what I want to hear.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (11 Oct 2015)

I suspect getting rid of first past the post would require a Constitutional amendment considering so many constituency related definitions are tied into the Constitution.  To get Quebec to ever agree to a Constitutional amendment entails give-aways unpalatable to the rest of Canada.  It has about as little chance of succeeding as Senate reform.


----------



## McG (11 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> I suspect getting rid of first past the post would require a Constitutional amendment considering so many constituency related definitions are tied into the Constitution.


No constitutional reform needed.  Constituencies can be single member or multi-member represented.  Even within single member represented constituencies, there are options other than FPTP.  Give this thread a read:  http://army.ca/forums/threads/25692.0.html


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Oct 2015)

I don't listen to radio or watch TV routinely, but I heard an interesting Liberal idea on the former this afternoon; apparently, Team Trudeau is going to free up land for affordable middle-class housing in Vancouver (the city was mentioned by name).

After observing the decades-long saga of the Jericho lands and knowing the old Fairmont Barracks land is highly likely to go through the same mill, I 'd like to know what federal land there is in Vancouver that the Liberals are going to suddenly free up without the say-so of local aboriginal bands.  I'd also like to know why the federal level of government needs to be involved in any detail other than simply selling land it doesn't want to whomever wants to buy it.

The deficit-fueled additional spending was also mentioned.  It reminded me that it isn't clear that the Liberal plan will actually include as much proper infrastructure* spending as the Conservative one, but that the Liberal plan does include deficits and some sort of "social infrastructure"** and "green infrastructure"*** spending.

*Stuff that genuinely promotes economic growth by facilitating commerce
**Affordable housing (for the middle class, it seems, and not people on low incomes, which is the usual target for subsidized housing), and senior's centers.
***Companies formed to milk subsidies until the subsidy goes away, at which point the companies fold?

I'd like to know more about these pig-in-a-poke proposals.  At this point, the Liberals' proposed spending scheme and the associated shell game with taxes and benefits look like smokescreens to conceal the creation of a pork/slush fund.  (As pinched as the Liberals are for finding money to make promises, it defies common sense to believe they don't expect to gain net revenue from their tax/benefit shifts.)


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I don't listen to radio or watch TV routinely, but I heard an interesting Liberal idea on the former this afternoon; apparently, Team Trudeau is going to free up land for affordable middle-class housing in Vancouver (the city was mentioned by name).
> ...............................................



Can we start to tally up these promises?  He is promising money $1B towards Light Rail in the City of Ottawa.  He has also promised towards Light Rail in Montreal, to the tune of $20M.   What other similar promises across the country has he made?  What is the grand tally?


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I really don't trust the polls.
> 
> For myself, I distrust the ones that don't tell me what I want to hear.



 ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Oct 2015)

I think I see why Eric at 308.com weights the Nanos poll so highly. It supports his favoured candidate, he even lets them advertise on the site (let's hope this picture works on non-mobile):


----------



## Altair (12 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think I see why Eric at 308.com weights the Nanos poll so highly. It supports his favoured candidate, he even lets them advertise on the site (let's hope this picture works on non-mobile):


Of course.

Let's just ignore his and nanos historical accuracy in predicting election results.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (12 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think I see why Eric at 308.com weights the Nanos poll so highly. It supports his favoured candidate, he even lets them advertise on the site (let's hope this picture works on non-mobile):



I've visited ThreeHundredEight.com a few times  and have never seen Liberal (or any other political party) advertising.  I think you may not be aware how a lot of internet advertising happens.  Taking a closer look at the ad shown in the screen shot (?), I noticed in the upper corner the AdChoices icon 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





.  I had always thought that means the particular ad is associated with a Google ads program and its content is usually targeted to the browsing history of the user.  Rather than saying something about the political preference of Eric Grenier, that ad showing up means that Google thinks you are a (potential?) Liberal supporter.



> About Google Ads
> Advertise your business with ads by Google all over the web (AdWords) or earn revenue from your website with ads by Google (AdSense). Try AdWords or AdSense
> 
> 
> ...



Now, even though a lot of the advertising on his site may be Google generated, it doesn't mean that it doesn't seek unique advertisers to help pay the bills.

Advertising with ThreeHundredEight.com


> ThreeHundredEight.com is a great place to reach an educated and politically aware adult audience that includes Canadians from every political stripe. A non-partisan political site, it has been in operation since October 2008 and is updated on a near-daily basis.
> 
> ThreeHundredEight.com received 1.5 million hits during the 2011 Canadian federal election (including 200,000 on the day of the vote) and 1.25 million hits during the 2014 Ontario provincial election. It continues to attract a high and growing number of page views even outside of election campaigns.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2015)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is an article describing what three of the _Globe_'s reporters expect to see in the last full week of the campaign:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/elections/parties-take-aim-at-trudeau-as-liberals-lead-polls/article26768494/


> Conservatives, NDP focus on reeling in front-runner Trudeau
> 
> STEVEN CHASE, GLORIA GALLOWAY AND DANIEL LEBLANC
> MARKHAM, ONT., NANAIMO, B.C. and OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




The problem, especially for the CPC, is that while Canadians might, indeed, vote with their pocketbooks, there is nothing to suggest that they actually understand what the promises and advertising and media _spin_ all mean. It seems that some people were right, almost three years ago, in saying that "despite the pretty poor showing on policy it appears that many, many Canadians, a plurality, anyway, of those under 60, are so celebrity obsessed and so devoid of any rational interest in what their vote might mean, that they would be willing to give a Liberal Party led by M. Trudeau a shot at governing."


----------



## runormal (12 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I think I see why Eric at 308.com weights the Nanos poll so highly. It supports his favoured candidate, he even lets them advertise on the site (let's hope this picture works on non-mobile):



I agree with Blackadder.

I've been visiting 308 since August and only in the past few days have I seen Justin Trudeau ads. On the flip side only in the past few weeks have I been heavily viewing the liberal party platform as well as watching various liberal support ads on Youtube. I've also been reading a number of liberal articles on the internet. Since I own an android smart phone and browse through google chrome I fully realize that google is tracking my every move  :Tin-Foil-Hat:. Google wants to make money, and advertiser's want their dollars to get the best bang for the buck. As a result I get ads based on what I view, google can also offer my demographic and my location and tailor locations directly to me. 

Hell even on YouTube I can show my support for the Liberals.

If i click on it I'll be redirected to the Liberal page and then I can plot in my email and postal code and the Liberals will give me the location and hours of operations of the advance polling stations and who my candidate is (in case I missed seeing all of the signs). I can even put a reminder into my calendar on my smartphone.

While this my first election really looking at pre election surveys in this much depth I really don't think this anything to do with whether or not Mr. Greniér supports the liberal party. I believe it is more of a case of google ads trying to make money and please their client at the same time.


Edit: First thumbnail didn't resize properly, added a concluding paragraph


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2015)

David Akin, _Sun News_, says that the _National Post_ has "grudgingly endorsed" the CPC ...

               
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I must say I share the _National Post_'s view ... I voted, but not without reservations. I voted for the least bad choice: for a fully acceptable candidate who represents the party with the policies that show some "free market reflexes" and which are "broadly in the right direction."


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> I still think it is a toss-up and there might be a Conservative bump as old people are more likely to actually vote.
> 
> The latest poll I can find _Angus Reid of October 9_ shows:
> 
> ...




And EKOS[/i] from 11 Oct:


     Tie Continues
     CHECK BACK NEXT WEEK TO SEE IF TURKEY DELIBERATIONS HAVE BROKEN STALEMATE

     [Ottawa – October 11, 2015] The statistical logjam continues as we enter the final week of the election campaign. The Liberal and Conservative parties continue to see-saw back and forth for the lead. Indeed, the only clear movement
     over the last few days has been a decline in NDP support.

     Contrary to other polls, we continue to see a three-way deadlock in Quebec. Ontario, meanwhile, is now a very unpredictable two-way contest with the NDP finding itself in an increasingly distant third-place. However, the NDP
     continues to be a major force in both Quebec and British Columbia. The Green Party is a definite force is British Columbia; indeed, if you combine the party’s first and second choice standings, the Green Party enjoys a 32-point
     vote ceiling in the province and could pull off a few surprises on October 19th.

     In terms of our prediction for Election Day, we are almost certainly looking at either a minority government led by either the Conservatives or Liberals. Very little else is clear in this campaign, as there are two major sources of uncertainty.

     The first is engagement and turnout. The Conservatives retain a huge and stable lead with seniors, the only group where they enjoy a clear lead. Seniors are a very large and very reliable voting bloc and this will be a major advantage
     for the Conservatives in terms of turnout. Meanwhile, the university-educated are the leading source of Liberal renewal, which could be a response to the debate surrounding the niqab and cultural politics.

     The second is the issue of cellphone-only households. While this may seem like an area of technical obscurantism, we believe this segment will be critical to the outcome of the election. In the last election, we were further off the
     final result for having included this segment that was less likely to vote and less likely to favour the Conservatives. Those two features are still very much in play this time with the notable differences that the cellphone-only is now
     roughly three times larger and tells us they are much more certain to vote than they told us last time. The cellphone-only population contains lots of the younger – less old and educated respondents who tell us they are extremely
     engaged and motivated by the values war that seems to underlie this election. If they show up, Harper loses; if they don’t, he wins.

     Other internal polling suggests four things:

          Canadians are far more engaged that they were in 2011.
          The election that was supposed to focus on the economy has instead become all about values.
          The election is not seen as “business as usual”; instead, it is seen a historic and stark choice.
          The public do not believe that either the Conservatives or the Liberals will win a majority, but Canadians will be apoplectic if Stephen Harper wins another majority.

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




All this to say, to those who have not yet voted: your vote still matters to the Conservatives, to the Liberals, to the NDP, to the Greens and to the _Libertarians_, too.


Edit: format


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2015)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Brad Sallows said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well, the NDP is talking about it, in this ad.


----------



## Remius (12 Oct 2015)

Voted today.  Was quick enough to get through.  I always avoid advance polling in case something might happen in the last week but being out of country on election night forced my hand.  Glad to live in a country with such electoral flexibility.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (12 Oct 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> No constitutional reform needed.  Constituencies can be single member or multi-member represented.  Even within single member represented constituencies, there are options other than FPTP.  Give this thread a read:  http://army.ca/forums/threads/25692.0.html



Doesn't jive with "each whereof shall be an Electoral District, each such District as numbered in that Schedule being entitled to return One Member." (Section 40. 1. Ontario)

As I said, it can't be done without a Constitutional amendment.  What you are going to end up with is a bunch of MPs put forward by their party that aren't aren't elected by anyone in particular, elected without the voters ever seeing their faces.  I thought everyone was ticked off with all the control exercised by parties.  An additional problem is that Quebec may end up with MPs based on voter results in Ontario.  That would not make them all that pleased.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2015)

The _Globe and Mail_ reports that M Trudeau might be going after a potentially disenchanted group of Conservatives: "Justin Trudeau is targeting Conservative voters as he tours through Ontario in the last week of the campaign, arguing Stephen Harper has abandoned the “progressive” heritage of his Tory predecessors ... [and] ... The Liberal Leader said that in the past, PC governments fought against poverty and helped to improve Canada’s reputation on the world stage. “Those are values that haven’t disappeared, they have just disappeared from the current Conservative Party and disappeared along with anything progressive about them,” he said."

It might just work, the questions are: how many of the old Progressive Conservative _Red Tories_ are left; and how many of those are both _Red Tory_ and happy with the idea of new, quite unnecessary deficits?


----------



## McG (12 Oct 2015)

RTFT.  Nothing in there mandates FPTP,  and the paragraph states it is only in force until Parlaiment sets something different.  Here is what you chose to ignore because it was contrary to the conclusion you want:


> 40. *Until the Parliament of Canada otherwise provides*, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall, for the Purposes of the Election of Members to serve in the House of Commons, be divided into Electoral Districts as follows:


http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-2.html

You also chose to ignore other things inconvenient to your conclusion.  As I stated in my previous post, single member constituency is not a synonym for FPTP.  There are other options for electoral systems even in single member represented constituencies.  As suggested prior, see here: http://army.ca/forums/threads/25692.0.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2015)

The _Globe and Mail_ looks at how _straegic voting works__ in one riding: Kitchener-Centre.

The article say that, "“Anybody But Harper” has become a kind of war whoop for disaffected voters this election, rallying the likes of union bosses and military veterans – as well as one creative farmer, who plowed the slogan across his rye field in Burford, Ont. Mr. Harper has inspired unprecedented hatred on the Canadian left through his hardline positions on crime and terrorism, his embrace of Alberta’s oil sands, and his frosty and controlling persona ... [and] voters like Michele Cadotte [who] wishes she could vote for the Green Party ... has decided to vote strategically this election. She loathes the Conservative government and Prime Minister Stephen Harper – toppling them has become her top priority. Further, "The strategic voting push in this campaign is premised on the idea that left-leaning voters aren’t picky about who replaces Mr. Harper as Prime Minister. It’s a view that’s rooted in evidence. Supporters of both parties have expressed a willingness to back the other horse in a pinch."
_


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Oct 2015)

ERC previous post quoting EKOS: 





> The Conservatives retain a huge and stable lead with seniors, the only group where they enjoy a clear lead. Seniors are a very large and very reliable voting bloc and this will be a major advantage for the Conservatives in terms of turnout.



And that's why CPC friendly  ;D Elections Canada fucked up the advance polls.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Oct 2015)

If nothing else, Mr. Harper seems to have galvanized the electorate into coming out to vote in greater numbers than have been seen for many years.  You could say he's unified the country in that respect.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2015)

I know that some members, here on Army.ca, cannot wait for Prime Minister Harper's Conservative government to be a thing of the past, some others just really like M Trudeau, I suspect that those same people will mistrust anything said by the _Fraser Institute_ but even so, even you might find this article written by TWO _Fraser Institute_ stalwarts worrying.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Oct 2015)

The Dauphin will be a disaster and I'm not crazy about the Beard either.  The next four years may be very costly to us in many, many ways if either of those two have their wicked ways with the country.


----------



## Altair (12 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The Dauphin will be a disaster and I'm not crazy about the Beard either.  The next four years may be very costly to us in many, many ways if either of those two have their wicked ways with the country.


 I really doubt that the conservative party is the only party that can effectively run canada.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Oct 2015)

And Rick Mercer weighs in on the big issue in the campaign: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDRg9Ma70xk


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Globe and Mail_ reports that M Trudeau might be going after a potentially disenchanted group of Conservatives: "Justin Trudeau is targeting Conservative voters as he tours through Ontario in the last week of the campaign, arguing Stephen Harper has abandoned the “progressive” heritage of his Tory predecessors ... [and] ... The Liberal Leader said that in the past, PC governments fought against poverty and helped to improve Canada’s reputation on the world stage. “Those are values that haven’t disappeared, they have just disappeared from the current Conservative Party and disappeared along with anything progressive about them,” he said."
> 
> It might just work, the questions are: how many of the old Progressive Conservative _Red Tories_ are left; and how many of those are both _Red Tory_ and happy with the idea of new, quite unnecessary deficits?



Red Tories might consider being Blue Liberals for a spin, if the Liberals hadn't swung orange...


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Oct 2015)

From ERC's EKOS posting - so with the recent uptick in the CPC returns  - does that suggest the rise of the "I'll be dammed if its Anybody But Harper" franchise?  

Red Tories were Tories first and foremost - The one thing Hugh Segal could be relied on was that he wasn't voting Liberal.  Likewise MacKay.

If it is a choice between Trudeau Jr or Harper my money sez that the Red Tory vote will turn out for Harper.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The Dauphin will be a disaster and I'm not crazy about the Beard either.  The next four years may be very costly to us in many, many ways if either of those two have their wicked ways with the country.


I'm more scared of Muclair's party than I am of him. He'd at least be a credible face for Canada on the international stage. It's the nutjobs running to the trough he'd be unable to stop dragging the party back to their utopian socialist roots, if they ever got power, that'd ruin him.


----------



## Altair (12 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> From ERC's EKOS posting - so with the recent uptick in the CPC returns  - does that suggest the rise of the "I'll be dammed if its Anybody But Harper" franchise?
> 
> Red Tories were Tories first and foremost - The one thing Hugh Segal could be relied on was that he wasn't voting Liberal.  Likewise MacKay.
> 
> If it is a choice between Trudeau Jr or Harper my money sez that the Red Tory vote will turn out for Harper.


cherry picking polls?

Regardless, with one week to go I still expect to see the ndp support bleed away, and the ABC vote to park their vote with the LPC.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Oct 2015)

>I really doubt that the conservative party is the only party that can effectively run canada.

They aren't; but another way to approach the question is which of the platforms is more likely to foul things up.

The CPC is basically running on a "steady state" platform.  The other two parties promise change.  Change does not guarantee improvement.

Canada has done well among the advanced and economically powerful countries of the world since the 2008 recession, placing high on many rankings.  All of the countries on those lists have been working on improving their circumstances.  Either Team Trudeau and Team Mulcair will outguess all those people and do better, or guess wrong - or simply apply outmoded and mistaken theories - and do worse.

1. We already know that the CPC applied a massive spending program in 2009 - which was lauded by external observers for its success at getting money into the economy quickly and spending it effectively (eg. not much loss to waste, corruption, etc) - which didn't achieve dramatic effects despite the obvious room for improvement from the recessionary trough.  The LPC is basically arguing that a smaller program is going to make things better; recent experience/evidence suggests no such thing can happen.  What is likely: if implemented, the LPC's program will increase the accumulated deficit (debt) by about 4% over the next 3 years, and the rate of economic growth won't be much different than if the program were never implemented.

2. The Liberal mix of tax measures will make the personal income tax structure more progressive, which makes revenue shortfalls more dramatic during recessions (higher income earners, who pay more of the taxes, tend to take greater income losses).  The fiscal structure becomes less resilient.

3. The NDP wants to increase corporate taxes, and the LPC wants to increase personal taxes on high income earners.  Those are basically the two groups most capable of mitigating tax exposure.  There will be revenue gains for the federal government.  However, because provincial tax structures are essentially similar, tax mitigation will reduce provincial revenues (unless provincial governments follow up with their own tax rate increases).

4. Conversely, federal tax rate decreases tend to decrease tax avoidance, which helps - has helped - to increase provincial revenues.

5. Provincial governments undoubtedly pocketed some gains from the federal tax rate reductions of the past couple of decades.  A federal-provincial fight I foresee is demands from provinces to make up their losses if federal actions cause provincial revenues to shrink.  But the NDP and LPC already have their own ideas for what they will do with any extra money they raise.  Harper basically has put more money and tax points on the table and left them there for provinces.  The NDP and LPC are going to take some away.

6. The TPP should be ratified.  We know that's a given with the CPC, and while I doubt the LPC would reject it, the uncertainty can't be helping things.  If we miss this window, it'll be even harder to make the next one.

But none of that really matters, because I doubt many people are really aware of it.  Compliant media are not examining the details of the Liberal proposals.  Deficits were "bad" right up until the moment the Liberals decided it was the only way to produce a pot of money to buy votes; then all sorts of talking heads jumped in spouting gibberish about "stimulus".  There may be uses for deficits, but that's not one of them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2015)

Here, from the _Globe and Mail_ is a good pitch by Prime Minister Harper.


----------



## Altair (12 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I really doubt that the conservative party is the only party that can effectively run canada.
> 
> They aren't; but another way to approach the question is which of the platforms is more likely to foul things up.
> 
> ...


 would 30 billion dollars in debt by the feds , 2 percent tax changes either way and some infrastructure spending really make that big of a change in a 2 trillion dollar economy?

I fully expect the liberals will be competent managers of the economy, much like the conservatives.

Where I think the liberals will be far ahead of the conservatives is on social and environmental issues.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm more scared of Muclair's party than I am of him. He'd at least be a credible face for Canada on the international stage. It's the nutjobs running to the trough he'd be unable to stop dragging the party back to their utopian socialist roots, if they ever got power, that'd ruin him.



Muclair running for the Liberals would have likely worked


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Oct 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Muclair running for the Liberals would have likely worked


With proper centre left advisors, instead of the Orange Liberals like Gerald Butts, absolutely agree.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm more scared of Muclair's party than I am of him. He'd at least be a credible face for Canada on the international stage. It's the nutjobs running to the trough he'd be unable to stop dragging the party back to their utopian socialist roots, if they ever got power, that'd ruin him.


The face and the party go hand in hand regardless of flavour as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I really doubt that the conservative party is the only party that can effectively run canada.



They are, to my mind, the devil I know and the best of a bad lot.  From my experience with Provincial Dippers, I'm damned if I want them mismanaging the country.  The kid will spend my kids into the poor house.  We shall have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2015)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Muclair running for the Liberals would have likely worked



Don't forget that M Mulcair _was_ a Liberal ... a minister in the Liberal government of Quebec, in fact. he's a bit of a "Johnny come lately" for the NDP.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2015)

Good news ...

Lisa LaFlamme ‏<@LisaLaFlammeCTV> reports on _Twitter_ that: 

Elections Canada reports 767,000 people voted on Sunday. Brings 3 day total to 2.4 million Canadians. Up 16% from advance polls in 2011


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Oct 2015)

If rather have Mulcair's brand of orange straight up for a trial Parliament than a stealth ButtsWynne orange pulling Trudeau's marionette strings...


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Oct 2015)

Didn't elections Canada say there was a 34% increase? Or was that data just from the first day of the polls?

Any increase is welcome, however. Lets just hope the voter turnout sees the same (albeit likely more modest) increase.


----------



## Altair (12 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> They are, to my mind, the devil I know and the best of a bad lot.  From my experience with Provincial Dippers, I'm damned if I want them mismanaging the country.  The kid will spend my kids into the poor house.  We shall have to agree to disagree.


30 billion more dollars in a 2 trillion dollar economy isn't that significant. 

The conservatives (under duress and when they had a majority) added 150 billion dollars to the federal debt so it's not like 30 billion over 4 years would bankrupt the country.

Every country needs political renewal, parties need to spend some time in the political wilderness. The liberals did their time and I am of the belief that the Conservatives need some time to learn how to play nice with others.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> The conservatives (under duress and when they had a majority)



Nope, minority government. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/stimulus-gamble-how-ottawa-saved-the-economy-and-wasted-billions/article16760149/?page=all

You will also note how hard it is to turn off those stimulus funds, as they turn into entitlements to people.

What's 30 Billion between friends, right? What happens when the richer 1% won't pay more tax? What happens when that $10B for infrastructure grows to $15 or $20B to cover off all their campaign promises? Now you're in deficit for the entire DND budget every year, and you've added $120B to the debt during what's supposed to be an economic upswing.

The Liberals spent time in the wilderness, sure. They also didn't learn anything. They turned their party into a NDP-clone, instead of reinventing as the true Center-Left alternative to the Tories. They took the easy road with a face-without-substance leader in Trudeau, instead of a stable centrist like Garneau so they could get back to power as quick as possible. "Change" should not be their slogan. "We're entitled to run this country, how dare you not believe us" is really what they're selling right now. That's the reason why they're not blowing the Tories out of the water, when they were completely ripe for the taking.


----------



## Altair (12 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Nope, minority government. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/stimulus-gamble-how-ottawa-saved-the-economy-and-wasted-billions/article16760149/?page=all
> 
> You will also note how hard it is to turn off those stimulus funds, as they turn into entitlements to people.
> 
> ...


That 150 billion was not all added between 2008 and 2011. The goverment only balanced the budget in 2014. 

I'm not getting into what ifs.

If Garneau had turned into a dion or Ignatieff clone the liberal party would be dead today. And to be fair, the CPC has a lock on the center right vote. They would have doubled down and fed their base and the liberals would be stuck between the CPC on the right, ndp on the left and probably would have been squeezed out between the two.

How many CPC voters would honestly consider voting liberals, regardless of leader? Every poll done shows the CPC has the most fanatic supporters. You know who most CPC voters have as their second choice? None. CPC voters would rather not vote than vote for another party.

When you look at the ndp and their mushy supporters, most likely to change their vote, and most likely to vote liberal if they do, the choice is clear.

Going after the ndp supporters makes much more sense. Why you insist otherwise boggles the mind.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Oct 2015)

Interesting series of tweets from the Ottawa Citizen's David Reevely, talking about the leaders' plans for tomorrow, followed by his conclusion: "If we assume where the leaders are matters, Trudeau’s on offence, Harper’s on defence, Mulcair is throwing Hail Marys."


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> That 150 billion was not all added between 2008 and 2011. The goverment only balanced the budget in 2014.
> 
> I'm not getting into what ifs.
> 
> ...



Not this time and I have voted for Peter Stouffer in the past when I was in his riding (but that was for the man not the party), however, you're correct in that I usually wouldn't vote for any of the other main parties as a 2nd choice.  I'd spoil my ballot or boycott first.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Not this time and I have voted for Peter Stouffer in the past when I was in his riding (but that was for the man not the party), however, you're correct in that I usually wouldn't vote for any of the other main parties as a 2nd choice.  I'd spoil my ballot or boycott first.



Same here. There is only one party, whoever that may be, I will give my vote to. The others, come election day, don't get a second look. I'm not in the habit of voting for 'the second best'.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> How many CPC voters would honestly consider voting liberals, regardless of leader? Every poll done shows the CPC has the most fanatic supporters. You know who most CPC voters have as their second choice? None. CPC voters would rather not vote than vote for another party.



If they had a real platform, with a real leader, sure. When you drop your platform 2 weeks ago, and don't have the leader actually show up to explain the costing, you have a credibility issue.

The issue isn't with Tory voters. Its with Tory voters not being given a viable alternative between the devil we know, and the devil we don't know.


----------



## Remius (12 Oct 2015)

Some light reading on Trudeau's image and branding during the campaign.

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/trudeau+manipulation+behind+most+image+conscious+campaign/11431891/story.html

Interesting how they are trying to portray him.


----------



## Underway (12 Oct 2015)

I have the joy of going back to school as a "mature" (their words not mine...lol) student and have been really enjoying this election campaign.  Despite a lack of most students ability to actually do proper research (that comes with age for most) before they vote they seem really engaged at my school.  Early voting line was over 1 1/2 hours long for the last week every day all day.  It's very exciting for many of them, being first time voters and all.

Might not agree with their ideas, positions or what they prioritize but seeing them vote and valuing it gives me great hope for the future.  Makes me proud to live and serve in this country.  Now enough back patting for me.  I return you to your regularly scheduled political discussion.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Oct 2015)

>would 30 billion dollars in debt by the feds , 2 percent tax changes either way and some infrastructure spending really make that big of a change in a 2 trillion dollar economy?

Regarding the spending: it will not, which is why the chief selling point of the Liberal spending plan - that it will stimulate economic growth - is bullsh!t.  But the word "stimulus" has taken on magical properties since 2008.  I suppose very, very few Canadians are aware that the nature of Canada's economy is such that it is not much deflected by either "austerity" or "stimulus" the way some other countries' economies are.  When Larry Summers beaks off, people pay attention because he is thought to be an expert; but about what works in a Canadian context, I suspect he is not.

It doesn't make sense to gauge the additional debt relative to the size of the economy.  It only makes sense to compare it to federal revenues, expenditures, and debt.  I go further: measure it relative to the kind of revenue/expense imbalance that hits during a recession.  If a country can only take on, say, an additional $400B in debt before no one wants to buy any more, it matters deeply if the country is in the middle of an annual $40B recession-driven deficit with little hope of rapidly improving economic growth, and matters very little if the country is running an annual $5B structural deficit during "normal" times.

Basically, the more debt we acquire, the more we limit our future fiscal freedom of manoeuvre.  Think of it as a principle of fiscal "war".  Regardless, the hallelujah chorus behind the Liberals is basically pinning its argument on Keynesian ideas.  But Keynesian ideas tell us that deficits are appropriate during recessions; we should have surpluses right now (because, prudence dictates that we assume what we currently have is the "good times" for this period of history).  As I've written before here, if the leftward side of the policy agenda is put into effect and a real recession strikes, Canada is going to be caught moving in the wrong direction at the wrong time.

Tax changes influence how people take and use their income.  Responses to change do not have to be linear.  Effects could be much greater or smaller than the tax shift itself.  But Canada's economy looks to me like it will be easy to destabilize (downward).  What significant sector of the Canadian economy can we point to and say, "it's a powerhouse and will hold us up while everything else is weak"?  Manufacturing is weak.  Commodity prices are weak.  The dollar is (I've written this before) about as weak as we can tolerate, but we don't seem to be enjoying a commensurate export boom.  Canadians carry high levels of personal debt (meaning future consumer spending is bound to slide down, meaning future federal revenues are bound to slide down).  Interest rates can't go much lower to take pressure off the cost of servicing government (federal, provincial - good luck there, ON) debt.  There are no foreign trading partners whose economies are about to go red-hot and oblige us by pushing up world prices on our exports.

If people were aware of the fiscal good government we've enjoyed for the past couple of decades, they might get pretty angry with the people trying to con them into voting themselves out of it by making simplistic and misleading assertions.  People who want to make a case or choice on ethics and propriety and policy choices in general should go ahead.  But on finances and economics, the Conservatives are ahead and the competing ideas are not even close.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Oct 2015)

>Some light reading on Trudeau's image and branding during the campaign.

I doubt it matters as much as he and his supporters would like to think.  The LPC is the beneficiary of anti-CPC sentiment, not pro-LPC enthusiasm.  If it were otherwise, the break in NDP/LPC fortunes would not have been as obvious or occurred when it did.


----------



## Altair (13 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If they had a real platform, with a real leader, sure. When you drop your platform 2 weeks ago, and don't have the leader actually show up to explain the costing, you have a credibility issue.
> 
> The issue isn't with Tory voters. Its with Tory voters not being given a viable alternative between the devil we know, and the devil we don't know.


I my opinion,  the instant the center right united, the die was cast.

I would imagine that it would take generations for the liberals or ndp to be able to pry center right voters from the CPC. As evidenced by people on here who still talk about liberal misdeeds from the 90s and even the 70s.

That said, if only 40-45 percent of Canadians would ever vote CPC(harper got his majority with 39) that leaves 60 percent, give or take to fight over.

While I'm no political scientist I don't think going after a hard target is the best plan, especially when the soft target is right there for you to take.

And looking at the liberal party today compared with 2011, 2008 and 2006, I cannot say that they made the wrong decision. They may be gathering a lot of protest votes (CPC did in 2006 as well and look at where it got them) but that protest vote could have gone NDP as easily as it went LPC. 

Trudeau and his team have run a great campaign and I really doubt that garneau or any other liberal who ran for leadership of the party would be sitting around 32-35 in the polls 7 days to go to the election under a barrage of CPC negative advertising.


----------



## GR66 (13 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Good news ...
> 
> Lisa LaFlamme ‏<@LisaLaFlammeCTV> reports on _Twitter_ that:
> 
> Elections Canada reports 767,000 people voted on Sunday. Brings 3 day total to 2.4 million Canadians. Up 16% from advance polls in 2011



Dropped by the local library today to return a book (Margaret MacMillan's "The War That Ended Peace"...an excellent book) and was surprised to see the advanced polls open on the holiday.  Grabbed my card and went back with my wife to vote.  A very steady stream of people coming in and actually had about a 30min wait to vote.  Hope it keeps up...however you choose to vote.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2015)

In a a new article in the _Globe and Mail_, journalist Adam Radwanski looks at the "air wars" (advertising on radio and TV) in the last week of the campaign. He says that "After playing a pivotal role in the surge of Justin Trudeau’s Liberals through most of the federal election campaign, television and radio advertising may be threatening their momentum in the race’s final stretch ... [but] ... the most recent such survey, which in the first week of October tested a dozen campaign ads with 2,400 randomly selected voters participating in an online panel, found that recent Liberal ads were having a more modest impact than previous ones. At the same time, most of the other parties’ ads appeared to be chipping away at Liberal support."


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2015)

I don't know who created this, I found it on a social media site, but it's pretty good ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2015)

No matter who wins or loses, _I think_ a few things are clear:

     Even if he wins a majority (which would be a technical and tactical miracle, in my opinion) Prime Minister Harper must go ... and that, I believe, is a _good thing_ for the Conservative Party and, indeed, for the state of politics in Canada;

     In the event he finishes third (which seems very likely) then Thomas Mulcair will be forced out, too ... that will be a _bad thing_, I think, because it will signal the ascendence of the _loony left_ wing of the NDP, again; and

     Even if he doesn't win or even if he finished a respectable third M Trudeau is secure, and I think that, too, is a _bad thing_ for the Liberal Party and for the country, because unless there is some brains and some _*bottom*_ that the Gerald Butts
     and the Liberal campaign team have, cleverly and inexplicably, kept hidden then he may be the weakest leader of a Canadian political party since Robert Manion "led" the Conservatives in the early days of the Second World War ...
     and I think Manion was intellectually leagues ahead of M Trudeau. 

If the final results reflect what we all seem to agree we saw over the long weekend then we will have a minority Liberal government and two leadership campaigns which, assuming everyone follows the unwritten "rules," means that the Liberals will have a _confidence_ "free ride" for six to nine months. I expect the real political "battles" will be between a cautious, fiscally conservative civil service in Ottawa and Premier Wynne's government in Ontario. I suspect that a lot of very senior Liberals, including even Jean Chrétien, will advise M Trudeau to listen to his _Mandarins_, not to Premier Wynne and his campaign team. _Why?_ Because unless M Trudeau wins a solid majority those senior Liberals are going to be worried about extending their political reach beyond Ontario, looking to rebuild the _big tent_ which may mean being cautious and fiscally responsible ... just like the _Mandarins_ will advise. Once again the Liberals will have won by "campaigning left," but they will, _comme d'habitude_ govern from the fiscal centre-right. They will keep enough promises - to revise C-51, for example - to keep their base and many other Canadians happy but, if the NDP leadership shifts, as I expect it will, they will find that they cannot do a "left flanking" again; they will need to win the Canadian political centre that likes balanced budgets and tax breaks.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2015)

For those interested in the _Constitutional_ niceties, John Ibbitson has written a good, useful article in the _Globe and Mail_ which includes some references to books on the matter.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2015)

A London, ON, man has posted a very nasty Harper Hater™ sign on his front lawn according to a report on _CTV News_:





Franco + Mussolini + Nixon = Harper


According to the story: "Robert Tilden is making no apologies for his anti-Harper display on his lawn ... "I recognize a fascist when I see one and that's what Harper's been doing to the country. He's been destroying it bit by bit under his image," says Tilden." The story goes on to say that "Tilden says he's had the signs up for more than three weeks now and he says up until now no one has told him to take them down or even expressed concern, at least to his face ... [and] ... "Tough shit. Get used to it. If somebody doesn't protest we're going to have another dictator (Harper) for another four years," says Tilden."


----------



## dapaterson (13 Oct 2015)

The riding of Edmonton-Griesbach may be of particular interest come election day.  The Rhinocerous party's nomination of a well-known local celebrity has been blessed by Elections Canada.

Of course, had Elections Canada realized that Bun Bun Thompson is in fact a cat, Bun Bun may not have appeared on the ballot...


----------



## Altair (13 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> No matter who wins or loses, _I think_ a few things are clear:
> 
> Even if he wins a majority (which would be a technical and tactical miracle, in my opinion) Prime Minister Harper must go ... and that, I believe, is a _good thing_ for the Conservative Party and, indeed, for the state of politics in Canada;
> 
> ...


Trudeau started his comeback when he said he would  run deficits. 

He has been hammering away at both the conservatives and new democratic party for their "austerity budgets". Unless the opposition forces his hand, which two parties in the middle of leadership campaigns tend not to do, he won't back down on that promise. He will give some small goodies to the ndp for their support, but I doubt he balances the budget. Shift to the center some, yes, maybe. Place his tent there? Doubt it. He would have a minority goverment, he might not even have the most seats. He would be facing the electorate withing 12-24 months and to break so many election promises unforced with the prospect of going into a other election would be suicide. Especially since he has built his brand on honesty and integrity. 

I think he tries to pass as much of his plan as the leaderless opposition allows him to do.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Trudeau started his comeback when he said he would  run deficits.
> 
> He has been hammering away at both the conservatives and new democratic party for their "austerity budgets". Unless the opposition forces his hand, which two parties in the middle of leadership campaigns tend not to do, he won't back down on that promise. He will give some small goodies to the ndp for their support, but I doubt he balances the budget. Shift to the center some, yes, maybe. Place his tent there? Doubt it. He would have a minority goverment, he might not even have the most seats. He would be facing the electorate withing 12-24 months and to break so many election promises unforced with the prospect of going into a other election would be suicide. Especially since he has built his brand on honesty and integrity.
> 
> I think _he tries to pass as much of his plan as the *leaderless opposition* allows_ him to do.




But I don't think the opposition is the problem after 20 Oct. M Trudeau will have his political transition team, possibly headed by Mr Butts but, I'm guessing, including some veteran Liberal politicians. So will Janice Charette, and hers will be supremely professional. Ditto Paul Rochon, who, like Mme Charette is known, trusted and liked by many experienced Liberals. M Trudeau may, sooner or later, replace both Mme Charette and M Rochon but, unless he's really, incredibly stupid (a distinct possibility) he will not go too far afield and he wil pick people who think very much like those two ... and their thinking is not the same as premier Wynne's. People like Ralph Goodale and Scott Brison know full well that Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne have pursued fiscally foolish, even destructive policies and that Ontario, not Ottawa, is to blame for its economic malaise and that the solutions lie in Queen's Park, not on Parliament Hill. M Trudeau's finance minister will not be happy to pursue all the election promises ... unless he (M Trudeau) is totally deranged and appoints Chrystia Freeland to that post.

Oh, and don't forget the _Wall Street Journal_ and Bay Street factors ... the best thing to do with M Trudeau's promises (Prime Minister Harper's, too) is to wrap them into a roll, perforate them every four inches and put them to good use in the outhouse.


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> A London, ON, man has posted a very nasty Harper Hater™ sign on his front lawn according to a report on _CTV News_:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Guys like this really make my blood boil and shake my head in astoundment.  They howl "Fascist" from the tree tops when they don't really know what it's like to live in a Fascist state under a "real" dictator.  If we did, he would have "disappeared" long ago.  Some people don't know how friggin lucky they are to live in Canada.  In a real police state, these guys would have been taken long, long ago.  That his sign still stands and no one has come to tell him otherwise, proves he's thankfully much mistaken.


----------



## Altair (13 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But I don't think the opposition is the problem after 20 Oct. M Trudeau will have his political transition team, possibly headed by Mr Butts but, I'm guessing, including some veteran Liberal politicians. So will Janice Charette, and hers will be supremely professional. Ditto Paul Rochon, who, like Mme Charette is known, trusted and liked by many experienced Liberals. M Trudeau may, sooner or later, replace both Mme Charette and M Rochon but, unless he's really, incredibly stupid (a distinct possibility) he will not go too far afield and he wil pick people who think very much like those two ... and their thinking is not the same as premier Wynne's. People like Ralph Goodale and Scott Brison know full well that Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne have pursued fiscally foolish, even destructive policies and that Ontario, not Ottawa, is to blame for its economic malaise and that the solutions lie in Queen's Park, not on Parliament Hill. M Trudeau's finance minister will not be happy to pursue all the election promises ... unless he (M Trudeau) is totally deranged and appoints Chrystia Freeland to that post.
> 
> Oh, and don't forget the _Wall Street Journal_ and Bay Street factors ... the best thing to do with M Trudeau's promises (Prime Minister Harper's, too) is to wrap them into a roll, perforate them every four inches and put them to good use in the outhouse.



If Mr Trudeau wins on the 19th, baring a majority miracle, he will have a slim minority government. During this time, the electorate will be hard on him, because despite voting for him, the "just not ready" line will linger. He needs to prove himself as a effective leader, and that would naturally include implementing the policies he campaigned on. If he cannot do this of his own free will (as opposed to the leaderless opposition trying to hold him back) then he would be trounced at the polls the next time around.

I called it before when I said the liberals would make a comeback at the expense of the ndp, I called it when I said trudeau would never under any circumstance work with the CPC and I'm calling it now, he will not back down on his the policies that got him elected to the highest office of the land. 

 He would rather face the electorate saying that the opposition prevented him from passing what he needed, give me a majority for real change.

 He cannot face the electorate saying, meh, I was wrong.

Dislike the man all you want, say he's a empty head, but the man has good political instincts. If he wins he would have beat out a very skilled and experienced Stephen Harper and a very skilled Tom mulcair. I believe those political instincts will tell him that he cannot afford to campaign on the left govern on the right. He actually needs to demonstrate to Canadians that he can pass his own legislation, manage the economy and being a leader on the world stage. He cannot do any of this if he just drops his campaign promises the second he gets elected.


----------



## suffolkowner (13 Oct 2015)

That guys nuts. Hyperbole like that adds nothing to political discourse.


----------



## suffolkowner (13 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> If Mr Trudeau wins on the 19th, baring a majority miracle, he will have a slim minority government. During this time, the electorate will be hard on him, because despite voting for him, the "just not ready" line will linger. He needs to prove himself as a effective leader, and that would naturally include implementing the policies he campaigned on. If he cannot do this of his own free will (as opposed to the leaderless opposition trying to hold him back) then he would be trounced at the polls the next time around.
> 
> I called it before when I said the liberals would make a comeback at the expense of the ndp, I called it when I said trudeau would never under any circumstance work with the CPC and I'm calling it now, he will not back down on his the policies that got him elected to the highest office of the land.
> 
> ...



I don't know, I think its more likely that the promises will go by the wayside like most other Liberal campaign promises in the past


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Oct 2015)

Liberal promises are written in sand on a beach, unless it's a promise to cut military spending or procurement, then it's concrete.


----------



## Altair (13 Oct 2015)

I think you will all be surprised with your new overlord.

Not sure if it will be pleasant or not, but I do think Trudeau will try to keep most of his promises, as much the leaderless opposition allows in a minority parliament.


----------



## suffolkowner (13 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Liberal promises are written in sand on a beach, unless it's a promise to cut military spending or procurement, then it's concrete.



Probably cancelling the F35 is the only thing we can count on the Liberals for


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I think you will all be surprised with your new overlord.
> 
> Not sure if it will be pleasant or not, but I do think Trudeau will try to keep most of his promises, as much the leaderless opposition allows in a minority parliament.



I think not.  It might take some time to see how much shyte will be in the bedding, but I think the sheets will need a major wash day.


----------



## Privateer (13 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> For those interested in the _Constitutional_ niceties, John Ibbitson has written a good, useful article in the _Globe and Mail_ which includes some references to books on the matter.



The constitutional responsibilities of the Governor-General (and the Lieutenant-Governors in the provinces) have had me thinking that in reality we have four branches of government in our parliamentary system: Parliament, the courts, the government (which we usually think of as including the vice-regent, as "governor in council"), and the Crown in the constitutional watchdog sense.  Something to be developed when I have more time to think about such things.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (13 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't know who created this, I found it on a social media site, but it's pretty good ...



Elizabeth May as Khaleesi?  You know the nude scenes will give me nightmares.


----------



## Altair (13 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I think not.  It might take some time to see how much shyte will be in the bedding, but I think the sheets will need a major wash day.


Wouldn't be the first time someone has underestimated justin trudeau.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Wouldn't be the first time someone has underestimated justin trudeau.


Yeah, all those charities he charged for motivational speeches thought a rich trust fund kid would donate his time. My how they're were wrong.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Oct 2015)

Privateer said:
			
		

> The constitutional responsibilities of the Governor-General (and the Lieutenant-Governors in the provinces) have had me thinking that in reality we have four branches of government in our parliamentary system: Parliament, the courts, the government (which we usually think of as including the vice-regent, as "governor in council"), and the Crown in the constitutional watchdog sense.  Something to be developed when I have more time to think about such things.



Here you go; a condensed version:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/Education/OurCountryOurParliament/html_booklet/overview-canadian-parliamentary-system-e.html



> Three branches work together to govern Canada: the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The executive branch (also called the Government) is the decision-making branch, made up of the Monarch represented by the Governor General, the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet. The legislative branch is the law-making branch, made up of the appointed Senate and the elected House of Commons. The judicial branch is a series of independent courts that interpret the laws passed by the other two branches.
> 
> Parliament itself is made up of the following three parts: the Monarch, the Senate and the House of Commons.
> 
> Canada is a constitutional monarchy, which means that we recognize the Queen or King as the Head of State, while the Prime Minister is the Head of Government.


----------



## Altair (13 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Yeah, all those charities he charged for motivational speeches thought a rich trust fund kid would donate his time. My how they're were wrong.


I was talking about Stephen Harper and Tom mulcair but sure, charities too.

Although I was under the impression that he repaid them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2015)

Privateer said:
			
		

> The constitutional responsibilities of the Governor-General (and the Lieutenant-Governors in the provinces) have had me thinking that in reality we have four branches of government in our parliamentary system: Parliament, the courts, the government (which we usually think of as including the vice-regent, as "governor in council"), and the Crown in the constitutional watchdog sense.  Something to be developed when I have more time to think about such things.




The only really important part of the Constitution, the part that isn't written down, anywhere, but which has existed for over 1,000 years, and remains in full force today, says that we have a three-part Queen. She has three _natures_, she is:

     1. the Queen-in-Council, where she heads the executive branch of her government;

     2. The Queen-in-Parliament, where her parliaments debates and makes her laws for her people; and

     3. the Queen-on-the-Bench, where she gives justice to all her subjects and maintains the _Queen's Peace_.

As our head of state the Queen personifies us all, she _is_ the country, she is us. In 1947 King George VI issued _letters patent_ deliniating the "roles anf powers" which the GG exercises on the sovereign's behalf. Chief amongst those _responsibilities_, as has been discussed here and in other threads, is to always have counsel. The sovereign, the GG in practice, must, _always_ have the _advice_ of her people ... thus, the very first duty of a GG is to always have a government. The GG picks a government on the advice of the prime minister who is, in turn, _advised_ by the people ~ by you and me ~ through periodic elections and by the elected members of parliament who give or withhold their confidence in the government.

I find it interesting that the best (and still authoritative) book on our, Canadian Constitution, was written in 1865 ... _The English Constitution_ by Walter Bagehot.


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Wouldn't be the first time someone has underestimated justin trudeau.



Maybe not, but it wouldn't be the first or last time he wasn't underestimated either.


----------



## Privateer (13 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The only really important part of the Constitution, the part that isn't written down, anywhere, but which has existed for over 1,000 years, and remains in full force today, says that we have a three-part Queen. She has three _natures_, she is:
> 
> 1. the Queen-in-Council, where she heads the executive branch of her government;
> 
> ...



It seems to me, though, that (1) can properly be broken down into:

1(a): The Queen-in-council in the sense that you have it, and in the way that we are taught it (if we are taught it at all); and

1(b): The Queen exercising prerogative constitutional powers, possibly in a manner _contrary_ to the advice / desire of her current "council", being the government of the day.  This doesn't really fit well into (1) or (2).  While I suppose it could be justified as a constructive loss of confidence in the government by Parliament, that is not, in my view, a satisfactory description of what I am getting at in 1(b), because the Queen could properly exercise her prerogative constitutional powers even where a governing party holds a majority in the House of Commons and can therefore survive a confidence vote.  Hence my proposal that we have, in reality, four branches of government.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2015)

According to a report in the _Globe and Mail_ Thomas Mulcair has (as he should at this stage) categorically rejected a campaign by "a group calling itself Just The Facts Canada [which] ran a full-page ad in The Globe and Mail on Tuesday urging Mr. Mulcair and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau to cede ridings to each other in constituencies where public opinion surveys suggest they have little chance of winning and vote-splitting could pave the way for a Conservative victory."

M Mulcair says he still has a chance of winning.

This proposal, ceding seats in advance, is, really, quite undemocratic, and it is fundamentally different from agreeing to coalition, which, _I hope_, good leaders would agree before the ballots are cast.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2015)

Privateer said:
			
		

> It seems to me, though, that (1) can properly be broken down into:
> 
> 1(a): The Queen-in-council in the sense that you have it, and in the way that we are taught it (if we are taught it at all); and
> 
> 1(b): The Queen exercising prerogative constitutional powers, possibly in a manner _contrary_ to the advice / desire of her current "council", being the government of the day.  This doesn't really fit well into (1) or (2).  While I suppose it could be justified as a constructive loss of confidence in the government by Parliament, that is not, in my view, a satisfactory description of what I am getting at in 1(b), because the Queen could properly exercise her prerogative constitutional powers even where a governing party holds a majority in the House of Commons and can therefore survive a confidence vote.  Hence my proposal that we have, in reality, four branches of government.




This is (part of) that all important _residual power_. We are, after all, one of the good Queen's realms ~ it is _her_ country, we are _her_ subjects and we are going off (or have gone off) to vote to select _her_ government, _her_ council. The possessive pronoun really matters. Her majesty _must_ have counsel and it is our job to recommend (through our votes) the best groups to give it to her. If we fail, if we are unclear, then she (the GG on her behalf) must decide ... initially he must consider the wishes of the sitting prime minister who, by convention, _will_ recommend that (s)he should continue in that role if (s)he (her/his party) has the most seats in parliament, but might (and should, some would say) recommend , if (s)he (his/her party) does not have the most seats that the leader of another party should form the government. That is what Prime Minister Harper has, frequently, said he will do, but it is not what Prime Minister King did in 1925. A sitting prime minister _*might*_ recommend, and some constitutional scholars believe the GG ought to agree, that (s)he should remain in power and try to secure the confidence of the House of Commons even though another party has more seats. This is a tricky decision which only the GG, as the _de facto_ head-of-state, can ~ has the power to ~ make.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Yeah, all those charities he charged for motivational speeches thought a rich trust fund kid would donate his time. My how they're were wrong.



I haven't read his tax returns.  I do know that often charities will pay a speaker or provider of professional services, who then donates back the fee they receive.  It's a tax code thing - you can't issue a tax receipt for services, so instead a fee is paid and then donated back for a tax receipt.  It also lets the service provider charge their regular price - no setting a precedent for a reduction in rates.

Again, I can't testify that that is what M Trudeau did, but it would not be at all unusual if he did so.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm calling it now, he will not back down on his the policies that got him elected to the highest office of the land.



"Gutsy move, Mav[erick]!"

I wouldn't be surprised if he folds on the F-35 promise.  Read up on which province has the greatest number of aerospace firms currently holding contracts in the JSF Program...  :nod:




			
				Altair said:
			
		

> ...I do think Trudeau will try to keep most of his promises, as much the leaderless opposition allows in a minority parliament.



That said, you have presciently identified the "out" he will take...darned opposition wouldn't let me cancel it... :not-again:

:2c:

G2G


----------



## Rocky Mountains (13 Oct 2015)

Trudeau charged non-profit organizations full bore for his speeches and cashed and kept the cheques.  End of story.  Quit making things up.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Trudeau charged non-profit organizations full bore for his speeches and cashed and kept the cheques.  End of story.  Quit making things up.



As I said, I've never read his tax returns.  If you have, I defer to your superior knowledge of his finances.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Oct 2015)

If he returned the money, every non profit he spoke at would have come out and said so, and he would have said so and proved it, killing the story. He hasn't, and those charities haven't, so there's something there.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Oct 2015)

> 1. the Queen-in-Council, where she heads the executive branch of her government;
> 
> 2. The Queen-in-Parliament, where her parliaments debates and makes her laws for her people; and
> 
> 3. the Queen-on-the-Bench, where she gives justice to all her subjects and maintains the Queen's Peace.



You can probably remove #2, as #3 has taken it upon themselves to make our laws for us.


----------



## Altair (13 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Trudeau charged non-profit organizations full bore for his speeches and cashed and kept the cheques.  End of story.  Quit making things up.





			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If he returned the money, every non profit he spoke at would have come out and said so, and he would have said so and proved it, killing the story. He hasn't, and those charities haven't, so there's something there.



http://globalnews.ca/news/648692/saskatchewan-literacy-event-doesnt-want-money-back-from-trudeau/



> OTTAWA – Justin Trudeau says he’s ready to cut a personal cheque to any organization he charged speaking fees to while he was an MP, and will be reaching out to them all this week.
> 
> “Every single group of the 17 groups that I spoke to as an MP, we are getting in touch with this week to find out if they feel like they didn’t get their money’s worth,” he said.
> 
> ...



It's not too hard to look these things up gents.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Oct 2015)

Quick straw poll at work yesterday among several of us with different political stripes. When I said the only thing that has me concerned about any party's platform is spending money we don't have, there was general agreement, even among the rabid left leaners in the group. I know it's a small sample size, and not particularly scientific, but I thought it was an interesting reaction.

I suppose at the end of the day, that's all that really matters. The rest is just window dressing. The main question people should be asking themselves is "do I want the government spending more money it doesn't have?" I guess we'll see on election day, and I won't hold my breath. As I've said before, the electorate is greedy, lazy, and stupid.


----------



## Altair (13 Oct 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Quick straw poll at work yesterday among several of us with different political stripes. When I said the only thing that has me concerned about any party's platform is spending money we don't have, there was general agreement, even among the rabid left leaners in the group. I know it's a small sample size, and not particularly scientific, but I thought it was an interesting reaction.
> 
> I suppose at the end of the day, that's all that really matters. The rest is just window dressing. The main question people should be asking themselves is "do I want the government spending more money it doesn't have?" I guess we'll see on election day, and I won't hold my breath. As I've said before, the electorate is greedy, lazy, and stupid.


when they don't agree with you I assume. 

Doubt you were saying that in 2011.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> when they don't agree with you I assume.
> 
> Doubt you were saying that in 2011.



Nope, that's been my position for decades.

Too many grasshoppers, not enough ants.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Oct 2015)

ModlMike, the ant was a cruel, heartless anti-social being.  Like the 20, 30 and 40-year olds whom Kathleen Wynne identifies as "having a hard time saving" thus needing the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, it's not the grasshopper's fault he didn't save enough food...the ant should share some (a lot) of what he saved.


----------



## Altair (13 Oct 2015)

> Éric Grenier ‏
> Polls, hot off the presses, and both giving up on the tight race:
> EKOS: 36% LPC, 31% CPC, 21% NDP
> Ipsos: 37% LPC, 31% CPC, 24% NDP



Even the non nanos polls are saying it now.


----------



## Underway (13 Oct 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ModlMike, the ant was a cruel, heartless anti-social being.  Like the 20, 30 and 40-year olds whom Kathleen Wynne identifies as "having a hard time saving" thus needing the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, it's not the grasshopper's fault he didn't save enough food...the ant should share some (a lot) of what he saved.



Yah...no.  Try more like the grasshopper was the antisocial being and the ant, living in the ultimate socialist community was going to be fine because she (all ants except haploid drones are female...Aesop was not a biologist) had a pension plan and socialized childcare like all the other ant workers.


----------



## Altair (13 Oct 2015)

With the addition of the two new polls (again, not nanos) 308 has

LPC 136

CPC 118

NDP 80

BQ 3

GRN 1

Less that a long time left now.


----------



## Lumber (13 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> With the addition of the two new polls (again, not nanos) 308 has
> 
> LPC 136
> 
> ...



Oh! East pickins! Just 34 more seats and the LPC can have a majority. No problem.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Oct 2015)

If you thought Nigabs was a distraction issue, Muclair is talking about decriminalizing pot "overnight" and studying legalization. That's just what the masses want, drugs to numb their minds to the inept government that would place that above economic issues like TPP.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Oh! Easy pickins! Just 34 more seats and the LPC can have a majority. No problem.



And Momentum can do that, too, if the LPC can sustain it for a few days.

The _Globe and Mail_ reports that "Attention-grabbing rallies with party faithful are a classic end-of-campaign strategy to demonstrate momentum in front of the TV cameras, and while the Harper campaign still stages these events, they are fewer and farther between than the other parties ... [but] ... the Tories say they’re instead dedicating as many volunteers as possible to the ground game in every riding, where they are betting that identifying Conservative voters and getting them to the polls will make the difference in tight races."

Getting out the vote, the 35+ year old vote is all that the CPC campaign can do at this moment.

_I suspect_ that both the CPC and NDP think the Liberals have the Momentum, that's why M Mulcair is making _pot promises_ and that's why the CPC are focusing on the "ground game:" to deny the Liberals the other 34 seats they need for a majority. It's _sauve qui peut_  time.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Oct 2015)

The NDP should hang onto Mulcair.  The anti-Harper hysteria made this the best opportunity to date for the NDP, but the LPC is going to need NDP support to govern.  If Mulcair can grab the Liberals by the belt buckle and keep them pretty much on the left where they campaigned while help[ing] them to stumble badly, the next election will be another good shot for the NDP - if there isn't much daylight between the NDP and LPC, "ABC with the NDP" becomes the choice.  The NDP will still have to come to some sort of accord with the leftmost factions of progressives to encourage the latter to shut up for a few months.

Also due to effects of anti-Harper hysteria, the CPC result is likely going to represent a floor.  If the totals are close, Harper might stay in - the practical effects of LPC + NDP government could change enough minds in a few months.  Or, the CPC could engineer a clean (quick) leadership change similar to Ignatieff's ascension.

If the assumption that leadership changes would give the Liberals some breathing time is widespread, retention of Mulcair and either retention of Harper or a bloodless change would throw them off-balance.  Regardless, the NDP will be holding the plug.


----------



## Altair (13 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The NDP should hang onto Mulcair.  The anti-Harper hysteria made this the best opportunity to date for the NDP, but the LPC is going to need NDP support to govern.  If Mulcair can grab the Liberals by the belt buckle and keep them pretty much on the left where they campaigned while help[ing] them to stumble badly, the next election will be another good shot for the NDP - if there isn't much daylight between the NDP and LPC, "ABC with the NDP" becomes the choice.  The NDP will still have to come to some sort of accord with the leftmost factions of progressives to encourage the latter to shut up for a few months.
> 
> Also due to effects of anti-Harper hysteria, the CPC result is likely going to represent a floor.  If the totals are close, Harper might stay in - the practical effects of LPC + NDP government could change enough minds in a few months.  Or, the CPC could engineer a clean (quick) leadership change similar to Ignatieff's ascension.
> 
> If the assumption that leadership changes would give the Liberals some breathing time is widespread, retention of Mulcair and either retention of Harper or a bloodless change would throw them off-balance.  Regardless, the NDP will be holding the plug.


I'm pretty sure the left wing of the NDP party is sharpening the knives as we speak.

As for harper, I would hope he stays around. Would be easy enough to remind progressive voters of the 9 years of harper rule waiting to return.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure the left wing of the NDP party is sharpening the knives as we speak.



Half of them are Trudeau advisors. His platform has read like the NDP platform from the 1990s. If they drag the LPC left, blue Liberals will likely sit as independents or vote against. I doubt they'll cross the floor, but a lot won't tow the line.

Whatever the result on 20 October, we're in for a gongshow of epic proportions, because the Tories and NDP likely can afford to go to an election again right away. The Liberals in 2008 could not, which let us have one of the longest minorities on record. I'd expect another election in fall 2016, and voter apathy will be high.


----------



## Underway (13 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> As for harper, I would hope he stays around. Would be easy enough to remind progressive voters of the 9 years of harper rule waiting to return.



Very doubtful.  Actually a leadership campaign for the CPC is a bad thing for the party.  To much light on the hard right wing (and crazies) of the party.  Then a new leader has to come out and be all "no I'm not Republican scary... I'm a normal Canadian...no I support gay marriage... etc..."  ad nausium.  Harpers a known commodity is hardly scary.  He's not likeable but not scary.


----------



## Lumber (13 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The NDP should hang onto Mulcair.  The anti-Harper hysteria made this the best opportunity to date for the NDP, but the LPC is going to need NDP support to govern.  If Mulcair can grab the Liberals by the belt buckle and keep them pretty much on the left where they campaigned while help[ing] them to stumble badly, the next election will be another good shot for the NDP - if there isn't much daylight between the NDP and LPC, "ABC with the NDP" becomes the choice.  The NDP will still have to come to some sort of accord with the leftmost factions of progressives to encourage the latter to shut up for a few months.



If this happens (the Liberals win but are propped up and pulled left by the NDP, then subsequently brought down by the NDP) then I predict that any Red Tories who voted LPC along with a good chunk of Blue-Liberals, will vote conservative in the following election.

I hope, for stability's sake, that if the Liberals do win, that they either get a majority, or that they manage to work out more deals with the CPC than the NDP.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I hope, for stability's sake, that if the Liberals do win, that they either get a majority



That'd likely be worse than a NDP minority. Look what the Wynne Liberals are doing to Ontario, and its all the same characters advising Trudeau. Entire country would be in an economic crapper faster than you can blink.


----------



## Altair (13 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Half of them are Trudeau advisors. His platform has read like the NDP platform from the 1990s. If they drag the LPC left, blue Liberals will likely sit as independents or vote against. I doubt they'll cross the floor, but a lot won't tow the line.
> 
> Whatever the result on 20 October, we're in for a gongshow of epic proportions, because the Tories and NDP likely can afford to go to an election again right away. The Liberals in 2008 could not, which let us have one of the longest minorities on record. I'd expect another election in fall 2016, and voter apathy will be high.


why does this myth persist?

Can anyone explain this to me?

The LPC has brought in as much if not more money than the NDP. 


http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/co...tals-1.3057522

As of this may, party fundraising for Q1

CPC 6.3 million

LPC 3.8 million

NDP 2.3 million.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blo...ndraising-race

Q2 results

CPC 7.4 million

NDP 4.5 million

LPC 4 million

So why why why does this myth persist?


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Oct 2015)

I didn't say the LPC couldn't this time. I said they couldn't in 2008 which let the minority government run by Harper last a lot longer than the norm.

You've trotted out all those fundraising stats before, we get it, the LPC has money now. Nobody's said anything to the contrary.


----------



## Altair (13 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I didn't say the LPC couldn't this time. I said they couldn't in 2008 which let the minority government run by Harper last a lot longer than the norm.
> 
> You've trotted out all those fundraising stats before, we get it, the LPC has money now. Nobody's said anything to the contrary.


I see, the highlighted part in yellow with the mention of LPC money troubles of 2008 led me to assume you were saying they were broke.

Which in almost fairness, has been said here multiple times before.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Oct 2015)

>I hope, for stability's sake, that if the Liberals do win, that they either get a majority, or that they manage to work out more deals with the CPC than the NDP.

The latter is more likely; it fits their tradition of deking left to campaign, then drifting back to the right to govern.  Also, they need to reclaim part of the centre.  Notwithstanding the popularity of the "extreme right-wing CPC" myth, it isn't because the CPC abandoned the centre and went foaming off to the far right that the Liberals have chosen to take the fight to the NDP's customary ground.


----------



## Lumber (14 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I hope, for stability's sake, that if the Liberals do win, that they either get a majority, or that they manage to work out more deals with the CPC than the NDP.
> 
> The latter is more likely; it fits their tradition of deking left to campaign, then drifting back to the right to govern.  Also, they need to reclaim part of the centre.  Notwithstanding the popularity of the "extreme right-wing CPC" myth, it isn't because the CPC abandoned the centre and went foaming off to the far right that the Liberals have chosen to take the fight to the NDP's customary ground.



True. So, then why has everyone abandoned the middle?


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> True. So, then why has everyone abandoned the middle?



The middle is what we need, not what we want. Flowery social programs, pleas to save the downtrodden middle class, and claims to legalize pot buy votes, but are never sustainable in the long run. People wonder why politicians lie, its because we vote for the ones that do.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2015)

Strategic voting is much in the news this morning, with two groups promoting it:

     1. The Liberal Party which is in search of the 20-40 seats it appears to need to win a majority; and

     2. Sundry Harper Hater™ groups that don't care much about policies or platforms ~ they just want prime Minister Harper _*out!*_

There are, equally, two groups opposed to _strategic voting_:

     1. The Conservatives, who are trying, desperately it appears, to "come up the middle" between two left of centre candidates in as many ridings as possible; and

     2. the target (progressive) parties (NDP, BQ and Greens) who are saying it's "undemocratic" to ask people to vote against someone, you should pick the candidate you want.


----------



## Occam (14 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 2. the target (progressive) parties (NDP, BQ and Greens) who are saying it's "undemocratic" to ask people to vote against someone, you should pick the candidate you want.



Of course they'd say that.  If there were more ridings in which they were the more likely candidate to unseat the CPC candidate, I'm sure it would be entirely democratic.







Tourniquet!!

 ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2015)

Premier Wynne tries to woo suburbanites in the GTA and Golden Horseshoe, many of whom are opposed to her Ontario Retirement Pension Plan scheme.


----------



## Remius (14 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Premier Wynne tries to woo suburbanites in the GTA and Golden Horseshoe, many of whom are opposed to her Ontario Retirement Pension Plan scheme.



And her retirement pesion plan may be dropped if Mr. Trudeau wins, or so she has mused.  She seems to be throwing those people an incentive to vote LPC.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Oct 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> Yah...no.  Try more like the grasshopper was the antisocial being and the ant, living in the ultimate socialist community was going to be fine because she (all ants except haploid drones are female...Aesop was not a biologist) had a pension plan and socialized childcare like all the other ant workers.



I see you missed the sarcasm...I'll use a [sarcasm] tag next time.


Technically, since they were working in a capitalistic sytem, that would make the ant and all his hard-working friends anarcho-syndicalists.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Premier Wynne tries to woo suburbanites in the GTA and Golden Horseshoe, many of whom are opposed to her Ontario Retirement Pension Plan scheme.



I found it interesting yesterday, that she said she would drop the idea of creating an Ontario Retirement Pension Plan if Trudeau was elected.  Perhaps her whole plan all along was to raise an issue that indicated a conflict between the Conservative Government in Ottawa and her Provincial Government, with no real intent to create such a pension plan.  An intent to create conflict where none existed.


----------



## Remius (14 Oct 2015)

If so, that would be one heck of a crafted plan.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2015)

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, Jeffrey Simpson opines, correctly, I think, that "It really is all about Harper:"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/jeffrey-simpson-it-really-is-all-about-harper-pro-and-con/article26793653/


> It really is all about Harper, pro and con
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I think that Mr Simpson has it here: "Mr. Harper is running against the most powerful current in politics: time for a change ... Canada does not have term limits in law; it seems to have them in practice ..." and here: "In the television age, which is now more than a half-century old, leaders are almost all that medium cares about. Personality over policy is a truism of TV."

I have mentioned, several times over the past two or three years that "political parties need to be refreshed and renewed" and the mechanism we have to tell them "it's time," is to send them to the opposition benches for a while. Six to ten years seems to be about the limit of our patience with any one leader, maybe even with any one party (for the last 30 years, anyway). Of course no political discussion can ever finish without a return to the Nixon-Kennedy debate. I believe it is a fact that TV ~ the medium, not the journalists ~ "likes" M Trudeau and is cruel to Prime Minister Harper. It's not a fault or a strength for either man, it's just the nature of the medium. So, two factors: voter fatigue and TV and both have worked and are working against the prime minister.

Should Stephen Harper have resigned the CPC leadership, back in 2013/14 when it became obvious that M Trudeau was very, very strong on personal appeal? It's an open question ... could Jason Kenney beat M Trudeau in this election? I think not. John Baird or Rona Ambrose? ... maybe, but it would still be an uphill battle against the "time for a change" factor.

Are we shifting towards a _de facto_ term limits system?


----------



## Rocky Mountains (14 Oct 2015)

There might still be a bit of hope for Conservatives.  Less that a week ago they were still ahead in more than one poll.  

Regardless of what happens, Mulcair's head will be on a pike.  I'm not sure if he will go willingly as he might have a hard time with the reduction in pay from opposition leader.  He might have to remortgage his house for the 12th time.  He diluted the communist rhetoric and failed miserably.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2015)

Here is yesterday's _Ipsos_ data ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



     Source: David Akin, _Sun News_

          ... which is almost the same as the _EKOS_ numbers.

It is, now, _faint hope_ time for the CPC. Yes, they can, theoretically, pull it out, but it doesn't look good, with only 4½ days of campaigning to go.

For the LPC: depending on vote efficiency, they are within 2 or 3 points of majority territory.


----------



## Lumber (14 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, Jeffrey Simpson opines, correctly, I think, that "It really is all about Harper:"
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/jeffrey-simpson-it-really-is-all-about-harper-pro-and-con/article26793653/
> 
> ...



This is something that I've always been confused about. I grew up hearing about how great a PM Pierre Trudeau was, and I still hear it all the time that "Pierre Trudeau was our greatest PM!" In fact, when the CBC ran "The Greatest Canadian", Pierre Trudeau was ranked the 3rd greatest Canadian in history!

But, as I grew older, started paying attention to politics and attending University, I discovered another cadre of people; those who think he is the _worst_ Prime Minister in history. I know some of you here have said those exact words, "Pierre Trudeau is the worst PM ever." I got my worst grade in my entire time at University by writing a paper in history class whose thesis was basically "Pierre Trudea was the Greatest PM". I got a 55%, in part (my opinion) because my professor thought Trudeau was the worst PM in history, so how could my conclusions possibly be correct? I must have done spotty research. 

How can someone be both the best and worst at the same time? Doesn't each side of the argument see how many people are on the other side and think "well.. ok maybe he's not quite as bad/good as I thought?" For one, I no longer think Trudeau was the messiah some treat him as, but I still like a lot of what he did.

So, do the people who hated Trudeau hate him as much as those who hate Harper? 

Instead of "who was the best/worst" PM in Canadian history, how about, "Who is the most hated/villified PM in Canadian history?"

Cheers


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2015)

I think, in fairness to your professor, that it is important to state that Pierre Trudeau was, for good or ill, and that's a matter that is still being debated, a very _active_ prime minister who made great and fundamental changes to Canada's foreign/defence, economic, social and Constitutional policies and, through those changes, to Canada itself.

_I believe_, very firmly, that Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's social, economic, foreign and Constitutional policies were all wrong, some dangerously wrong. Others, of course, disagree.

One thing about which we can all agree is that he is the most talked and written about prime minister: including Sir John A, Laurier and King.


----------



## Jed (14 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> This is something that I've always been confused about. I grew up hearing about how great a PM Pierre Trudeau was, and I still hear it all the time that "Pierre Trudeau was our greatest PM!" In fact, when the CBC ran "The Greatest Canadian", Pierre Trudeau was ranked the 3rd greatest Canadian in history!
> 
> But, as I grew older, started paying attention to politics and attending University, I discovered another cadre of people; those who think he is the _worst_ Prime Minister in history. I know some of you here have said those exact words, "Pierre Trudeau is the worst PM ever." I got my worst grade in my entire time at University by writing a paper in history class whose thesis was basically "Pierre Trudea was the Greatest PM". I got a 55%, in part (my opinion) because my professor thought Trudeau was the worst PM in history, so how could my conclusions possibly be correct? I must have done spotty research.
> 
> ...



The CBC Bias and Laurentian elitist mentality has been in effect for decades. You truly have to work at getting a factual viewpoint. Most people have better and more interesting things to spend their time doing.

It is only when you get your arse bit a few times and decades later you have your eyes opened as to who, why and what did the chewing that the ordinary person begins to pay attention.

Unless you are from one of the Laurentian elite old stock families or on the Government's or one of the Big Union teats, Trudeau Liberals are not your cup of tea.


----------



## Lumber (14 Oct 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> The CBC Bias and Laurentian elitist mentality has been in effect for decades. You truly have to work at getting a factual viewpoint. Most people have better and more interesting things to spend their time doing.
> 
> It is only when you get your arse bit a few times and decades later you have your eyes opened as to who, why and what did the chewing that the ordinary person begins to pay attention.
> 
> Unless you are from one of the Laurentian elite old stock families or on the Government's or one of the Big Union teats, Trudeau Liberals are not your cup of tea.



Does being in the military count as being on the Government's teat? Because there are lot of people here in the military who do not like Trudeau.


----------



## Altair (14 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, Jeffrey Simpson opines, correctly, I think, that "It really is all about Harper:"
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/jeffrey-simpson-it-really-is-all-about-harper-pro-and-con/article26793653/
> 
> ...


I think the bigger question is why did harper let his ego get in the way?

People were saying he should have stepped down for 2 years now but he decided to have 1 more kick at the can.

Didn't work for guy lafleur or Micheal Jordan and it isn't working for Stephen  Harper. 

And now he's going to get beat by a Trudeau. That's got to sting.


----------



## Remius (14 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here is yesterday's _Ipsos_ data ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not sure they can turn it around with only that time left.  I think the CPC has exhausted its bag of tricks.  Making cash machine sounds and throwing money down in front of small turn out crowds isn't helping either.  The momentum the LPC has came at exactly the right time for them and at the worst time for the CPC.  I'm sure there will be many theries and post mortems as to how it derailed for the NDP but also for the CPC.


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Does being in the military count as being on the Government's teat? Because there are lot of people here in the military who do not like Trudeau.



I have served in the times of Pierre through to the present day.  Yes, I have a distaste for Pierre, but I leave my real loathing for Jean.  He eclipsed Pierre in my ire.  Now to be fair, they all (from 1980 to today) have pissed me off at one time or another and some of them multiple times.  Jean is my # 1 with Pierre at # 2.


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Oct 2015)

I am getting plenty of giggles at the frantic appeals from the NDP on the radio ads this past week.  I believe they've applied full military power on their nose dive as they head towards lawn dart territory.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> This is something that I've always been confused about. I grew up hearing about how great a PM Pierre Trudeau was, and I still hear it all the time that "Pierre Trudeau was our greatest PM!" In fact, when the CBC ran "The Greatest Canadian", Pierre Trudeau was ranked the 3rd greatest Canadian in history!
> 
> But, as I grew older, started paying attention to politics and attending University, I discovered another cadre of people; those who think he is the _worst_ Prime Minister in history. I know some of you here have said those exact words, "Pierre Trudeau is the worst PM ever." I got my worst grade in my entire time at University by writing a paper in history class whose thesis was basically "Pierre Trudea was the Greatest PM". I got a 55%, in part (my opinion) because my professor thought Trudeau was the worst PM in history, so how could my conclusions possibly be correct? I must have done spotty research.
> 
> ...



As much as it pains me to say this (I am not a PET fan) Trudeau was a great leader - in the sense that he could motivate people and turn them into dedicated followers.  

This very characteristic is one of the things that concerned me, and still concerns me.  I distrust leaders that have that much charismatic influence.  It bothers me that many people feel comfortable "switching off" and letting someone else do the hard work of making decisions for them.

Regardless of his charismatic appeal and his ability to lead the other question is: Where was he leading?

In some senses I don't think he knew.  He liked the role of leader but I don't know that he ever had a plan.  

He was, successively, Catholic seminarian, Catholic corporatist, Socialist, Communist, NDP and Liberal.  He believed in power being translated downwards (through him) and not from the bottom up.

His policies were muddled - and leaned towards the authoritarian in my opinion.  Apparently the only place the state could not intervene was in my bedroom.  That left a pretty broad field.

Trudeau managed to alienate Quebecers with the War Measures Act, both Quebec francos and anglos in the rest of Canada with bilingualism and biculturalism, Western farmers by giving them the finger (literally) and refusing to sell their grain, Albertans with the National Energy Programme, fishers on both coasts by giving their fish away to Russian and Polish trawlers, and traditionalists that believed that Constitutions did not promote stability but took away power from where it should rightly reside: with the people's representatives in parliament.  The last line of decision, the last court of appeal should be parliament in open debate.

Trudeau, in my opinion, was many things but he was not a democrat.

Charismatic leader - yes.  Good Prime Minister - no.


----------



## Jed (14 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> As much as it pains me to say this (I am not a PET fan) Trudeau was a great leader - in the sense that he could motivate people and turn them into dedicated followers.
> 
> This very characteristic is one of the things that concerned me, and still concerns me.  I distrust leaders that have that much charismatic influence.  It bothers me that many people feel comfortable "switching off" and letting someone else do the hard work of making decisions for them.
> 
> ...



His policies were Muddled, fuddled and duddled.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Oct 2015)

>Premier Wynne tries to woo suburbanites in the GTA and Golden Horseshoe, many of whom are opposed to her Ontario Retirement Pension Plan scheme.

The "fine print": "She says if Trudeau wins the Oct. 19 federal election and is willing to improve the CPP, that would be “the solution” to her concerns about people not having enough money to live on when they retire."

Wynne would not have suddenly dropped this into the mix if she didn't think it would help elect Liberal MPs in ON.  And Wynne is tightly coupled to Trudeau and Butts, so I doubt she blind-sided them with a sudden announcement.  I conclude this was planned.

So here is your update on Trudeau's plans to help the middle class: whatever "the solution" is, if we assume Wynne's numbers represent careful consideration in back rooms and were not pulled out of someone's ass, then the payroll tax increase will be 3.8% of qualifying income (1.9% employee, 1.9% employer).

Using the 2015 income limit ($53,600), that is $2036.80.  That overwhelms the $670 break for reducing the 22% personal income tax rate to 20.5% and the proposed reduction in EI premiums ($0.23 per $100 of insurable earnings to the maximum of $49,500, for a reduction of $113.85).

I suppose you could still argue Trudeau is protecting the middle class, since CPP payroll tax increases affect everyone earning more than the minimum cutoff ($3,500) and the income tax cut doesn't start until $44,700 (2015 amount).  *People with lower incomes will be doing their share to protect higher incomes and ensure that today's CPP recipients live a little more comfortably.  Thank you, Trudeau and Wynne.*


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Oct 2015)

This was going to be a tax grab slush fund for the McWynnety government. They were going to reap in tons of money and then raid the fund for whatever they wanted. Like Martin used to do to balance budgets.

Kind of makes you wonder what The Hairdo promised to replace all that cash she'd be losing. :

Could Trudeau have a 'hidden agenda'?


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Oct 2015)

There may be some ideas afoot for transfers or loans.

CPP expansion was talked about abstractly by federal campaigners, but never in specific dollar amounts.  Even the CBC "spin cycle / explainer" today took a lot of trouble to tease out dollar amounts, but left the cost of Wynne's CPP increase curiously uncalculated, and even psychologically low-balled the impact by describing it as "It's proposes a 1.9 per cent contribution to the retirement scheme for both the employee and employer. The current federal rate for the CPP is 4.95 per cent." rather than risk comparing it as, say, a "3.8% total contribution increase over an existing rate of 9.9%".  (A 13.7% percent tax rate starts to look rather large, no?)

It's easy to understand the timing.  The Liberals have calculated they are going to win big, and everything on the record before election day will be argued as part of any "mandate"; advance poll turnout was large and those people don't get a do-over based on any information provided in the final few days.  [Edit to add: expect more agenda items to become unhidden the closer we get to election day.]


----------



## Altair (14 Oct 2015)

Trudeau asking for a majority. 

Don't think he can make it, would need to gain 4 percentage points in a week.


----------



## Lumber (14 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Trudeau asking for a majority.
> 
> Don't think he can make it, would need to gain 4 percentage points in a week.



Here's what I don't understand (well, actually, I do) about the NDP's apparent desperation in these final few days.

I've read in several different places that Mulcair has stated that "Defeating Steven Harper and the Conservatives is his number 1 priority." If this is true, then instead of holding on desperately at the bitter end, why doesn't he recognize that he's lost the Democratic Nomination  Liberal-NDP Race, back out and tell everyone who was going to vote NDP to vote Liberal? That would guarantee that the CPC and Harper fall, which in a way, would mean Mulcair is successful in achieving his number one priority.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Trudeau asking for a majority.
> 
> Don't think he can make it, would need to gain 4 percentage points in a week.



If he's going to win, _which I would rather he doesn't_, then _I hope_ it's with a small, but workable majority.

I don't like minority governments: they are neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring. They require the worst sorts of policy compromises.

M Trudeau has a programme ... I think it's a damned poor one, but it is (barely) acceptable to many Canadians and if he wins then he should be given the (quite) free hand that majority government implies, to implement it. So it's good-bye to the F-35 and income splitting and expanded TFSA contributions and, and, and ... and it's hello to wasteful spending on social housing. Parts of his platform are fine, if he implements them, parts I will dislike, but, if he wins, he deserves the freedom to govern as he promised or to break his promises and face the consequences in four years.

My distaste for minorities isn't just for Conservative minorities. All minority governments are _weak_, ineffectual and wasteful ~ no one with the brains the gods gave to green peppers welcomes them.


----------



## Old Sweat (14 Oct 2015)

I'm not sure he has a lot of area to grow, but anything is possible. He is strong in Atlantic Canada, but he is nearly at a peak there. I don't know who much growth potential there is in Quebec and in the 416-905 belt in Ontario. That leaves the Prairies, which may have very limited potential at this time, and BC where maybe he can steal a bit from the NDP. I wonder, however, if both of the other parties aren't pretty well at their hard core supporters. A Green Party shift led by their leader?

Could be I'm wrong; goodness knows I've had lots of practice.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2015)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I'm not sure he has a lot of area to grow, but anything is possible. He is strong in Atlantic Canada, but he is nearly at a peak there. I don't know who much growth potential there is in Quebec and in the 416-905 belt in Ontario. That leaves the Prairies, which may have very limited potential at this time, and BC where maybe he can steal a bit from the NDP. I wonder, however, if both of the other parties aren't pretty well at their hard core supporters. A Green Party shift led by their leader?
> 
> Could be I'm wrong; goodness knows I've had lots of practice.




His strength it Atlantic Canada is, actually, a weakness: those very high numbers influence his national average ... he has a very inefficient vote base in Atlantic Canada and in Montreal.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2015)

The CPC is running a pretty nasty, maybe dishonest ad campaign some ethnic media in Toronto and Vancouver.


----------



## Altair (14 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> His strength it Atlantic Canada is, actually, a weakness: those very high numbers influence his national average ... he has a very inefficient vote base in Atlantic Canada and in Montreal.


The greater Montreal area could net him 25 seats so I wouldn't say that's a weakness.

The big battleground is ontario where it appears he's stretching his lead.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2015)

This will be a common (and, _in my opinion_, unfair) complaint amongst Conservatives ... 

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



     Cartoon by _Fleg_ an editorial cartoonist in Quebec.

          ... there is, of course, _some_ truth in it, but for every media outlet that displays _some_ animus towards Prime Minister Harper or that fawned over M Trudeau there were others that supported the Conservatives and were very critical of M Trudeau's policy proposals.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The CPC is running a pretty nasty, maybe dishonest ad campaign some ethnic media in Toronto and Vancouver.




It's not just the CPC. This Liberal ad is equally deceptive ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          ... it says you can be deported and lose your citizenship, but it fails to mention that, first, you have to have been tried for and convicted of terrorism.


----------



## observor 69 (14 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> The greater Montreal area could net him 25 seats so I wouldn't say that's a weakness.
> 
> The big battleground is ontario where it appears he's stretching his lead.



My southern Ontario community has six federal seats. Five weeks ago it was a mix of PC and Liberal MPs.
It now has strong numbers projecting it will go entirely Liberal.


----------



## Privateer (14 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The CPC is running a pretty nasty, maybe dishonest ad campaign some ethnic media in Toronto and Vancouver.



No doubt photoshopped, but still funny:


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Oct 2015)

Looks like the crooks are trying to get to the trough early. I expected nothing less from them, however.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/liberal-campaign-co-chair-steps-down-in-wake-of-lobbying-email-1.2609815


----------



## George Wallace (14 Oct 2015)

This supposedly on CTV site ( It is on the link, but you will have to scroll through/down several topics to find it. ):



> Posted by a CTV viewer
> Too good not to share:
> 
> SAW THIS, POSTED BY A CANADIAN SOLDIER: More about why I won’t vote liberal . . . I find that many lefties are concerned with $90,000 paid back to taxpayers, yet unconcerned that one Liberal senator owes more then all the conservative senators combined, Mac Harb. Or how about Liberal election fraud. A couple elections ago ad-scam was the biggest financial and election scandal in the G8. Yet you still support the Liberals like Ralph Goodale who were involved in it. There were no criminal charges. No senators other then the Conservative senators have been forced to pay back money. Tom Mulcair misappropriated $3,000,000 and you have heard not a peep. You never heard much about Liberals already breaking election law at advance polls for this election. Trudeau skipped out on his job in the house of commons to give paid speeches to charities despite being a multi-millionaire. He has never been employed full time but you want him to run the country. Tom Mulcaire pledged to ban the bulk export of Canadian water. Harper has already done that. He pledged to get rid of the senate, which he cannot do. Similarly he has sworn to get national day care which requires provincial agreement, and the provinces have said no already.
> ...



https://www.facebook.com/CTVNews

The author has made some very glaring points that have been overlooked by the majority of the public in their "hatred" for the Conservatives.  Points that when we look at the Liberal and NDP Parties activities in the past few years, have been totally swept under the table or ignored.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Looks like the crooks are trying to get to the trough early. I expected nothing less from them, however.
> 
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/liberal-campaign-co-chair-steps-down-in-wake-of-lobbying-email-1.2609815




Of course they are, as the article says, "Both the Conservative and the NDP campaigns criticized the letter Wednesday, suggesting that [size=14pt]_the Liberals are trying to influence contacts and friends in the oil and gas industry_."[/size]

Well of course they are ... _Energy East_, and other pipelines are going ahead under a Liberal government, no matter what the LPC candidates may have told people in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. It's how the Liberals operate ... always in bed with the Big Banks, Big Business and Big Labour.


----------



## Altair (14 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Of course they are, as the article says, "Both the Conservative and the NDP campaigns criticized the letter Wednesday, suggesting that [size=14pt]_the Liberals are trying to influence contacts and friends in the oil and gas industry_."[/size]
> 
> Well of course they are ... _Energy East_, and other pipelines are going ahead under a Liberal government, no matter what the LPC candidates may have told people in Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. It's how the Liberals operate ... always in bed with the Big Banks, Big Business and Big Labour.


At least he stepped down right away, but if I were trudeau I would have kicked him out of the door.

The liberals cannot have these kind of characters around.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2015)

The Liberals have had "these kinds of characters around" since I was a schoolboy, in 1950, and, doubtless, before that, too. They, the hacks, flacks and bagmen, have been, especially since _circa_ 1970, an essential component of Liberal Party operations. Oh, the other parties have them too, but never as many or as slick or as brazen as the Liberals ... and they aren't going away.


----------



## Altair (14 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The Liberals have had "these kinds of characters around" since I was a schoolboy, in 1950, and, doubtless, before that, too. They, the hacks, flacks and bagmen, have been, especially since _circa_ 1970, an essential component of Liberal Party operations. Oh, the other parties have them too, but never as many or as slick or as brazen as the Liberals ... and they aren't going away.


As long as their is a culture of zero tolerance they shouldn't be able to cause much trouble. 

This guy stepped down, a plus.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> _As long as their is a culture of zero tolerance_ they shouldn't be able to cause much trouble.
> 
> This guy stepped down, a plus.




There was never a "culture of zero tolerance," and there never will be. Big money is the fuel for modern, media driven politics ... you either have to have a really HUGE pool of small to medium sponsors or you need a handful of Big ones. Campaign finance reform has helped, a bit, to shake out some of the "old money," but the Big Banks, Big Insurance, Big Business, Big Law firms, Big Media companies and Big Labour still provide "off the books" support in the form of e.g. jobs for senior campaign staff and unsuccessful candidates between elections.

The Liberal Party of Canada has always been the Big Party ... and it was and still is a creature of e.g. the Desmarais family and _Power Corporation_. Gerry Schwartz and _Onex_ provides similar support for the CPC.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> This guy stepped down, a plus.



That's never stopped a witch-hunt against the Tories. There's a massive double standard if you think he can just step down to save the party embarrassment.

Trudeau has a culture of zero tolerance. Zero tolerance against any ideas against his. If you thought Harper was autocratic, just wait for the guy who had a "respect for the basic dictatorship of China's government".


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Oct 2015)

>The liberals cannot have these kind of characters around. 

That's amusing.  Read some of the books written pre-internet about Canadian politics since WWII.  The Liberals were _*the*_ party of influence peddling and patronage.  If you served the party, you expected to be well looked-after.  Disconnecting the party from some of those channels - including the Senate Liberals, who historically were the conduit to measuring the pulse of the business establishment - has weakened, not strengthened, the LPC.


----------



## Altair (14 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's never stopped a witch-hunt against the Tories. There's a massive double standard if you think he can just step down to save the party embarrassment.
> 
> Trudeau has a culture of zero tolerance. Zero tolerance against any ideas against his. If you thought Harper was autocratic, just wait for the guy who had a "respect for the basic dictatorship of China's government".


I like you puckchaser, I really do, but your spin is a bit much.

You know as well as I do that Trudeau's stupid comment had to do with how fast they can change their economy not the political freedoms of the Chinese dictatorship.


----------



## cavalryman (14 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> You know as well as I do that Trudeau's stupid comment had to do with how fast they can change their economy not the political freedoms of the Chinese dictatorship.


Seriously?  You do understand that the political and the economic are so intricately intertwined that one doesn't happen without the other.  Sure you can turn a command economy around really fast, if you don't mind bulldozing the population along the way, but it doesn't mean that it'll work.  How's the Chinese economy doing these days anyways?  I do hope you don't get buyer's remorse.  The new boss isn't going to be any better than the old one.  He's not even smart enough to be as good as the old one.  :

Cripes, I really can't wait until the election is done.  Churchill had it right when he said something to the effect that the biggest factor against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.  Canadians are proving that in spades these days, it seems.  Low information voters indeed.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> You know as well as I do that Trudeau's stupid comment had to do with how fast they can change their economy not the political freedoms of the Chinese dictatorship.



So you agree that we should artificially set the price of our currency, and have government control in all of our major industries?


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Oct 2015)

>[Media favouritism] will be a common (and, in my opinion, unfair) complaint amongst Conservatives ... 

I doubt that it's unfair.  I have subscribed to Maclean's for a long time, and considered it to be a pretty balanced publication.  In the 05, 12, and 19 Oct issues (the last one I just received today) I see:
- Paul Wells wrote his customarily balanced and insightful columns
- Martin Patriquin wrote a favourable interest piece about Gerry Butts
- Scott Gilmore wrote what I think was supposed to be a piece to goad Conservatives into being better people, but finished with "And now, ironically, the Conservative party is whom you vote for if you are timid and emasculated, if you go to bed scared and wake up worried." as the penultimate sentence
- Aaron Hutchins wrote a short piece about a guy who exposes distasteful behaviour of Conservative candidates on the internet (no reminders about candidates of other parties in similar situations)
- Aaron Wherry wrote a favourable interest piece about Jo-Anne Gignac (Who?  A CPC candidate)
- Jason Markusoff wrote a favourable piece about Notley and the AB NDP
- John Geddes wrote a favourable personal interest piece about Trudeau
- a piece by 3 contributors on "Harpernomics" - one by one of the authors of the Unifor study, one by some guy in the Carleton school of business, one by an economic advisor to Trudeau - essentially covering the respective points of view of the three major parties; but, the Unifor study really doesn't belong anywhere in any serious comparison of policies or records
- a piece by Martin Patriquin on the collapse of the NDP in polls
- a favourable editorial about the TPP
- a piece by Martin Patriquin on the collapse of NDP support in QC
- a piece by Nancy Macdonald about a NDP-LPC contest in Churchill-Keewatinook Aski

Missing in action: anything really meaty and in-depth on Harper, Mulcair, or prominent members of their teams, which might either humanize them or lend some credence to the possibility that the CPC and NDP have intelligent, thoughtful people.  Maclean's might have covered some people earlier this year, but what goes out closest to election day has the most influence.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> As long as their is a culture of zero tolerance *once they're caught doing wrong,* they shouldn't be able to cause much trouble.
> 
> This guy stepped down, a plus.



*[added to bring the heart of the issue to the fore]*

:not-again:


----------



## Altair (14 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> So you agree that we should artificially set the price of our currency, and have government control in all of our major industries?


I said it was a stupid comment. Politicians make stupid comments. 
I remember harper making quite a few stupid comments in the years before becoming prime minister


----------



## Altair (14 Oct 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> *[added to bring the heart of the issue to the fore]*
> 
> :not-again:


Like every party.

Conservatives as well.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I said it was a stupid comment. Politicians make stupid comments.
> I remember harper making quite a few stupid comments in the years before becoming prime minister



About admiring communist dictatorships? That's a pretty big one. It was also not based on economic policies, he was asked "What nation's administration do you most admire?" You're the one that's gotta watch the spin, here. Maybe he'll whip out his CF-18s, since he's cancelling the F-35. Or drop some more parkas to stop the genocide in Syria/Iraq?

One comment can be passed off. A history of comments shows a flippant disregard for common sense and the inability to speak when not scripted. It even showed during his debates when he wasn't delivering lines, he shouted like a pissed-off 8 year old trying to get a word in edge-wise.


----------



## Altair (14 Oct 2015)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Seriously?  You do understand that the political and the economic are so intricately intertwined that one doesn't happen without the other.  Sure you can turn a command economy around really fast, if you don't mind bulldozing the population along the way, but it doesn't mean that it'll work.  How's the Chinese economy doing these days anyways?  I do hope you don't get buyer's remorse.  The new boss isn't going to be any better than the old one.  He's not even smart enough to be as good as the old one.  :
> 
> Cripes, I really can't wait until the election is done.  Churchill had it right when he said something to the effect that the biggest factor against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.  Canadians are proving that in spades these days, it seems.  Low information voters indeed.


I said it was a stupid comment. What more do you want? 

And trust me, if justin trudeau and the LPC come even close to the CPC in terms of partisan pettiness, divisive a track ads,  muzzling of scientists, war on the press, answering every question in the HOC with a talking point, using my money for "economic action plans " advertising that might as well have had a CPC logo on the back of it, taking veterans to court, and trying to be a one man show, I'll park my vote elsewhere. 

But as I see it, the current guy is doing all of this now, unapologetic, and the new guy might not. I'll take my chances.


----------



## Altair (14 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> About admiring communist dictatorships? That's a pretty big one. It was also not based on economic policies, he was asked "What nation's administration do you most admire?" You're the one that's gotta watch the spin, here. Maybe he'll whip out his CF-18s, since he's cancelling the F-35. Or drop some more parkas to stop the genocide in Syria/Iraq?
> 
> One comment can be passed off. A history of comments shows a flippant disregard for common sense and the inability to speak when not scripted. It even showed during his debates when he wasn't delivering lines, he shouted like a pissed-off 8 year old trying to get a word in edge-wise.


I somehow don't think that you need to fear that justin trudeau will somehow turn canada into a 1 party state with a command economy. So I really don't think it's that big a deal.

He plans to keep increase training the kurds and stop the bombing. Don't see much in terms of policy about parkas. Don't see the issue again.

Must say a lot about Stephen Harper when a guy who has made all of these comments can still beat him in the general election.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Like every party.
> 
> Conservatives as well.



Absolutely, and NDP and others.  In no case should any of them be given a bye since someone took a knee quickly once caught.

The important takeaway is that people should understand that there is what parties tell people in the open, and then agendas beneath the surface, in some/many cases, duplicitous.  Such behaviour is not the monopolistic realm of the Conservatives.

I would prefer to see Trudeau address this directly and forthrightly, and explain why this is unacceptable and how that perspective doesn't represent the keeping of the people's trust that the Liberal party is looking to gain and maintain.  Sadly, most response is aligned with "what a good thing he stepped down so quickly" and "he was just doing what he thought was right."


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Must say a lot about Stephen Harper when a guy who has made all of these comments can still beat him in the general election.



No one has beaten anyone yet. The GTA has proven time and time again they'll vote for a mouth piece with grand ideas that'll never work. They elected Wynne once and McGuinty twice.


----------



## Altair (15 Oct 2015)

See you Monday.


----------



## dimsum (15 Oct 2015)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Cripes, I really can't wait until the election is done.  Churchill had it right when he said something to the effect that the biggest factor against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.  Canadians are proving that in spades these days, it seems.  Low information voters indeed.



"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."      - Mark Twain


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2015)

The latest from _Nanos_ via _CTV News_:







Prime Minister Harper got a solid, serviceable majority with 39.62% of the popular vote in 2011, despite great _inefficiency_ in the prairies and Alberta; Paul Martin got a weak minority in 2004 with 36.73%; Jean Chrétien got his last, slim, majority in 2000 with 40.85%; Pierre Trudeau's popular vote share ranges from 38% (minority) to 45% (first majority) in 1968.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If he's going to win, _which I would rather he doesn't_, then _I hope_ it's with a small, but workable majority.
> 
> I don't like minority governments: they are neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring. They require the worst sorts of policy compromises.
> 
> ...




Campbell Clark, in the _Globe and Mail_, says, in this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper, that it is dangerous for M Trudeau to come right out and ask for a majority ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/trudeau-takes-a-risk-asking-voters-for-a-majority-government/article26818414/?click=sf_globe


> Trudeau takes a risk asking voters for a majority government
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




     ... I don't agree. If M Trudeau has a programme for Canada in which he believes and in which he wants us to believe then he needs to ask for a majority to see it through. The CPC and NDP, of course, want a minority (to the extent that they "want" a LPC government at all) because then they can force M Trudeau off his programme and towards theirs.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2015)

I wonder how this law will fare under a LPC government. If Mme Justice Arbour is against it, and if it _might_ threaten Jean Chrétien (remember the _Grand-Mère Golf Course_ and _Auberge Grand-Mère Hotel_ and Prime Minister Chrétien personally interfering with a loan application with the Business Development Bank?), then my _guess_ is that it's dead in the water. The problem, you see, is that no one has ever even hinted at personal dishonest on tha part of Prime Minister Harper but Liberals, and their friends and camp followers, are notorious ... we don't want accountants investigating corruption, do we?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2015)

And, to round out the morning, here is Brian Gable drawing in the _Globe and Mail_:





Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorial-cartoons-for-october-2015/article26577881/


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2015)

If this report, that "The Australian dirty tricks strategist brought in last month to salvage Stephen Harper’s re-election campaign has abandoned the Conservatives, according to the spin doctor’s partner," is true, then it may be due to what was rumoured, way back in September, to be dissent in the CPC campaign team.

A campaign must have one chief ... for good or ill.

Calling in the _Wizard of Oz_ was a mistake _if_ his advice wasn't going to be followed.


Edit: clarity


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2015)

Hmm, how things change:

Yesterday: "Earlier in the day, when the Canadian Press first broke the story, the Liberals stood by
Gagnier, saying he did not break any ethical standards." (_Ottawa Citizen_)






Today: "Justin Trudeau calls Dan Gagnier's letter to pipeline officials 'inappropriate'" (_CBC News_)


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2015)

From _iPolitics_:


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Oct 2015)

Sadly, the masses of electorate sheep that will blindly follow this Sheppard over the cliff with their votes, don't care or are too enthralled by the pan pipe he plays to notice it's the same old crooks in the back rooms as before.


----------



## Lumber (15 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And, to round out the morning, here is Brian Gable drawing in the _Globe and Mail_:



E.R.C.

I'm not really sure I get the message that the drawing is trying to convey.

Trudeau is David and Harper is Goliath, I get that, but I guess I never saw this election (or the leaders) in that way. Perhaps a comparison to Chamberlain and Churchill is more accurate?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2015)

To put the _niqab _thing into some sort of perspective, _CBC News_ is reporting that, in Edmonton, this man, wearing a hat and mask so that only his eyes were visible ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          ... "Once the man produced proper identification, he was allowed to vote ... [and] ... Elections Canada said similar events have occurred at other advance polls across the country."

(By the way, filming/recording the event, as his 'accomplice' was doing, is illegal.)


----------



## Jed (15 Oct 2015)

I fear that many Canadians are going to learn their lessons the hard way. The young voters insist on passing up the wisdom of their seniors and to put the hopes and faith on fresh new faces that tell them what they want to hear.

It is sad really. How quickly we forget those hard won lessons of the past.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> E.R.C.
> 
> I'm not really sure I get the message that the drawing is trying to convey.
> 
> Trudeau is David and Harper is Goliath, I get that, but I guess I never saw this election (or the leaders) in that way. Perhaps a comparison to Chamberlain and Churchill is more accurate?




_I think_ that CPC argued, and for a time many Canadians agreed, that M Trudeau was "just a kid," was was (and _in my opinion_ _is_) "Just Not Ready," which effectively made him how Goliath and the Philistines must have seen David.


----------



## Lumber (15 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _I think_ that CPC argued, and for a time many Canadians agreed, that M Trudeau was "just a kid," was was (and _in my opinion_ _is_) "Just Not Ready," which effectively made him how Goliath and the Philistines must have seen David.



I guess THAT is a fair comparison, but against the backdrop of the election as a whole, the Liberal Party is NOT David. Even from the get go when they weren't doing as well as they are now, and with only 34 seats in parliament, the Party was not weak, at least not so much so that I think you can compare them to David and Goliath. 

Which makes it all the more surprising that the Globe and Mail, who I feel do a better job of looking past the surface and performing real analysis, would seem to be playing up the image that the whole party is Justin, and that Justin is "Just Not Ready".


----------



## George Wallace (15 Oct 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> I fear that many Canadians are going to learn their lessons the hard way. The young voters insist on passing up the wisdom of their seniors and to put the hopes and faith on fresh new faces that tell them what they want to hear.
> 
> It is sad really. How quickly we forget those hard won lessons of the past.



Such is life.....The young are rebellious, looking to make a mark and as they grow older and mature with families and careers, they swing towards being more conservative in their views.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I guess THAT is a fair comparison, but against the backdrop of the election as a whole, the Liberal Party is NOT David. Even from the get go when they weren't doing as well as they are now, and with only 34 seats in parliament, the Party was not weak, at least not so much so that I think you can compare them to David and Goliath.
> 
> Which makes it all the more surprising that the Globe and Mail, who I feel do a better job of looking past the surface and performing real analysis, would seem to be playing up the image that the whole party is Justin, and that Justin is "Just Not Ready".




Fair enough, but just ten days ago we were looking at this ...



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Globe and Mail_ has a new Election Forecast to kick off the last two weeks of the campaign. The data suggests that there is a:
> 
> 74% chance that the Conservatives get the most seats
> 
> ...



And this:






So, in fairness to Brian Gable, the CPC vs LPC contest did look a bit like David and Goliath ...


----------



## Altair (15 Oct 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> I fear that many Canadians are going to learn their lessons the hard way. The young voters insist on passing up the wisdom of their seniors and to put the hopes and faith on fresh new faces that tell them what they want to hear.
> 
> It is sad really. How quickly we forget those hard won lessons of the past.


Has Mr Harper given young Canadians one single reason to vote for him or has he written off young Canadians as a bloc of voters who don't vote enough to care about?

From the attack ads to racial politics to his never ending partisan politics, stephen harper has managed to turn off 70 percent of the electorate. He really should have stepped down in 2013 and given the party at least some small chance of renewal.  Instead his ego got in the way and he wanted to beat trudeau and be one of Canada's longest serving prime ministers. It's fitting he gets neither.

So don't blame the electorate. Blame the guy who has run a horrible campaign on old, stale, ideas with his only reason to vote for him is "fear the other guys!"

Good riddance, Monday can't come soon enough.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Oct 2015)

It's funny, but Tories aren't comparing Trudeau to Vladamir Lenin, but Liberals/NDPers are quite content at Hitler comparisons on an hourly basis. The double standard you've brainwashed yourself into is simply amazing.


----------



## Jed (15 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Has Mr Harper given young Canadians one single reason to vote for him or has he written off young Canadians as a bloc of voters who don't vote enough to care about?
> 
> From the attack ads to racial politics to his never ending partisan politics, stephen harper has managed to turn off 70 percent of the electorate. He really should have stepped down in 2013 and given the party at least some small chance of renewal.  Instead his ego got in the way and he wanted to beat trudeau and be one of Canada's longest serving prime ministers. It's fitting he gets neither.
> 
> ...



I see you have your Rose (pink) coloured goggles on Altair.  Talk to me in about 10 years after you have lived awhile.


----------



## observor 69 (15 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It's funny, but Tories aren't comparing Trudeau to Vladamir Lenin, but Liberals/NDPers are quite content at Hitler comparisons on an hourly basis. The double standard you've brainwashed yourself into is simply amazing.



My closest comparison to PM Harper would be President Nixon. A very vindictive man who probably did a reasonable job of running the country.


----------



## Altair (15 Oct 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> I see you have your Rose (pink) coloured goggles on Altair.  Talk to me in about 10 years after you have lived awhile.


My grandmother of 89 and mother of 57 should heed that advice as well I suppose.


----------



## Altair (15 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It's funny, but Tories aren't comparing Trudeau to Vladamir Lenin, but Liberals/NDPers are quite content at Hitler comparisons on an hourly basis. The double standard you've brainwashed yourself into is simply amazing.


 Liberals and NDPer just get called commies, no big deal.

I haven't seen a Hitler comparison on here though,  curious as to why you bring that up.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Has Mr Harper given young Canadians one single reason to vote for him or has he written off young Canadians as a bloc of voters who don't vote enough to care about?
> 
> From the attack ads to racial politics to his never ending partisan politics, stephen harper has managed to turn off 70 percent of the electorate. He really should have stepped down in 2013 and given the party at least some small chance of renewal.  Instead his ego got in the way and he wanted to beat trudeau and be one of Canada's longest serving prime ministers. It's fitting he gets neither.
> 
> ...




You're expressing the opinion of, _I suspect_, a very large minority, if not, indeed, a majority of Canadians ... but I'm reminded of an old proverb that the author Robert Raurk used to title his 1955 novel, _Something of Value_, about the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya ...

If a man does away with his traditional way of living and
throws away his good customs, he had better first make
certain that he has something of value to replace them.​                                                        
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ~ Basuto proverb

My worry is that in your headlong rush to demand, to embrace _change_ you are ignoring value.

Now, you will argue that Prime Minister Harper doesn't qualify as a "good custom," but that ignores Canada's current socio-economic and political position, imperfect I am the first to concede, compared to all the alternatives offered by M Trudeau.


----------



## GR66 (15 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> To put the _niqab _thing into some sort of perspective, _CBC News_ is reporting that, in Edmonton, this man, wearing a hat and mask so that only his eyes were visible ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I understand the emotional response generating this type of protest.  The idea of hiding your identity is something that just seems fundamentally wrong to the vast majority of Canadians.  

The uproar over the protest itself however is a bit misguided.  There is no requirement when voting to provide photo ID in order to cast your ballot.  You can use two pieces of approved ID in order to vote and they do not have to be picture ID. 

http://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=id&document=index&lang=e

Even without a face covering how would an Elections Canada be able to prove that your face goes with the non-photo ID that you've provided as proof of identity to vote?  Niqab, bandana, halloween mask, or no face covering at all, each person voting using non-photo ID is equally "disguised" to the Elections Canada staff at the poling booth.  

There has been a balance struck by Elections Canada between making a voter produce valid ID to ensure their identity and keeping the process open enough to avoid making not having the right type of ID (not everyone has a drivers license or a photo health card) a barrier to being able to vote.

Some may argue that the balance they have struck errs too much on the side of ensuring that every person entitled to vote can do so with as few barriers as possible.  That may be a valid argument, but I'd be interested in knowing what the estimates are of fraudulent voting compared to the number of valid voters that might face difficulty meeting more stringent ID requirements before I'd express an opinion on that.


----------



## Altair (15 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You're expressing the opinion of, _I suspect_, a very large minority, if not, indeed, a majority of Canadians ... but I'm reminded of an old proverb that the author Robert Raurk used to title his 1955 novel, _Something of Value_, about the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya ...
> 
> If a man does away with his traditional way of living and
> throws away his good customs, he had better first make
> ...


The interesting thing about that is people have looked into that very issue.

This was a 3 way race for 8 or 9 weeks. Harper and his base at around 32 percent.

The LPC and NDP were around 30 percent for 8 or 9 weeks because that is where the change vote was going to go. One of those two. Simple facts of the matter were those who were voting ndp or LPC were probably not going to vote CPC no matter what.

So for 8 or 9 weeks 60 percent of the electorate looked at the two visions of Canada,  the NDP version and the LPC version.

Due to events or to policy or perhaps both, today the LPC is up 7 points from the 30 they were hovering at and the ndp are down about 7 from the 30 they were hovering at. The CPC is still around 30-32.

So that change vote still had to scrutinize and decide where to go so while people are still voting against harper they choose trudeau over mulcair.


----------



## blacktriangle (15 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Sadly, the masses of electorate sheep that will blindly follow this Sheppard over the cliff with their votes, don't care or are too enthralled by the pan pipe he plays to notice it's the same old crooks in the back rooms as before.



I had been planning to join the CPC in the near future. Based on this thread though, I think I'd get far more entertainment from LPC meetings...  ;D

Altair - what kind of coffee do you guys serve?


----------



## Altair (15 Oct 2015)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I had been planning to join the CPC in the near future. Based on this thread though, I think I'd get far more entertainment from LPC meetings...  ;D
> 
> Altair - what kind of coffee do you guys serve?


Don't know, I've never been.

I have a job and a family to take care of to devote too much time to the second oldest profession.


----------



## Lumber (15 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It's funny, but Tories aren't comparing Trudeau to Vladamir Lenin, but Liberals/NDPers are quite content at Hitler comparisons on an hourly basis. The double standard you've brainwashed yourself into is simply amazing.



And that right there has nothing at all to do with what Altair was saying. 

A large portion of the left is not voting based economic policies or promises of social programs; they're voting based on morals and ethics. Even if they have read and understand the various party platforms, many are so incensed with Harper that they don't even care if they agree with his policies, they're still going to vote him out. They don't care that what our economy will look like after the Liberals get a few years at the trough; they just want someone they think is going to be more fair, just, open and honest than Harper. I find that admirable, but laughable; I've said several times here I don't expect any of the politicians to be much different from one another.


----------



## cavalryman (15 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> A large portion of the left is not voting based economic policies or promises of social programs; they're voting based on morals and ethics emotions and not rational thought.


FIFY  ;D


----------



## Lumber (15 Oct 2015)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> FIFY  ;D



Is there really a difference?


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2015)

There is, of course, also a big change in the _Globe and Mail_'s Election Forecast:

With five days to go there is a ...

35% chance that the Conservatives get the most seats

0.2% chance that the NDP gets the most seats

67% chance that the Liberals get the most seats

And

14% chance that the Green party gets more than one seat

2% chance that all three parties win 100 seats or more

6% chance that any party gets a majority


----------



## GAP (15 Oct 2015)

I am wondering if these polls are missing  a huge segment of their audience.

They are phoning landlines, not everybody now-a-days uses a landline. There are an awful lot of cell only households out there......


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Oct 2015)

From my viewpoint, this election boils down to two things:

1. Has the 10 year media led Harper HaterTM campaign been effective?  and

2. Do we want or need to spend more money we don't have for questionable gain?

My guess is that both those questions will be answered in the affirmative.


----------



## Jed (15 Oct 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> From my viewpoint, this election boils down to two things:
> 
> 1. Has the 10 year media led Harper HaterTM campaign been effective?  and
> 
> ...



Most on point comment for the week.


----------



## Altair (15 Oct 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> From my viewpoint, this election boils down to two things:
> 
> 1. Has the 10 year media led Harper HaterTM campaign been effective?  and
> 
> ...


I'm sure that Harper and his government have more to do with this result than the media.


----------



## Altair (15 Oct 2015)

Your 308.com update as of Oct 15.


Liberals - 35.6% (140)
Cons - 30.4 (110)
NDP - 23.8% (86)
BQ - 4.8% (1)
Green - 4.6% (1)

Seems to be underestimating the bloc a bit. I would expect them to get at least 4 or 5 seats.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm sure that Harper and his government have more to do with this result than the media.




Yep, they've run us right into the ground, haven't they? Our reputation lies in tatters ... and then there's this, so I guess we really need change, don't we?


----------



## Altair (15 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Yep, they've run us right into the ground, haven't they? Our reputation lies in tatters ... and then there's this, so I guess we really need change, don't we?


 Oh, definitely.

My issues with the CPC and harper are the following. 

Responding to every question in question period with canned talking points.

Negative, personal and dishonest political advertising.

Complete disregard for the media.

Closed, secretive style of government.

Using taxpayer dollars for economic action plan ads that might as well have CPC logos all over it.

The muzzling of scientists 

The cold calculated courting of 40 percent of Canadians that gets them the majorities they want while completing disregarding the other 60 percent of Canadians. 

Pierre poilievre 

Respected I'm the world? Great. Maybe he should have spent some time trying to get the respect of Canadians. 70 percent of people want change. His party is at 30 percent in the polls. I see a correlation.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Oct 2015)

So sad to see that the gains we have made in the economy (wealthiest middle class, recovery from the recession, balanced budget), foreign policy (free trade agreements with the EU and the TPP, Canada becoming a real "middle power" again) and even getting provinces back into their boxes to administer provincial matters are going to be discarded in essentially a fit of spite. I see having to undergo another very long period of rebuilding in the future, starting from a very much smaller foundation as we go back to an orgy of unproductive spending, popularity contests and pandering.

Enjoy what you sow, becasue you will eventually reap the harvest. I feel most for my children and yours (if any) since they will be the ones bearing the burdens placed upon them by this generation. Weighing them down even more is cruelty.


----------



## Altair (15 Oct 2015)

There has been a history of conservatives underestimating trudeau. Been wrong every time.

I guess trudeau and his team will do just fine.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2015)

Not everyone will  trust the _Canadian Taxpayers' federation_, but here is their analysis of the spending promises of the three major parties:






Source: http://www.taxpayer.com/news-releases/ctf-releases-final-2015-election-spending-tracker

Now, I'm actually not too worried, once M Trudeau and his cabinet meet with the professionals in the senior ranks of the public service, the _Mandarins_, and get a look at the books then I expect that many, Many, MANY LPC promises will go the way of Jean Chrétien's promises to renegotiate the NAFTA and cancel the GST ... oh, I suspect that, like Jean Chrétien, M Trudeau will keep a few promises: kiss the F-35 good-bye.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> There has been a history of conservatives underestimating trudeau. Been wrong every time.
> 
> I guess trudeau and his team will do just fine.




_I think_ the Conservatives have correctly presented M Trudeau's strengths and weaknesses. _I also think_ that M Trudeau's _handlers_ have used him very well, as a former high-school drama teacher he is adequately equipped to be a _sock puppet_ for Premier Wynne's acolytes, and I agree that he's doing "just fine" at that.

The Conservatives set the performance bar too low; that was an error. M Trudeau may, indeed, be "Just Not Ready" but the Liberal Party's campaign apparatus, _Team Chrétien_, etc, are more than able to make him look good enough, "ready" enough.

Canadians want change, I get that. Canadians are voting for change; it is very much like the 2009 Nobel Peace prize: did President Obama do anything to earn it? No, of course not, he got it for not being George W Bush, that the Nobel Committee thought, was enough ... M Trudeau might be made Prime Minister of Canada just for not being Stephen Harper.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Oct 2015)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I had been planning to join the CPC in the near future. Based on this thread though, I think I'd get far more entertainment from LPC meetings...  ;D
> 
> Altair - what kind of coffee do you guys serve?



Kool- Aid. They drink the Kool-Aid.


----------



## dimsum (15 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Canadians want change, I get that. Canadians are voting for change; it is very much like the 2009 Nobel Peace prize: did President Obama do anything to earn it? No, of course not, he got it for not being George W Bush, that the Nobel Committee thought, was enough ... *M Trudeau might be made Prime Minister of Canada just for not being Stephen Harper.
> *



I will put $ on this - those who have elected the Liberals (or the NDP) to put in "anyone but Harper" will get a massive shock when campaign promises hit fiscal/"realpolitik" reality.  If they end up lasting more than a term, there will be a "Throw Trudeau" or "Stomp Tom" campaign to equal the "Stop Harper" one going now.

I almost want to see this - but then again I'm a cynic.


----------



## Altair (15 Oct 2015)

Perhaps harper should have stepped down two years ago like pundits were saying instead of listening to his ego and trying to destroy trudeau and the liberal party.

Maybe then the chorus of change wouldn't have been so loud. But as Mr Bonaparte once said, Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (15 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Responding to every question in question period with canned talking points.
> Negative, personal and dishonest political advertising.
> Complete disregard for the media.
> Closed, secretive style of government.
> ...



Watch CBC much?

Apparently La Presse is reporting that the Manchild chooses to file his income tax return in Ontario to save cash.  I bet les Quebecois will love that.  He pays no income tax to Quebec.  

I got it off a blog and can't make the link work.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Oct 2015)

No I disagree. The ABC and heave Steve crowd don't know and don't care about policy.  

They are lemmings. 




			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> I will put $ on this - those who have elected the Liberals (or the NDP) to put in "anyone but Harper" will get a massive shock when campaign promises hit fiscal/"realpolitik" reality.  If they end up lasting more than a term, there will be a "Throw Trudeau" or "Stomp Tom" campaign to equal the "Stop Harper" one going now.
> 
> I almost want to see this - but then again I'm a cynic.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Oct 2015)

I rest my case. 



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> Perhaps harper should have stepped down two years ago like pundits were saying instead of listening to his ego and trying to destroy trudeau and the liberal party.
> 
> Maybe then the chorus of change wouldn't have been so loud. But as Mr Bonaparte once said, Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> There has been a history of conservatives underestimating trudeau. Been wrong every time.
> 
> I guess trudeau and his team will do just fine.



I'm of the belief that your glasses are more of the Stevie Wonder type than Rose coloured.   I do hope your pride won't be too gravely wounded if your messiah has feet of clay one day.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2015)

There may be some good news. In the _Ottawa Citizen_ there is speculation that, amongst other things, the Memorial to the Victims of Communism might be scrapped, early on, something that would please me ... the so-called Military Memorial Route (connecting Cartier Square to the War Museum) which includes the Navy memorial and the proposed Afghanistan Memorial and memorial to VC Winners might also be quietly shelved.








                              The proposed Memorial to the Victims of Communism   and   the Richmond Landing site, proposed home of the Afghanistan and VC
                                       to be on the front lawn of the Supreme Court                                                                             Memorials


----------



## Altair (15 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'm of the belief that your glasses are more of the Stevie Wonder type than Rose coloured.   I do hope your pride won't be too gravely wounded if your messiah has feet of clay one day.


If Mr Trudeau one day grows old, tired, corrupt, and fresh out of ideas I will park my vote elsewhere. 

If he gets as vindictive, petty, negative and dishonest I will park my vote elsewhere.

But as of right now,  IMHO,  harper is all of those things and he needs to go. Seems like Canadians think so as well.


----------



## dimsum (15 Oct 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> No I disagree. The ABC and heave Steve crowd don't know and don't care about policy.
> 
> They are lemmings.



Agreed, but when taxes and/or deficit go up and those same people are complaining, that crowd will look like complete fools.  

As for the disregard for the media - I wonder how it would have played out if another party was in power during the heyday of social media, MSM bias notwithstanding?  I think the various LPC scandals, etc would have caused more outrage.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Perhaps harper should have stepped down two years ago like pundits were saying instead of listening to his ego and trying to destroy trudeau and the liberal party.
> 
> Maybe then the chorus of change wouldn't have been so loud. But as Mr Bonaparte once said, Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake *pulling a Chrétien*.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2015)

Anthony Furey, writing in the _Toronto Sun_ offers us The Truth About Trudeau, which, he says, is "how shockingly inexperienced Trudeau is for someone seeking to lead our country."

Other Liberals, Mt Furey says, "have seriously impressive credentials. Trudeau is the least accomplished person on his own team. Yet he’s going to be the one calling the shots? It makes no sense."

"This isn’t just me talking," Mr Furey says, "Nor is this some Conservative smear. During the 2013 Liberal leadership I walked about the room, chatting with party bigwigs. “Really?!” was pretty much the only question I put to them. They mostly shrugged, acknowledging that the selection of Trudeau was about name recognition and style over substance."  :nod:

They, the Liberal "bigwigs" picked him, for their own reasons. We, the people of a G7 nation, are likely to get him.


----------



## MARS (15 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Oh, definitely.
> 
> My issues with the CPC and harper are the following.
> 
> ...



I don't see a single policy issue anywhere there.  Question period is nothing more than a game of sound bites - and has been since forever - so what are you really expecting from that?  Negative ads - well, thats advertising for you.  It is, by its very nature, no matter what form it takes or what "product" is being pushed - deceptive.  The media??  really?  Pierre pollevre??  a single person?

you write very well articulated arguments here but wow man, you can't find a single policy issue?  All of your grief is about the politics of the thing?  Thats so shallow.  Lemmings, for sure.

and are you really certain that a Liberal government is going to be 180 degrees from this? That is what you are voting FOR?  That they won't use taxpayer dollars to fund their own ads for their own platforms?  That PM Trudeau is going to stand up in question period and go off script? really?? c'mon Altair - you can NOT be that naive, man.  seriously...really?

so much wow...


----------



## dimsum (15 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Anthony Furey, writing in the _Toronto Sun_ offers us The Truth About Trudeau, which, he says, is "how shockingly inexperienced Trudeau is for someone seeking to lead our country."
> 
> Other Liberals, Mt Furey says, "have seriously impressive credentials. Trudeau is the least accomplished person on his own team. Yet he’s going to be the one calling the shots? It makes no sense."
> 
> ...



I remember visiting a friend (Canadian now living in the US) while the whole subject of long-term expats losing the vote came up.  He's a liberal supporter but he said, "I'm almost glad that I'm prevented from voting, because I can't in good conscience vote for a party who picked Justin Trudeau over Marc Garneau."


----------



## Altair (15 Oct 2015)

MARS said:
			
		

> I don't see a single policy issue anywhere there.  Question period is nothing more than a game of sound bites - and has been since forever - so what are you really expecting from that?  Negative ads - well, thats advertising for you.  It is, by its very nature, no matter what form it takes or what "product" is being pushed - deceptive.  The media??  really?  Pierre pollevre??  a single person?
> 
> you write very well articulated arguments here but wow man, you can't find a single policy issue?  All of your grief is about the politics of the thing?  Thats so shallow.  Lemmings, for sure.
> 
> ...


There are many liberal party policies that I like more than conservative ones, but that's me being selfish. 

Child care checks help me out more under Trudeau than Harper. 

Tax break helps me out more as well. 

I would definitely enjoy two years post secondary education for my service.

All very selfish and I concede that harpers plan may help others far more than trudeau's. 

But in all honesty,  if someone other than Harper ran the party, a peter McKay or Brad wall they would at least be on my radar.


----------



## Jed (15 Oct 2015)

Hey Altair, Did you ever listen to Tom T. Hall's song 'Faster horses, younger women and more money' ?


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Using taxpayer dollars for economic action plan ads that might as well have CPC logos all over it.



Like one of Trudeau's senior advisors does with Ontario citizens' taxes?


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Oct 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Like one of Trudeau's senior advisors does with Ontario citizens' taxes?



Or these people, who Trudeau thinks are sound fiscal managers of Ontario: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ontario-liberals-gas-plants-scandal-everything-you-need-to-know/article23668386/


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Oct 2015)

> "how shockingly inexperienced Trudeau Obama is for someone seeking to lead our country."


----------



## Remius (15 Oct 2015)

To be fair Altair has some valid points.  Partisan feelings tends to blind some on all sides.

The CPC has made mistakes this campaign.  So some of this current situation is of their own doing.  

1. They are tired and frankly uninspiring.  This is normal after 10 years.  I agree with Mr. Campbell that the party needs renewing.

2. They have an incumbent issue in that many familiar names are not running this time.  

3. They are hiding their candidates.  When you have the problem listed in point 2, hiding your newer faces makes it hard for the electorate to connect.  Take the NCR.  Abdi, Balkison, Wang.  Nobody knows who they are because they haven't been speaking, giving interviews or participating in local debates.  This is playing the same way elsewhere. 

4. They did too good a job attacking Trudeau.  They've been doing it since he became leader.  Expectations were very low.  Trudeau not only entered the campaign prepared he came in on the offensive.  The Trudeau in this campaign is not the same one from a year ago.  He was underestimated by both Harper and Mulcair (Mulcair said he would wipe the floor with him, clearly he hasn't.)

5. They were and are still hoping for a vote split.  It is looking like that isn't going to happen and they don't really have another plan in case someone took a significant lead or drop.

6. Long campaign.  This is probably the biggest mistake.  While strategically, trying to outspend their opponents might have seemed like a good idea, it unfortunately didn't take into account the electorate getting sick of the campaign.  When people are sick of something, the prospect of change becomes more appealing.  Plus the Liberals and NDP kept their powder dry until it counted. It also gave a lot of time for everyone and their uncle to attack them. 

7. Marginalising certain groups.  I get that.  Some groups or sections of the electorate will never vote CPC.  So why even try to cater to them. CPC policies and politics are aimed specifically at their base and other groups that share their values.  So nothing for youth who traditionally don't vote, nothing for Atlantic Canada, nothing for certain ethnic groups or rather policies to appeal to certain groups at the expense of others.  This works well when you have a split electorate but when something like ABC takes form, and people might vote strategically, this plan doesn't work so well.

8. Boycotting the consortium debates.  I think it was a mistake.  Stephen Harper in my view performed well in the debates. Sadly no one saw them. The consortium debates would have garnered more attention.

9. The contrast between The leaders.  I think Trudeau is the only one who got it right. He is front and centre in most of his ads.  While he attacks he also presents what he will do (even if it is light).  the ads cater to his stronger qualities.  Stephen Harper waited to long to be front and centre. His ads were actors or scripted supporters and mostly attack and nothing real to offer.  Mulcair should have stayed off the air as he comes across creepy and should have had more generic ads.

This last week is reeking of desperation. The attack ads are bordering on the ridiculous.  The cash machine gig is in my mind silly.  And I'm not sure that the Fords was such a good idea.  

So yes.  While there are many factors that have led to where we are, the CPC has its share of the blame.

Of course Election Day and jittery voters may change all of this.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Oct 2015)

> Responding to every question in question period with canned talking points.
> Negative, personal and dishonest political advertising.
> Complete disregard for the media.
> Closed, secretive style of government.
> ...



I suppose in a way it makes sense.  You read and hear about these things: the outbursts of temper in private that un-nerve most staffers and leave the unhardened ones near or in tears; the tight control on access granted to media; the constant on-message discipline; the demand for unwavering personal loyalty; the constant repetition of talking points; the impression that rules are for others and disregard for customary government practices; the stonewalling and denial of the least sign of impropriety let alone potential genuine corruption or illegality; treatment of people who support other parties as if they are an "enemy"; the wooden public persona; careful guarding and hoarding and obfuscation of information that might shed some truths; a closed and secretive nature about everything; etc.

And yet in spite of all that, in the primary and general most progressives and a large number of centrists are going to pull the lever for Hillary, which says something about the ethics and motives of all of those voters.

I don't believe the explanations of anyone who climbs on the high horse to denounce Harper's character flaws and use those to rationalize a voting choice.   Adrian Dix should never have been elected party leader if the same flaws and hypocrisies did not exist in all factions.  ABC is a collective temper tantrum organized and fanned by people angry that Harper united the right; angry that he bumped out Paul Martin and two more leaders; angry that he defeated the coalition-that-could-not-be; angry that he won a majority; but mostly: angry that he took away a bunch of rice bowls.

The LPC are off to a fine premature start - they'll meet with (private) industry figures to start planning some energy policy, but won't meet with the (public) PCO to go over the TPP.


----------



## Altair (15 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I suppose in a way it makes sense.  You read and hear about these things: the outbursts of temper in private that un-nerve most staffers and leave the unhardened ones near or in tears; the tight control on access granted to media; the constant on-message discipline; the demand for unwavering personal loyalty; the constant repetition of talking points; the impression that rules are for others and disregard for customary government practices; the stonewalling and denial of the least sign of impropriety let alone potential genuine corruption or illegality; treatment of people who support other parties as if they are an "enemy"; the wooden public persona; careful guarding and hoarding and obfuscation of information that might shed some truths; a closed and secretive nature about everything; etc.
> 
> And yet in spite of all that, in the primary and general most progressives and a large number of centrists are going to pull the lever for Hillary, which says something about the ethics and motives of all of those voters.
> 
> ...


If it makes you feel any better I hate Hillary Clinton. She's everything I hate in a politician. 

I'm not angry because harper took away my rice bowl. In fact, if the CPC had a more inclusive man or woman at the helm, less divisive leader, the LPC and CPC platforms would be a toss up for me. There are some thing I like in both. 

But when you cannot stand the man who leads the party for the reasons I have stated earlier, I become part of the ABC and my choices are NDP or LPC. 

Looking at the platforms, I much prefer LPC. 

My hope is that if the CPC loses on election day, they take some time and reflect on what went wrong. Work on improving. What I hope they do not do is what you and a bunch of others are doing. Blaming external forces for this. The media is not to blame, the electorate is not stupid and ignorant, this isn't a massive temper tantrum. 

The CPC needs to have a aar and figure out that the vision of Canada that they offered isn't resonating with Canadians.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> If it makes you feel any better I hate Hillary Clinton. She's everything I hate in a politician.
> 
> I'm not angry because harper took away my rice bowl. In fact, if the CPC had a more inclusive man or woman at the helm, less divisive leader, the LPC and CPC platforms would be a toss up for me. There are some thing I like in both.
> 
> ...


----------



## TwoTonShackle (16 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Altair said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Altair (16 Oct 2015)

^^^^That guy.


----------



## Lumber (16 Oct 2015)

Remius said:
			
		

> 9. The contrast between The leaders.  I think Trudeau is the only one who got it right. He is front and centre in most of his ads.  While he attacks he also presents what he will do (even if it is light).  the ads cater to his stronger qualities.  Stephen Harper waited to long to be front and centre. His ads were actors or scripted supporters and mostly attack and nothing real to offer.  Mulcair should have stayed off the air as he comes across creepy and should have had more generic ads.



I don't have cable, so I only get political ads over the radio. However, I was actually very pleased with Steven Harper's daily radio ads. He'd have a new one everyday, and I felt they were very candid and honest. Most refreshingly, they were not attack ads in any way.


----------



## observor 69 (16 Oct 2015)

Lynton Crosby ditches Harper's flailing campaign

By Fram Dinshaw in News, Politics | October 15th 2015

Australian master strategist Lynton Crosby has reportedly abandoned Stephen Harper's campaign, just four days before Canadians choose their next government, according to a ThinkPol report.

Crosby's apparent departure could not have come at a worse time for Harper, who is falling behind in the polls to Justin Trudeau's Liberals. The prime minister is facing widespread criticism for for speaking at a Toronto rally on Tuesday with scandal-plagued ex-Toronto mayor Rob Ford in attendance, who has previously admitted using illegal drugs including crack.

But Crosby's business partner, Mark Textor, has recently been ramping up efforts to distance his partner from Harper's campaign, a full month after reports that Crosby was hired by the Conservatives.

At time of writing, Crosby's supposed whereabouts could not be confirmed by those in the know, but Twitter users have already swung into action, many of whom are mocking both Crosby and Harper online under the #notincanada hashtag.

However, this hashtag was set up by Textor to demonstrate that the strategist was not physically in Canada during the election, showcasing him admiring landscapes or biking and not helping Harper. When Maclean's asked what Crosby's role on the Conservative campaign was, Textor replied, "Nothing."

Right-leaning British blogger Paul Staines, who has written about Crosby under the name Guido Fawkes, told National Observer that he had "no insight" about the strategist's latest activities.

Some suggest that Crosby left Harper's campaign after becoming upset over the prime minister's decision to seek backing from both Rob Ford and his brother Doug, widely seen as a last-ditch gambit to retain power.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2015/10/15/news/lynton-crosby-ditches-harpers-flailing-campaign


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (16 Oct 2015)

Ladies and gentlemen, let's all take a deep breath here and relax.  The election hasn't even happened yet and some of you are already feeling defeated.  

Polling doesn't mean anything, its only uses are swaying public opinion and getting different media outlets airtime.  An election isn't a baseball game, it's a one off event, so I'd wager that stats don't really matter that much and we may be very surprised come election night.  

Every political party has a fairly solid base they are working from so the election will be close but nothing is out of the realm of possibility, even someone getting a majority, despite what the pollsters say.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2015)

Two _Globe and Mail_ journalists speculate on what some of the fiscal outcomes _might_ be like _IF_ (you're right Drew, It ain't over till it's over) the Liberals win, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/what-the-liberals-economic-plan-would-mean-for-canada/article26838610/


> What a Liberal victory would mean for Canada's economic policies
> 
> BILL CURRY AND BARRIE MCKENNA
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> ...




Of course, Messers Curry and McKenna assume that the Liberals plan to actually keep most of their promises ... my own, personal political memory, which goes back over a half century, says that's highly unlikely ... even prime ministers, like Diefenbaker and Mulroney, who won HUGE, historic majorities, and those like Jean Chrétien who won majority after majority kept relatively few election promises. Expecting M Trudeau to be any different is to assume that he will bring us roses and lollipops flavoured with unicorn farts.

If (still a Great BIG _IF_) M Trudeau wins a majority he will have to contend with a caucus that is all over the map from fiscal conservatives, like Scott Brison, through silk stocking socialists, like himself, to socialite _Manhattan Rosedale Marxists_ like Chrystia Freeland, and with a civil service that is _conservative_, which is to say cautious, in matters of economic and foreign policy and very _progressive_ in social and legal matters.

If he wins a minority then he must, of course, barter for support from (most likely) the NDP or (less likely, but quite possible on e.g. the TPP) the CPC.

My _guess_, IF M Trudeau wins:

     1. The TPP gets agreed ~ the civil service _Mandarins_ are, overwhelmingly, free traders. His own party's senior hierarchy is much the same;

     2. the F-35 gets cancelled ~ just like the EH-101 that Prime Minister Chrétien cancelled in 1993, keeping a visible campaign promise (one about which almost no one cared but one about which he could say:  "promise made, promise kept");

     3. The HST/GST stays the same. The TFSA contribution limits are rolled back. Some minor changes are made to both some tax brackets and to some of the _boutique tax breaks_ Prime Minister Harper has introduced;

     4. We stay "engaged" in the Middle East, for good or ill, much as now ~ CF-18s bombing and, broadly, solid, but less vocal and/or visible, support for Israel; and

     5. The defence budget stagnates.


----------



## Lumber (16 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My _guess_, IF M Trudeau wins:
> 
> 1. The TPP gets agreed ~ the civil service _Mandarins_ are, overwhelmingly, free traders. His own party's senior hierarchy is much the same;
> 
> ...



So my day to day life is going remain essentially the same and I won't practically notice that the governing party has changed?

Gosh I love living in Canada.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Ladies and gentlemen, let's all take a deep breath here and relax.  The election hasn't even happened yet and some of you are already feeling defeated.
> 
> Polling doesn't mean anything, its only uses are swaying public opinion and getting different media outlets airtime.  An election isn't a baseball game, it's a one off event, so I'd wager that stats don't really matter that much and we may be very surprised come election night.
> 
> Every political party has a fairly solid base they are working from so the election will be close but nothing is out of the realm of possibility, even someone getting a majority, despite what the pollsters say.




Another _Ekos_ poll, showing a slight, marginal, tightening of the race:





Source: http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/marginally-significant-narrowing-of-liberal-lead/


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As expected, Canada's largest and arguably most influential newspaper, the _Toronto Star_, has endorsed Justin Trudeau as their choice to be our next prime minister.
> 
> The _Star_ says, "Canadians are a decent, progressive people who deserve a decent, progressive government that holds out the prospect of a better and more constructive future. [and] Fortunately, when they go to the polls on Oct. 19 voters will be able to choose a strong, hopeful alternative to the Harper Conservatives: Justin Trudeau and the Liberal party. They have crafted an alternative vision for the country that deserves the support of those who believe Canada can be more generous, more ambitious and more successful."




The endorsements will be coming thick and fast now, and they will not all be for M Trudeau. The _Edmonton Journal_, for example, says that "The choice, still, is Harper" in an editorial that goes on to say, "the bottom line remains the bottom line [and, therefore] Now more than ever, we need a “moderate and sensible” economic plan for Canada, which is what Harper’s Tories have promised, and delivered, for the last 10 years. And why we are endorsing them again in 2015."


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The endorsements will be coming thick and fast now, and they will not all be for M Trudeau. The _Edmonton Journal_, for example, says that "The choice, still, is Harper" in an editorial that goes on to say, "the bottom line remains the bottom line [and, therefore] Now more than ever, we need a “moderate and sensible” economic plan for Canada, which is what Harper’s Tories have promised, and delivered, for the last 10 years. And why we are endorsing them again in 2015."




And, of local interest to me, the _Ottawa Citizen_ also endorses Ptime Minister harpewr Conservatives, despite polling that indicates that _Ottawans_ really want _change_.

I, pretty much, share the _Citizen_'s view when its editorial says:

     "There is a lot to be unhappy about, after nine years of Harper rule. He has picked political fights with major pillars of our democratic system – Elections Canada, the judiciary, officers of parliament – for no obvious reason
      apart from the fact that they appear to stand in his way. Under his watch there were unreasonably high levels of moral and even criminal corruption among some of those closest to him. He has indulged his MPs in their quest to make
      a mockery of Question Period.

      Nevertheless, there are two serious issues facing Canada right now: Ongoing economic uncertainty, and an increasingly unstable situation in the Middle East. In the face of the worst economic downturn in a generation, Harper has made
      sure that Canada remains on secure economic footing, something both his opponents’ plans put at risk. When it comes to confronting ISIL and the threat of global terror more generally, only the Conservatives are prepared to treat the
      matter with the strength of conviction it deserves.

      When you look at the Conservatives’ record, it is clear that the problem is not with their actual agenda, but with the manner in which they have chosen to go about implementing it. Strip away the hard partisanship and chip-on-the-shoulder
      populism, what remains is a government that has presided over a prosperous and united Canada in the face of powerful countervailing forces. For this alone, Stephen Harper and the Conservatives deserve to be returned to power
      on October 19."


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Oct 2015)

Conduct, not content...absolutely.  :nod:

Maybe the Citizen will keep real-time track of how many promises JT, if elected, breaks?


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2015)

David Akin, _Sun News_, has a new _Predictionator_ ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          ... which is pretty consistent with everyone else, but he cautions that:

          "... a lot of little things could move this way and that way in regions across the country where the outcome is still very much in doubt. And even tiny moves of voter sentiment in, say the Lower Mainland in British Columbia,
          could make a big difference in terms of who the Official Opposition is and maybe even which party forms the government. And then there’s the voter turnout story. Younger voters — who don’t vote — love the Liberals.
          Older voters — who do vote — love the Conservatives. If voter turnout is down among older voters and voter turnout improves with the under-35 crowd well then …

          So that’s Predictionator’s view. Many of the country’s newspapers have other views.

          The national editorial for my chain, Sun Media,  endorses the Conservatives:

               "We urge you to vote for the leader and party you believe is best qualified to lead Canada.

                 On that basis, we endorse Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.

                 Harper successfully led Canada through the worst recession since the Great Depression, emerging in better shape than almost any other developed country."

          The Ottawa Citizen today also endorses Harper . . .

          … as does the Vancouver Sun.

          … and the Edmonton Journal."


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2015)

For those who think the Liberal leopard can change its spots ...







Gerry Lougheed Jr., Ontario Liberal fundraiser, charged in Sudbury byelection scandal
*Lougheed to 'vigorously' defend 2 charges, including unlawfully influencing or negotiating appointments*
CBC News Posted: Sep 24, 2015

And this ...





Perry Lougheed Jr. is also a fundraiser for the Trudeau campaign ...

Mr Lougheed's biography, from the Greater Sudbury Police Board, which he (still) chairs:

GERRY M. LOUGHEED JR. Biography

     Gerry Lougheed Jr. was appointed the Greater Sudbury Police Services Board as a Provincial Member in February 2011 and was reappointed for a further three-year term in 2014.  Gerry was elected as Board Chair for 2015.

     Mr. Lougheed is the Funeral Director and President of Lougheed's Limited. He is the founding President of the Rotary Club of Sudbury Sunrisers and founding Chairperson of the Sudbury Regional Palliative Care Association, the
     Bereavement Foundation of Sudbury, and the Northern Cancer Research Foundation. He is also the Co-Chair of Workplace Fatalities Bill of Rights Committee.

     Gerry has been appointed to many honorary positions and memberships. He has received the Queen's Jubilee Award, Order of Ontario and an honorary Doctorate of Sacred Letters, was named man of the Millennium for the
     Sudbury & District Multicultural Association, and is the recipient of the Order of the Lion of Finland.  He has been host of Shining Lights CJTK Radio Program since 2009. He has been a Columnist for South Side Story since 1993.
     He has been a speaker at many local and national conferences on the power of the individual in making a difference.

     Gerry is known for his incredible generosity, philanthropic spirit, and commitment to giving back. He is the most successful charity fundraiser in Northern Ontario and has lead successful campaigns totalling well over 100 million dollars
     for the Sudbury Regional Hospital, Northeastern Ontario Regional Cancer Centre, St. Joseph's Villa, Maison Vale Inco Hospice, Northern Ontario Medical School Bursaries, Canadian Cancer Society, Easter Seals, and many other worthy organizations.

     As a well-respected civic leader, Mr. Lougheed has had a significant impact on addressing issues, influencing change, and leaving a lasting legacy on setting new community directions. His courage and commitment to tackle
     challenges is unwavering and compelling in his approach to making a difference.


_Plus ça change_ and all that ...


----------



## Lumber (16 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> For those who think the Liberal leopard can change its spots ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



In other related news, some guy, some where, who donated money to Federal Liberal party (i.e he raised funds), was arrested on some charge or another for doing something illegal. As a result, we can all assume that the Liberal party as a whole and Trudeau in particular are a bunch of crooks as well.

... 

All :sarcasm: aside, I'm not saying the Liberals _aren't _ crooks, just that I can't stand how we associated the actions of individuals with the party as a whole, or it's leader, which is exactly what they're trying to do doing right now.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> In other related news, some guy, some where, who donated money to Federal Liberal party (i.e he raised funds), was arrested on some charge or another for doing something illegal. As a result, we can all assume that the Liberal party as a whole and Trudeau in particular are a bunch of crooks as well.
> 
> ...
> 
> All :sarcasm: aside, I'm not saying the Liberals _aren't _ crooks, just that *I can't stand how we associated the actions of individuals with the party as a whole, or it's leader, which is exactly what they're trying to do doing right now.*



Oh, for the Liberals...I thought you meant about the CPC leader...


----------



## TwoTonShackle (16 Oct 2015)

I'm sure if the CPC was leading in the polls and looking poised to win the election (minority or majority), many LPC, NDP and ABC supporters would be frustrated and showing whatever information they could to persuade people.  Anyone following this thread knows where Mr. Campbell loyalties lie.  I can completely associate with his frustrations, as they are most likely the same frustrations I felt last election.

Hopefully the trend of increased voter turn out continues into our future and more Canadians take an active interest in our political system and government officials.  All employees must be held accountable to their employers, and this is something most of the public seems to willingly ignore in politics.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Oct 2015)

Oh, no.  As long as it starts with an "H", its fair game to kick, spit, slam, slur, debase.....  in all other cases, it's  considered guilt by association, which isn't fair game.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Hmm, how things change:
> 
> Yesterday: "Earlier in the day, when the Canadian Press first broke the story, the Liberals stood by
> Gagnier, saying he did not break any ethical standards." (_Ottawa Citizen_)
> ...





			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> For those who think the Liberal leopard can change its spots ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If anyone thinks that Mr Trudeau is going to change how the libs work in the back room, they are mistaken. J Trudeau is a puppet front for the Laurentides in the back.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Oct 2015)

From the Halifax Chronicle Herald's Bruce MacKinnon today.  Enjoy, or not.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorial-cartoon/2015-10-16-editorial-cartoon


----------



## Lumber (16 Oct 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Oh, for the Liberals...I thought you meant about the CPC leader...



It bothers me no matter the party we're talking about. People actually associate the Senate expense scandal with Harper, despite the fact that Liberal senators are being investigated for having spent as much if not more than the Conservative senators. People were issued incorrect voter information cards, and suddenly it's all Harper's fault because of his Fair Elections Act. 



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Oh, no.  As long as it starts with an "H", its fair game to kick, spit, slam, slur, debase.....  in all other cases, it's  considered guilt by association, which isn't fair game.



While I don't think either of these is _right_, I think this it's reflective of the nature and structure of each party.

PM Harper has consolidated his power in the PMO. He handicaps his Cabinet Ministers and gags his back bench. So, naturally, you attack the source of the power, which is Harper.

Mr. Trudeau and the Liberals, on the other hand, operate much differently. While I disagree about how much of a puppet Trudeau is (I'd say less than most of you think, but I can't qualify that statement so don't ask me to!), I do agree that their power structure is a lot more distributed than in the CPC, with many non-public politicians influencing the party from the back room; there is no single person pulling the strings. So you attack it from many angles, such as guilt by association.


----------



## Jed (16 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> It bothers me no matter the party we're talking about. People actually associate the Senate expense scandal with Harper, despite the fact that Liberal senators are being investigated for having spent as much if not more than the Conservative senators. People were issued incorrect voter information cards, and suddenly it's all Harper's fault because of his Fair Elections Act.
> 
> While I don't think either of these is _right_, I think this it's reflective of the nature and structure of each party.
> 
> ...



I think this is a mistaken belief. What evidence , if any, led you to that conclusion or are you just going with your Gut?


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And, of local interest to me, the _Ottawa Citizen_ also endorses Ptime Minister harpewr Conservatives, despite polling that indicates that _Ottawans_ really want _change_.
> 
> I, pretty much, share the _Citizen_'s view when its editorial says:
> 
> ...




I'm not planning on sharing every endorsement, but I think the _Globe and Mail_'s matters ... the _Good Grey Globe_ is a bit nuanced: "The Tories deserve another mandate - Stephen Harper doesn't".

The _Globe and Mail_ says:

    "All elections are choices among imperfect alternatives, and this one more than most. Each of the parties has gaps, deficiencies and failings. But choose, voters must.
      ...
      Over the course of this long campaign, Mr. Trudeau did well to market himself to the country. But beyond the selfies and the smiles, the substance has proved difficult to find. Mr. Trudeau’s has been a skeletal vision and is
      therefore unpersuasive. With Ontario Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne at his side, he would undoubtedly return to a bigger government footprint, and the spectre of waste and debt rears its ugly head. Who would apply
      the brakes if he is handed a majority? If he achieves minority government, Mr. Trudeau will need the NDP on critical economic issues to prevent his government’s collapse. That, together with his inexperience as a leader,
      is a recipe for frailty.
      ...
      Canada needs a change. It also needs the maintenance of many aspects of the economic status quo. What Canada needs, then, is a Conservative government that is no longer the Harper government.

      It is not time for the Conservatives to go. But it is time for Mr. Harper to take his leave. He can look back on parts of his record with pride, but he has undone himself and his party with a narrowness of vision and a meanness
      of spirit on a host of issues ...
      ...
      The Conservatives have been a big tent party in the past, and they must be once again. Fiscally prudent, economically liberal and socially progressive – the party could be all of those things, and it once was. But it won’t be,
      as long as Mr. Harper is at its head. His party deserves to be re-elected. But after Oct. 19, he should quickly resign. The Conservative Party, in government or out, has to reclaim itself from Stephen Harper."


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2015)

Also from the _Globe and Mail_, Jeffrey Simpson offers what I think is a pretty "fair and balanced" analysis of the campaign in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper, and suggests, in the final paragraph, that the Conservatives were, in some part, the authors of their own misfortune:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/jeffrey-simpson-campaigns-matter-just-ask-justin-trudeau/article26832637/


> Campaigns matter – just ask Justin Trudeau
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There is, of course, also a big change in the _Globe and Mail_'s Election Forecast:
> 
> With five days to go there is a ...
> 
> ...




The _Globe and Mail's Election Forecast__ is updated, again:

27% chance that the Conservatives get the most seats

0.1% chance that the NDP gets the most seats

74% chance that the Liberals get the most seats

And

13% chance that the Green party gets more than one seat

2% chance that all three parties win 100 seats or more

11% chance that any party gets a majority

-----------------------------------------------------------​
_


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2015)

Jane Taber, writing in the _Globe and Mail_ notes that the NDP have wasted no time jumping on the _Dan Gagnier_ story:


     The Gagnier gift?

     New Democrats wasted no time jumping on the controversy around Dan Gagnier, co-chair of the Liberal campaign, who resigned after advising oil executives how to lobby a new government, including a Liberal one.

     As NDP Leader Tom Mulcair campaigned in Quebec on Thursday, slamming Justin Trudeau over the Gagnier affair, his strategists were busy designing a new series of ads aimed at reminding voters the Liberal Party is still the
     party of lobbyists and patronage. “That’s the old Liberal party,” Mr. Mulcair said repeatedly Thursday, suggesting a connection between Mr. Gagnier’s activities and those of the old-boy Liberal network during the Quebec sponsorship
     scandal. “They’re all about helping themselves.… I’m glad Canadians have a chance to see it before the election.”

     The NDP will make sure of that – their new ads will be on TV and online, according to an NDP war-room strategist who spoke on background. He said the Gagnier affair is “playing very hot” in Quebec, and the hope is that it
     will drive the so-called “progressive vote” to the NDP as Canadians begin to make their final decisions for Monday’s vote.



Edit: format


----------



## Lumber (16 Oct 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> I think this is a mistaken belief. What evidence , if any, led you to that conclusion or are you just going with your Gut?



Mainly just going with my gut. There won't be any evidence (yet) because he's not in power, so we can't see how he operates the PMO and what his relationship will be with his cabinet. However, from the many articles I've read (mainly thanks to E.R. Campbell - thank you), I just see the Liberal party as a whole (and not Trudeau in particular) as a divded party which will play as much Politics with itself as it will with other parties. In the CPC, on the other hand, Harper is without a doubt the strongest voice and the final authority. Maybe I'm wrong and Trudeau will demonstrate the same level of charisma, leadership and gall as his father, but as of right now I feel like his decisions are influenced by his advisors to an extent that is greater than Harper's decisions are by _his_ advisors.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Mainly just going with my gut. There won't be any evidence (yet) because he's not in power, so we can't see how he operates the PMO and what his relationship will be with his cabinet. However, from the many articles I've read (mainly thanks to E.R. Campbell - thank you), I just see the Liberal party as a whole (and not Trudeau in particular) as a divded party which will play as much Politics with itself as it will with other parties. In the CPC, on the hand, Harper is without a doubt the strongest voice and the final authority. Maybe I'm wrong and Trudeau will demonstrate the same level of charisma, leadership and gall as his father, but as of right now I feel like _his decisions are influenced by his advisors to an extent that is greater than Harper's decisions are by his advisors_.




Remember, please, that _if_ he's elected (_pace_ Drew) M Trudeau will have a whole new set of _permanent_ advisors, powerful advisors, the _Mandarins_ in Ottawa in the Privy Council Office (PCO) and in each government department. They do not think like his current, political and campaign advisors, led by Gerald Butts, do ... they are, generally, very wary of Premier Wynne's prescriptions for Ontario, much less for Canada. There will be, as there has been for the last nine years, a constant tension, sometimes outright _war_ between PCO and the PMO (Prime Minister's Office); sometimes the PMO, the political side, will win, but just as often the policy side, the PCO, will prevail.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2015)

There's a somewhat lengthy (but not "subscriber only") survey of 25 key ridings to watch on the _Globe and Mail_'s website.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Oct 2015)

Twitter is having some fun with #otherglobeendorsements and #MoreGlobeEndorsements, after the Good Grey Globe called for a conservative victory, but Harper out as PM.


----------



## Altair (16 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Jane Taber, writing in the _Globe and Mail_ notes that the NDP have wasted no time jumping on the _Dan Gagnier_ story:
> 
> 
> The Gagnier gift?
> ...


I don't think the ABC movement will be swayed by this too much.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If anyone thinks that Mr Trudeau is going to change how the libs work in the back room, they are mistaken. J Trudeau is a puppet front for the Laurentides in the back.
> 
> You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.



Stephen Harper wanted to change governance in Canada.  He wanted a less intrusive government that would do less.

He has demonstrated that he can do less, to the point, some argue, that he does nothing.

Unfortunately that means that the next guy can argue that he is the better candidate because he can do nothing as well.

Trudeau is well qualified.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Oct 2015)

Some might argue, he's rather over qualified for the post in that respect.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (16 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Trudeau is well qualified.



The crowning achievement in his life is as a substitute drama teacher and he doesn't do that well. Whoever taught him to breath needs to be fired.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (16 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> PM Harper has consolidated his power in the PMO. He handicaps his Cabinet Ministers and gags his back bench.



Youth or Alzheimers?  I seem to remember the same thing said of Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, and Jean Chretien.


----------



## Lumber (16 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Youth or Alzheimers?  I seem to remember the same thing said of Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, and Jean Chretien.



And did you hear me throw my support and accolades toward those Prime Ministers? The current or future Prime Ministers  don't get exempt from scrutiny just because past Prime Ministers were guilty of something first.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2015)

It looks like we all be able to see the results, as they are counted, on  the _Elections Canada_ website.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (16 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> The crowning achievement in his life is as a substitute drama teacher and he doesn't do that well. Whoever taught him to breath needs to be fired.



Really?  You are advocating his death?  When it comes time to vote, will you be able to see the ballot through all the foam and spittle coming from your mouth?

Try and raise it up a notch, would you?


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2015)

David Akin, _Sun News_, says, hopefully for Conservatives:

     "Let me quote from latest poll by Angus Reid Institute (most accurate pollster, I might add, in last two elections): "– Election 2015 enters its final weekend with the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) holding
      a four point advantage in popular support over the Conservatives (CPC) among eligible voters. That lead narrows to a statistical tie when the vote intention of likely voters are measured, while in both
      scenarios – the NDP remains stuck in third place and losing momentum."


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Another _Ekos_ poll, showing a slight, marginal, tightening of the race:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And an update on the _Ekos_ rolling poll:





Source: http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/stalemate-continues/

_Ekos_ says:

     [Ottawa – October 16, 2015] As we enter the final weekend before Election Day, vote intentions appear to be settling in. At 34 points, the Liberals hold a marginal lead over the Conservatives who are at 33 points. At 23 points,
     the NDP are well back in terms of popular support, but the rather efficient distribution of their support means they will likely still be looking at a fairly impressive seat count on Monday.

     The Liberals continue to lead in the key battleground of Ontario, although there is some evidence that the race may be narrowing here. Although the NDP maintains its lead in Quebec, the race remains unclear with both the Liberals
     and the Conservatives vying to make gains. The Liberals hold a clear lead in Atlantic Canada, while the Conservatives lead across the Prairies. British Columbia is still very much anyone’s game.

     The Liberals may be peeling back the senior vote from the Conservatives, as the Conservative advantage here has narrowed significantly over the last week. The biggest divide, however, remains education. The Liberals maintain a
     clear lead with university graduates, while the college educated have rallied around the Conservatives.

     To account for those who have already voted, either at an advance poll or by special ballot, we ask Canadians whether they have already voted in this election. Overall, the two groups – those who have already voted and those who
     have not – mirror each other fairly closely in terms of party preference. Nevertheless, the Conservatives hold a slight advantage among early voters; indeed, if the election was called off and the victor determined by ballots
     already cast, the Conservatives would likely eke out a slim minority. Surprisingly, the Green Party fares quite well among early voters, which is highly notable for a party that routinely struggles to get its supporters to turn
     out on Election Day.

     Finally, while we know that the percentage of early voters in our survey is exaggerated due to social desirability and other factors, we note that cellphone users are showing up in comparable numbers to their landline-using counterparts.
     Of those who do not have access to a landline, 23 per cent tell us they have already voted, compared to 26 per cent on average. This is a rather significant finding, as cellphone-only households have historically been less likely to
     vote and we would speculate that this does not bode well for Stephen Harper’s prospects.


----------



## kratz (16 Oct 2015)

Reference: Globe and Mail mocked on Twitter after endorsing Tories but not Harper

After reading this late article, I could help but tweet:



> *@navy_ca *not @army_ca #MoreGlobeEndorsements


   ;D


----------



## Altair (16 Oct 2015)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/harper-wanted-the-niqab-to-divide-and-conquer-but-that-has-backfired/article26844199/?service=mobile



> By pressing the niqab issue, the Conservatives made an enormous strategic mistake. In fact, it was probably the single biggest blunder by any political party in this extraordinary election season. With one political gambit, they destroyed any hope of retaining power and handed the election to the Liberals. But the reasons why the move was such a blunder aren’t yet widely understood.
> 
> At least 10 per cent (and maybe closer to 20 per cent) of the country’s electorate detests the Harper government with passion. These Anybody-But-Harper or “ABH” voters number maybe two million or more people, spread across the country. They’re prepared to vote for either of the two main alternative parties – the NDP or the Liberals – if it means the Conservatives lose office.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Oct 2015)

*BC Liberal candidate Sukh Dhaliwal facing charges under the Income Tax Act*

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2013/02/06/bc-liberal-candidate-sukh-dhaliwal-facing-charges-under-the-income-tax-act/



> I found this story about charges against Sukh Dhaliwal while out at Surrey Provincial Court looking up some other files Wednesday.
> 
> But given that he is being billed as a star candidate for the BC Liberals in the upcoming provincial election, I thought it was an important story to tell.
> 
> ...



Another one : You just can't make this shit up.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Oct 2015)

But Altair wants to talk about Niqabs and how evil Harper is again. We really need to start sweeping these constantly Liberal criminals under the rug like Trudeau is trying to do.


----------



## Altair (17 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> But Altair wants to talk about Niqabs and how evil Harper is again. We really need to start sweeping these constantly Liberal criminals under the rug like Trudeau is trying to do.


Or I can talk about a candidate that peed in a cup.

A lot of candidates have been less than savory this election, for all parties.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Oct 2015)

8)


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Oct 2015)

:rofl:


----------



## Altair (17 Oct 2015)

So much hate.

Will make the CPC loss Monday all the more sweet.


----------



## Jed (17 Oct 2015)

So much stupidity. It makes the world dumber.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Oct 2015)

We gotta lighten up. The thread has been soooooo serious, for soooooo long.

The election is two days away. If you haven't figured who to vote for, nothing is going to change that. Ditto if you know.

Time to have a little fun here for a change.

There's some good cartoons and memes about the other parties out there also.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Oct 2015)

A preference cascade was inevitable; in this case, the NDP stung themselves (cf. frog and scorpion fable).  And people didn't have to find out about it passively - they were waiting and watching for one, hence its rapidity.

What is interesting is that neither the NDP nor LPC could find any issue to move up on.  Neither party had anything attractive enough to move a large block of voters.  Instead, one of them had to find something unattractive to an initially small fraction of voters, and fumble the election over it.

I've written here before about the idea that Harper took "rice bowls" away, and people want them back.  The LPC is not proving me wrong.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Oct 2015)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17GPlyvPKdI


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2015)

The _Ottawa Citizen reports__: "Liberals surging nationally."

The article says that:

    "The poll by Mainstreet Research, conducted Wednesday and Thursday, found that the Liberals had a five-point lead among decided and leaning voters over their nearest rivals, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.

     After a marathon campaign that featured strong debate on issues ranging from the economy to wearing the niqab, Mainstreet’s numbers indicated that the desire for change among the electorate was finding a home in the Liberal
     camp, as support for Tom Mulcair’s NDP faded.

     Among the poll’s main national findings:

          – The Liberals had the support of [size=14pt]38 per cent of Canadian voters who had made up their mind or were leaning in one direction.

          – The governing Conservatives were running second, with 33 per cent of the decided and leaning vote.

          – The NDP was well back, with 21 per cent.

          – The Green party had five per cent, while the Bloc Québécois, running only in Quebec, had four per cent.

     Mainstreet president Quito Maggi said in an interview Friday that if the polling numbers carry through to election day, the Liberals could be on the “razor’s edge” of winning a majority."[/size]


Edited to add:


Here is a graphic view of that Mainstreet data:





Source: https://twitter.com/davidakin

And, same source, confirmation from Léger Marketing:






But: some heartening news for the Conservatives, from Mainstreet:

     "Among those who told pollster they had already voted: #CPC [size=14pt]34.2% | #LPC 33.7% | #NDP 19.5 | #GPC 4.5 (Much like Ekos)"[/size]_


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (17 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> We gotta lighten up. The thread has been soooooo serious, for soooooo long.
> 
> The election is two days away. If you haven't figured who to vote for, nothing is going to change that. Ditto if you know.
> 
> ...



I agree, either way the CAF is going to get boned so lets pick which STD we want and move on  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2015)

For those watching the polls, Darrell Bricker, CEO of _Ipsos_, and co-author, with John Ibbitson of _The Big Shift_ (which makes his suspect in _progressive_ circles) offers these cautions on _Twitter_:

     1. Follow along on what should be making pollsters nervous. Dealing with 2 big issues that aren't really  getting discussed much:

     2. First big issue is weighting to gen pop census. All do it (or say they do). But, doesn't match voting pop which has a different profile;

     3. Better to weight to electorate but this changes every election. If there's big mismatch census/electorate possible source of error; 

     4. Second big issue is that all polls assume 100% turnout. Around 40% won't show up. VERY tough to separate these 2 groups;

     5. Convention in Canada - but almost no place else - is that we report all eligible voters. Usually works, sometimes doesn't; and

     6. If polls miss this time it will be because of meaningful difference between census, electorate; or big difference of turnout by party.

If I understand that, Mr Bricker is saying that most polls may be measuring too many people (mostly young people) who don't vote enough but who do favour the Liberals and NDP, and too few people (mostly older people) who favour the Conservatives. In other words the polls may be _biased_, by simple mathematics, towards the Liberals or, at least, against the CPC.

By how much (if at all)? If the _bias_ is, say, 2 to 5% does that mean the race is a tie?


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Oct 2015)

What is the COA if the LPC and CPC get the same amount of seats?


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2015)

For those who tried the _CBC_'s Vote Compass there is an interesting, interactive page showing Canada's most and least passionate ridings on each of the 30 questions Vote Compass used to determine where you and I sit on the political spectrum.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2015)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> What is the COA if the LPC and CPC get the same amount of seats?



The GG _should_ follow _convention_ ~ there is nothing else to guide him ~ and ask the sitting prime minister (Prime Minister Harper) to carry on and _try_ to secure the confidence of the House of Commons.

If Prime Minister Harper cannot secure the House's confidence then the GG has choices, primarily: _1)_ call another election, hoping that we will make a clearer choice; or _2)_ ask M Trudeau to also _try_ to secure the confidence of the HoC. There are a number of factors, including time between elections, which might influence the GG's choice.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Oct 2015)

Can you imagine if the liberals get in and Trudeau is the PM? The guy looks either stoned or clueless half the time. In the few times I've seen him speak non-choreographed he sounded lost and speaking in circles.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Can you imagine if the liberals get in and Trudeau is the PM? The guy looks either stoned or clueless half the time. In the few times I've seen him speak non-choreographed he sounded lost and speaking in circles.




_If_ he wins, he will be:

     1. Surrounded by a pretty good, solid "front bench" of, mostly, seasoned politicians, many of whom are fiscal conservatives; and

     2. Advised by a strong, smart, professional and unbiased public service, the _Mandarins_, who are neither afraid of nor impressed by politicians and who have the good of the country at heart and in mind. 

                         
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Power may corrupt, as Lord Acton said, but it also (often? usually?) "grows" those who must wield it.


----------



## Scott (17 Oct 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Can you imagine if the liberals get in and Trudeau is the PM? The guy looks either stoned or clueless half the time. In the few times I've seen him speak non-choreographed he sounded lost and speaking in circles.



Is this a necropost from just after the Liberal leadership campaign? 

Worry not, Shiny Pony is just a sock puppet.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2015)

This is one of those "Events, dear boy, events" that worried Prime Minister Harold MacMillan in the UK so many years ago. The questions are:

     1. Is it a big enough _event_? and

     2. Is there time  for its effects to be felt?


----------



## dimsum (17 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This is one of those "Events, dear boy, events" that worried Prime Minister Harold MacMillan in the UK so many years ago. The questions are:
> 
> 1. Is it a big enough _event_? and
> 
> 2. Is there time  for its effects to be felt?



1.  It could be.

2.  I doubt it.  Supporters are firmly entrenched to their party/leader and not the party platforms/policies - for example the ABC and "Stop Harper" campaigns - that by this point, nothing would change their views and votes.  The undecided ones may turn, but I think that by this point, most people would have made up their minds as to who to vote for (or not vote for, as the case may be).  

I think I've mentioned this before, but it would have been interesting if hypothetically Harper dropped out last week or this week, and a new party leader emerged.  What would that have done to the other parties' campaigns (especially the NDP one)?


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> 1.  It could be.
> 
> 2.  I doubt it.  Supporters are firmly entrenched to their party/leader and not the party platforms/policies - for example the ABC and "Stop Harper" campaigns - that by this point, nothing would change their views and votes.  The undecided ones may turn, but I think that by this point, most people would have made up their minds as to who to vote for (or not vote for, as the case may be).
> 
> I think I've mentioned this before, but it would have been interesting if hypothetically Harper dropped out last week or this week, and a new party leader emerged.  What would that have done to the other parties' campaigns (especially the NDP one)?




I'm sure your _almost_ right, but I wonder if the Conservatives and Conservative _leaners_ who are behind the lace curtains because they decided to sit this one out, will, now, want to come out, on Monday, because the whiff of Liberal _corruption_ is still in their nostrils from _circa_ 2005.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _If_ he wins, he will be:
> 
> 1. Surrounded by a pretty good, solid "front bench" of, mostly, seasoned politicians, many of whom are fiscal conservatives; and
> 
> ...



Regardless of what I read here on Tuesday I am pretty sure the pubs will still be open and we will get to do this all over again in four years time.

 :cheers:


----------



## observor 69 (17 Oct 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I think I've mentioned this before, but it would have been interesting if hypothetically Harper dropped out last week or this week, and a new party leader emerged.  What would that have done to the other parties' campaigns (especially the NDP one)?



[Sarcasm on] Someone like Jason Kenny perhaps! [Sarcasm off]


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Oct 2015)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> [Sarcasm on] Someone like Jason Kenny perhaps! [Sarcasm off]



Someone like Peter MacKay would have taken a large chuck out of the Atlantic Red Wave.  Just on math, not counting potential loss of far right to whomever?, that would likely have represented a 30-40 seat net exchange between Libs and Cons.


----------



## Lumber (17 Oct 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Someone like Peter MacKay would have taken a large chuck out of the Atlantic Red Wave.  Just on math, not counting potential loss of far right to whomever?, that would likely have represented a 30-40 seat net exchange between Libs and Cons.



If Peter MacKay were at the helm I'm about 90% sure I'd vote CPC. (or maybe then it would be called PC again...)


----------



## observor 69 (17 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> If Peter MacKay were at the helm I'm about 90% sure I'd vote CPC. (or maybe then it would be called PC again...)



A "Progressive " Conservative party, now that would be a whole new ball game. YES!


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2015)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Someone like Peter MacKay would have taken a large chuck out of the Atlantic Red Wave.  Just on math, not counting potential loss of far right to whomever?, that would likely have represented a 30-40 seat net exchange between Libs and Cons.




There are only 32 seats in all of Atlantic Canada (NL: 7, NS: 11, NB 10 and PEI:4), there are 78 in Quebec, 121 in ON, 62 on the prairies (in AB, SK and MB) and 42 in BC (also 3 in the Territories). _New Canada_, everything West of the Ottawa River, matters more and More and MORE.


----------



## observor 69 (17 Oct 2015)

Twitter

kady o'malley ‏@kady  · 34m34 minutes ago  
Last minute endorsement: Vote for whoever will make the snow stop until at LEAST mid-November, Ottawans


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Oct 2015)

In keeping with recce's thoughts of so levity and balance, here you go Altair....  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0FtRqg1L44


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Oct 2015)

>If he wins, he will be: 1. Surrounded by a pretty good, solid "front bench" of, mostly, seasoned politicians, many of whom are fiscal conservatives; and...

...who were around in the "good old days" and know all of the things the LPC used to do to acquire and retain power.

The "seasoned" members of the LPC aren't necessarily an advantage to Canadians.  It's worth noting that 9 years of Harper government wasn't long enough to develop a really good corruption scandal with teeth.

The important thing now is not to do an "Alberta" and overshoot the target.  If the government is to be Liberal, let it be a minority.  If they are to have a majority, let them earn it as the Conservatives did.


----------



## Altair (17 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There are only 32 seats in all of Atlantic Canada (NL: 7, NS: 11, NB 10 and PEI:4), there are 78 in Quebec, 121 in ON, 62 on the prairies (in AB, SK and MB) and 42 in BC (also 3 in the Territories). _New Canada_, everything West of the Ottawa River, matters more and More and MORE.


New canada. Bullocks. 

Ontario is just as "old" as quebec and the Atlantic provinces.

It's one of the founding provinces of the country.

It's a eastern province. Most Canadians still live in the Windsor quebec city corridor. 

Yet somehow ottawa and Toronto are part of new "canada"? 

More people live in the prairies than east of the ottawa river?  Jolly good. Toss ontario back in the east where it belongs and that means nothing.


----------



## TwoTonShackle (17 Oct 2015)




----------



## TwoTonShackle (17 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If the government is to be Liberal, let it be a minority.  If they are to have a majority, let them earn it as the Conservatives did.



By "earn it" you mean drive the Canadian population to 4 elections in 7 years?  I hope not.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> New canada. Bullocks.
> 
> Ontario is just as "old" as quebec and the Atlantic provinces.
> 
> ...



Outside of the Corridor.

Sarnia, Brampton, Burlington, Markham, the Kawarthas, Beauce, Lotbiniere, Louis St-Laurent, Levis, Jonquiere, Rimouski, Lac St-Jean, Matapedia, Gaspesie.  

Inside the Corridor

Davenport, Danforth,Parkdale, Rosedale, Rosemont, Outremont, Laurier, Hochelaga, Papineau and parts of Ottawa and Kingston when their paychecks are threatened.

By the way it is bollocks, not bullocks.


----------



## Kat Stevens (17 Oct 2015)

It's all bollix, innit.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Oct 2015)

>By "earn it" you mean drive the Canadian population to 4 elections in 7 years?  I hope not.

If that's what it takes, sure.  The Liberals called an unnecessary election in 2000 for purely selfish political advantage.  I see no reason the Liberals should get an easier ride than anyone else.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Oct 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> It's all bollix, innit.



Course it is guv.

Bullocks ain't got none.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Mr. Trudeau and the Liberals, on the other hand, operate much differently.



I wouldn't trust your gut feeling then.  The Liberals PMs, while in power, were very adept at dictating to their members how to tow the party line in parliamentary matters.


----------



## George Wallace (17 Oct 2015)

Deja vu


----------



## George Wallace (17 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> New Canada. Bullocks.



Actually, with the revised electoral boundaries and the addition of several new Ridings and seats in the House, it is a NEW Canada and the shift has been Westward of the Ottawa River.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> New canada. Bullocks.
> 
> Ontario is just as "old" as quebec and the Atlantic provinces.
> 
> ...




Actually, as I have explained many, many times on these pages, the "Old Canada:New Canada" paradigm was not developed by me. It came from (I'm pretty sure) Michael Bliss and he tossed it out, as a theory, twenty or so years ago (maybe longer) because it seemed to explain what we were seeing in terms of socio-economic development. Vancouver, Calagary and Toronto were prospering in every way: growing and growing richer and also growing _richer_ in human terms as immigrants, from all over the world, but, especially the well educated, sophisticated immigrants from Asia, moved there and, almost never, to Montreal, Saint John and Halifax. There were, also, shifts in the political culture. The West had, yet again, tossed up a new, exciting and _national_ political _movement_: _Reform_ (which morphed into the CPC). The technology boom was underway and Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and Ottawa were all 'playing' and Montreal was stagnating and Atlantic Canada seemed locked into a culture of dependency. The Ottawa River looked, then, like a natural divide between old, 19th/20th century Canada and a new 21st century Canada. It's not a perfect model, but it's a good theory because it still explains some of the things we see and it is anything but bollocks to anyone with even a cursory interest in history, economics and politics.


Edited to add:

I took the time to look up the source ~ isn't _Google_ great? ~ and it was, indeed, Prof Bliss, but it was only 15 years ago: in a column in the _Globe and Mail_.


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Oct 2015)

In that clip, Mr. Trudeau said "ah" or "um" 14 times in the first answer, until he hit a "party line" (all parties have them) and he said it right on script.  In the second answer, he said it 6 times.  He sounded like he was waffling.  He really needs to tighten up his ability to respond.


----------



## kratz (17 Oct 2015)

In a more lighthearted spirit:


----------



## Altair (17 Oct 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually, with the revised electoral boundaries and the addition of several new Ridings and seats in the House, it is a NEW Canada and the shift has been Westward of the Ottawa River.


economic,  culturally, historically  and in demographics ontario has a lot more in common with eastern canada than the west. So this arbitrary line drawn at the ottawa river is bollocks*

*fixed it


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Oct 2015)

Bull






Minus Bullock






Equals Bollocks

Spot the difference


----------



## George Wallace (17 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> economic,  culturally, historically  and in demographics ontario has a lot more in common with eastern canada than the west. So this arbitrary line drawn at the ottawa river is bullocks*
> 
> *fixed it



What ERC has explained, on his points made originally by Prof Bliss, still seems to fly over your head.  

(Have you heard of a shift key?)


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _If_ he wins, he will be:
> 
> 1. _Surrounded by a pretty good, solid "front bench" of, mostly, seasoned politicians, many of whom are fiscal conservatives_; and
> 
> ...



And, in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, John Ibbitson speculates on who _might_ share the front bench with M Trudeau _if_ he wins on Monday:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/if-trudeau-wins-these-liberals-could-be-in-his-cabinet/article26854567/


> If Trudeau wins, these Liberals could be in his cabinet
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...


----------



## Altair (17 Oct 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> What ERC has explained, on his points made originally by Prof Bliss, still seems to fly over your head.
> 
> (Have you heard of a shift key?)


I understand the points he tries to make.

I simply don't agree with them.

My phone autocorrects in weird ways. I don't fight it anymore.


----------



## kratz (17 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Bull
> *snip*
> /*snip*
> Spot the difference



I don't see Sandra anywhere.  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (17 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> We gotta lighten up. The thread has been soooooo serious, for soooooo long.
> 
> ................................................
> 
> There's some good cartoons and memes about the other parties out there also.



CBC's Rick Mercer:

https://www.facebook.com/jeremy.swanson.161/videos/10156134496610344/


----------



## Underway (17 Oct 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> CBC's Rick Mercer:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/jeremy.swanson.161/videos/10156134496610344/



Hehe, thats a classic.  That's the way MARS officers drive ships!  Don't know where they're going... but with confidence!


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2015)

The _Globe and Mail_ have updated their Election Forecast again, and, again, the Liberal chances of forming a government get stronger and stronger:

If the election happened today, there is a ...

21% chance that the Conservatives get the most seats

0.2% chance that the NDP gets the most seats

80% chance that the Liberals get the most seats

And, a

11% chance that the Green party gets more than one seat

0.4% chance that all three parties win 100 seats or more

16% chance that the Liberals get a majority


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Oct 2015)

Liberal minority won't last long, they need a majority to do anything they campaigned on. Balanced budget law is in the books, they'd have to hold a vote to amend the law, which will likely be made a confidence motion and the NDP and Tories will vote against as they both campaigned on balanced budgets.

The best they can hope to do is be caretakers and try to get a budget passed with little to none of their election promises in it, totally impotent.


----------



## Altair (17 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Liberal minority won't last long, they need a majority to do anything they campaigned on. Balanced budget law is in the books, they'd have to hold a vote to amend the law, which will likely be made a confidence motion and the NDP and Tories will vote against as they both campaigned on balanced budgets.
> 
> The best they can hope to do is be caretakers and try to get a budget passed with little to none of their election promises in it, totally impotent.


what are the chances a leaderless ndp goes into another election?

At best, they get one of their goodies in the budget and go along with the liberals for a year till Mulcair's replacement is found.


----------



## Underway (17 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Liberal minority won't last long, they need a majority to do anything they campaigned on. Balanced budget law is in the books, they'd have to hold a vote to amend the law, which will likely be made a confidence motion and the NDP and Tories will vote against as they both campaigned on balanced budgets.
> 
> The best they can hope to do is be caretakers and try to get a budget passed with little to none of their election promises in it, totally impotent.



NDP aren't stupid.  They aren't against deficits.  They will prop up the Libs long enough for the Libs to get the good new gov't feeling or screw up like Martin.  It will be a couple of years before the anti-Harper, anti-CPC stuff dies down.  Just settle in for a few years of Liberal gov't at the very least.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Oct 2015)

Underway said:
			
		

> NDP aren't stupid.  They aren't against deficits.  They will prop up the Libs long enough for the Libs to get the good new gov't feeling or screw up like Martin.  It will be a couple of years before the anti-Harper, anti-CPC stuff dies down.  Just settle in for a few years of Liberal gov't at the very least.



The problem is, if they prop up the Liberals with deficit spending they lose the centre-left Layton and Muclair fought to get, along with all those votes. It would basically doom them into distant third party status again.


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Oct 2015)

Other than a CPC win, the best (for them) situation is a Liberal or NDP minority.  Neither of those two parties has the funds to run another campaign.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Oct 2015)

The central irony here is that the Liberal vote against the evil racist xenophobe Harper coalesced...by following the lead of Quebeckers for whom the NDP stand on the niqab issue was too liberal and insufficiently racist and xenophobic.  The NDP should be able to capitalize on that - not now (not enough time), but for the next election.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2015)

This column, by Margaret Wente, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is predicated on the assumption that we "won't have Stephen Harper to kick around any more," so it is time for a bit of a retrospective:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/despite-the-rap-sheet-harper-isnt-the-worst-pm/article26845638/


> Despite the rap sheet, Harper isn’t the worst PM
> 
> MARGARET WENTE
> The Globe and Mail
> ...



Now, earlier in this thread, Altair provided a better list of Prime Minister Harper's failings:



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> Oh, definitely.
> 
> My issues with the CPC and harper are the following.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Oh, definitely.
> 
> My issues with the CPC and harper are the following.
> 
> ...



This deserves a better answer than the one I gave above. 

Question period is interesting and it's decline and fall can be traced, directly and exclusively back to the autumn of 1977 when TV was introduced to the House of Commons.

    (I can recall attending QPs before that: the questions were, generally, crisp and about _facts_ germane to a MP's constituents ~ "How many _bandersnatches_, Mr Speaker, did the Minister's department order from the XYZ Company in 1975,
     and at what cost?" And the minister concerned popped up and said, "I thank my honourable friend for the question and I will provide a written answer very soon." It was good, honest, meaty stuff and it was _boring_.)

Marshall McLuhan was right, and TV, a "cool" medium, threatened to expose the obsolescence of HoC debate and discourse because it, TV, required too much effort on the viewer's part to "fill in the detail" to "get" the story (in contrast to, say, a novel or a movie, which McLuhan described as "hot," requiring little if any additional effort). Pierre Trudeau's communications experts, including his Chief of Staff, Jim Coutts, who was a superb political tactician, quickly understood the problem and they "fixed" QP, first, from the government side, by answering almost all questions with "canned soundbites," often including mean spirited personal comments, which, while being almost devoid of information, each contained one key element of the Liberal _narrative_. The Liberals perfected this in opposition, after 1984, when they learned, quickly, to frame each question in the same way. (Now, in fairness, the Conservatives learned this trick, too, and they pioneered the canned, made for TV, question in the late 1970s.) The end result was the quip from a former Speaker, Peter Milliken, who told one frustrated MP, who (rightly) complained that his question had not been answered, something like: "That's why we call it Question Period, not Answer Period."

Again in fairness, Justin Trudeau has suggested that he wants some reforms, along line of the UK's "Prime Minister's Questions," and that will help ~ if he follows through. But someone, and I doubt it will ever be a Liberal, needs to break away from the "soundbite" ~ Preston Manning tried in 1993 and it was a resounding failure: Jean Chrétien batted his serious, polite questions right out of the ballpark and made Manning a bit of a laughing stock in the media, which loves the canned, soundbite friendly back and forth of QP, for being a naif.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And an update on the _Ekos_ rolling poll:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And an update on the update to the _Ekos_ rolling poll ...

     And the Winner is… We Don’t Know
     EVIDENCE POINTS TO LONG MONDAY NIGHT NAIL-BITER

     [Ottawa – October 17, 2015] We have upped our game in trying to discern the winner of what is shaping up to be a historically important federal election. We have run parallel HD-IVR and live interviewer surveys. We have significantly
      increased the sample size in the home stretch. We have double- and triple-checked the sample diagnostics. We have even done formal experiments with different ballot questions. Despite all of this, we still see the final outcome as very fuzzy.

      Nothing is much different in this more richly resourced polling of the last couple of days. At 33.7 points, the Liberals remain statistically tied with the Conservatives who are just a fraction of a point behind at 33.3 points. At 21.9 points,
      the NDP is not a serious contender for the lead, but is still likely to be a major player in the next Parliament. Our two-day roll looks like our three-day roll and everything is moving within the margin of errors. At this stage, we believe that
      either the Liberals or the Conservatives will achieve a slender minority.

      The demographic and regional variations are modest but worth noting. Quebec seems to be a pretty tight and newly fluid three- (and maybe four-) way race with the NDP holding a modest advantage. Ontario is leaning Liberal, but there
      are a plethora of virtually tied contests (particularly in the 905 region) that are uncertain at this stage. British Columbia is once again an uninterpretable mix of three and, in some cases, four parties.

      We will be offering a seat projection tomorrow based on what we believe to be perhaps the strongest riding prediction model extant at this time.

      The winner will hinge on turnout and, while predicting who will show up is a notoriously challenging task, we can offer the following predictions:

      Overall turnout will be higher than in 2011 and the higher the overall turnout, the poorer the prospects for Stephen Harper (advantage centre-left).

      The Conservatives have a highly engaged voter base and they had a slight lead in the advance polls. Older Canada is leaning strongly Conservative, they are going to vote and there are more of them than in 2011 (advantage Conservatives).

      The cellphone-only population looks like they will show up this time. Cellphone-only households make up a much bigger share of the voter population this time out and they continue to be less supportive of the Conservative Party. They 
      have told us that they are more engaged and certain to vote than in 2011 and they appeared to show impressive participation in the advance polls (advantage centre-left).

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




And​
          
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Source for everything: http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/and-the-winner-is-we-dont-know/


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Oct 2015)

Thank you for posting these. I think a coin flip could be as accurate as anything to predict the outcome on this one...
This is indeed a close one.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2015)

Two editorial cartoons from Brian Gable in the _Globe and Mail_ that neatly sum up these last few days of the campaign:





This seems to have been the conventional wisdom, for the past week or so ...

BUT





This may be weighing on the minds of many voters when they vote tomorrow.

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorial-cartoons-for-october-2015/article26577881/


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2015)

The Liberals have come out with a cute, charming, funny ad. I like it.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Oct 2015)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Thank you for posting these. I think a coin flip could be as accurate as anything to predict the outcome on this one...
> This is indeed a close one.


Absolutely, and its really going to come down to vote efficiency. I think a lot of the Liberal ridings will be won with giant margins over second place candidates, which means they poll higher but still only get 1 seat. Someone mentioned earlier here about a tie in seats, and it could very likely come to that.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Absolutely, and its really going to come down to vote efficiency. I think a lot of the Liberal ridings will be won with giant margins over second place candidates, which means they poll higher but still only get 1 seat. Someone mentioned earlier here about a tie in seats, and it could very likely come to that.




It could, and, looking at this graphic ...

     
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




          ... one could not be blamed for suggesting this as a potentially plausible result:

Province         BQ   CPC   GRN   LPC   NDP   Others
Territories:                                     1        1           1
BC:                             19       1        7      15
AB:                             32                           1           1
SK:                             12                 1        1
MB:                            11                1        2
ON:                            45               61      15
QC:                     8       8               28      33           1
NB:                              1                 9
PEI:                                                 4
NS:                                                10        1 
NL:                                                  6        1
TOTAL:         8   128     1   128     70         3


Edit: clarity


----------



## Rocky Mountains (18 Oct 2015)

I can't wait to see the results of the election simply to determine which pollsters are cooking the books.  The wide swings in the same time period are incomprehensible.  With a couple point swing in Ontario and the historic Liberal difficulty in finding the polling station, anything can happen.


----------



## thehare (18 Oct 2015)

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/what-the-conservatives-ndp-and-liberals-are-promising-to-spend-if-elected-1.2614562

Seems like the promises made by each party in this election has finally been tallied up...



> OTTAWA -- An overall look at everything the three main federal parties have promised in the 2015 election campaign, in terms of both spending and revenues.
> Harper
> 
> *Conservatives*
> ...



Looks like our debt is about to sky rocket if the Liberals get in (assuming they keep any of these promises, and assuming they can get these measures passed if they only receive a minority government).


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Globe and Mail_ have updated their Election Forecast again, and, again, the Liberal chances of forming a government get stronger and stronger:
> 
> If the election happened today, there is a ...
> 
> ...




There is another update to the _Globe and Mail_'s Election Forecast confirming the ever so slight, last minute softening of Liberal support:

    "Our election forecast, based on recent polls and historical data, projects the likelihood that a given party would win the most seats, if an election were held today. Our algorithm was designed in consultation with
     political scientist Paul Fairie (read more about how it works). This page will be updated often with new polls. Scroll down to explore the data.

     Last updated: Sunday, October 18 9:45AM EDT

     If the election happened today, there is a ...

          22% chance that the Conservatives get the most seats

          0% chance that the NDP gets the most seats

          79% chance that the Liberals get the most seats

          And a

          97% chance that the Liberals and NDP have a majority together

          46% chance that the Bloc regains official party status (more than 12 seats)

          13% chance that the Liberals get a majority"


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> For those who tried the _CBC_'s Vote Compass there is an interesting, interactive page showing Canada's most and least passionate ridings on each of the 30 questions Vote Compass used to determine where you and I sit on the political spectrum.



I love playing with data sets like this.

I ended up identifying three specific echo chambers where the musings resonate externally.

In Montreal - for the Liberals - we have Hochelaga, Laurier, Outremont, Papineau and Rosemont.  Message carried by LaPresse and the Gazette and Radio Canada.

In Toronto - again for the Liberals - we have Danforth, Davenport, Parkdale and Rosedale.
Message carried by the Globe and the Star, CBC and CTV.

In Vancouver we have Kingsway, Quadra, Vancouver East, Granville and Surrey.
Vancouver being Vancouver it is an internalized community that has a strong union/NDP element that cordially detests the elitist Liberal element.  It doesn't have a media voice of its own but it resonates with youngsters across the West, if not across Canada - carried by the social media.

What I find interesting is that there is little evidence of a similar echo chamber for the Conservatives.  The National Post was founded by Conrad Black to supply that but he has been discredited and his paper strives to compete in a left-leaning environment.  Global is in a similar position.

Having said that the non-Liberal/NDP vote seems to be strongest (no surprise here) on the Prairies and the interior of BC (Joel Garreau's "Empty Quarter") but also resonates "dans La Beauce" and the other rural areas around Quebec City.  

The other area not touched by the Liberal/NDP is the BQ heartland of the Lower St Laurence. From Rimouski to Gaspesie and Lac St-Jean.

The two Quebec regions are, I believe, the same regions that supported Brian Mulroney and Real Caouette's Social Credit parties.

What does this mean? I dunno.  But I suspect that I leaves the MSM in the undesirable situation of which they accuse the bloggers and the kids...they are hearing what they want to from their neighbours and friends.  Or in less friendly terms, they are drinking their own bathwater.  A problem common in London and Washington as well.

Fat lady hasn't sung yet.  It will be interesting to read the results on Tuesday.


----------



## Lumber (18 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Two editorial cartoons from Brian Gable in the _Globe and Mail_ that neatly sum up these last few days of the campaign:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Am I the only one that doesn't care about  this and wouldn't care no matter what party was doing it?


----------



## Rocky Mountains (18 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Am I the only one that doesn't care about  this and wouldn't care no matter what party was doing it?



The hypocrisy of running on the Communist Manifesto and cozying up to business at the same time doesn't concern you?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> The hypocrisy of running on the *Communist Manifesto* and cozying up to business at the same time doesn't concern you?



Using your favourite approach again I see....

hy·per·bo·le
hīˈpərbəlē/
noun
exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
synonyms:	exaggeration, overstatement, magnification, embroidery, embellishment, excess, overkill, rhetoric;


----------



## Rocky Mountains (18 Oct 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Using your favourite approach again I see....
> 
> hy·per·bo·le
> hīˈpərbəlē/
> ...



Exactly- Trudeau ran on a campaign way to the left of the NDP.  Trudeau employs hyperbole as do I.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Am I the only one that doesn't care about  this and wouldn't care no matter what party was doing it?



No Lumber - you're not.  Most of your cadre reacts the same way.  The campaigns targeted to getting your vote play on emotions.  

It is all about Stephen Harper, as described by Saul Alinsky in 1971



> Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and _*raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do*_.
> 
> Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
> The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
> ...



Tell me that you do not see those rules in play just now.  We are not being asked to play by Roberts Rules but by Alinsky's Rules.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Am I the only one that doesn't care about  this and wouldn't care no matter what party was doing it?




You're profile says you are 28 ... ten years ago Mr Justice Gomery was giving us a guided tour of _Liberal corruption_ in the "AdScam" scandal and the media were exposing more of it in the _Grand-Mère_ affair. My suspicion is that 18 to 25 year olds weren't much interested but I think there should be little doubt that it, the whole _corruption_ issue, resonated with many, many Canadians and, I suspect, it still does. 

It's why I asked, a couple of days ago, if this, the exposure of M Gagnier's improper "advice," was one of those _"events"_ that can shake a sitting government or a government in waiting. It's the voters behind those "lace curtains" that I have talked about, the ones who gave prime Minister Cameron his "come from behind" and "against the polling" victory in the recent UK election, who can change things. Some of them were NDP or Green supports who were all set to vote _strategically_ to "throw the rascals out," but I wonder if they are going to show up, at all, or, if they do, if they can bring themselves to vote Liberal when this stench of _corruption_ is so fresh. The other group behind the lace curtains are disaffected Tories who planned to sit this one out ~ will the Gagnier business bring them out to vote for Prime Minister Harper, just to keep the Liberals out?


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2015)

And there has been a last minute change, in the Liberals' favour, in the _Ekos_ numbers:





Source: http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/penultimate-check-up-on-election-42/


----------



## Lumber (18 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> You're profile says you are 28 ... ten years ago Mr Justice Gomery was giving us a guided tour of _Liberal corruption_ in the "AdScam" scandal and the media were exposing more of it in the _Grand-Mère_ affair. My suspicion is that 18 to 25 year olds weren't much interested but I think there should be little doubt that it, the whole _corruption_ issue, resonated with many, many Canadians and, I suspect, it still does.
> 
> It's why I asked, a couple of days ago, if this, the exposure of M Gagnier's improper "advice," was one of those _"events"_ that can shake a sitting government or a government in waiting. It's the voters behind those "lace curtains" that I have talked about, the ones who gave prime Minister Cameron his "come from behind" and "against the polling" victory in the recent UK election, who can change things. Some of them were NDP or Green supports who were all set to vote _strategically_ to "throw the rascals out," but I wonder if they are going to show up, at all, or, if they do, if they can bring themselves to vote Liberal when this stench of _corruption_ is so fresh. The other group behind the lace curtains are disaffected Tories who planned to sit this one out ~ will the Gagnier business bring them out to vote for Prime Minister Harper, just to keep the Liberals out?



I am,  and while I was even  "younger" when the Gommery commission took place, Ive always paid  more attention to politics and Canadian events than most my age (why do you think I'm so involved with THIS thread?) 

Like I've said on many occasions, I don't expect any party to operate very differently than any other. We don't arrest  politicians  for what amounts to stealing ;instead, we hold commissions that end up costing ten times what the actual infraction was. 

Complaing about liberal corruption is like complaining about conservative attacks ads or the economic untenability of an NDP platform; you're not wrong,  but I'm tired of hearing it. 

Im more interested in seeing the uproar from whomever's party loses this election than anything else in this election. Nothing significant is going to change. The bureaucrats  will keep the legislature in line.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Oct 2015)

The bureaucrats do not keep the legislature in line.  If they could, they wouldn't need to become politically engaged.

Trudeau is not necessarily going to be held in check by bureaucrats or other elected members.  All Trudeau needs is a strong CoS who enjoys putting other people in their places and to whose advice Trudeau defers.  We could end up with a northern version of Obama/Jarrett.

The only thing holding the parliamentary agenda in check is parliament, if the members decide not to be the ciphers many people accuse the current CPC bench-warmers of being.  It is not difficult for the PMO to demand and reward loyalty, and to withhold and remove position and advancement for disloyalty.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I am,  and while I was even  "younger" when the Gommery commission took place, Ive always paid  more attention to politics and Canadian events than most my age (why do you think I'm so involved with THIS thread?)
> 
> Like I've said on many occasions, I don't expect any party to operate very differently than any other. We don't arrest  politicians  for what amounts to stealing ;instead, we hold commissions that end up costing ten times what the actual infraction was.
> 
> ...




Maybe it's an age thing, or maybe just a matter of preference, but ...

     1. Misrepresented or missing or just plain silly "costings" for election promises are just a fact of campaign life ... no one, not even the governing party, in most cases, has a really good, "bomb proof" cost for most things;

     2. Attack ads are an irritant. I wish they weren't so effective but, if they weren't we wouldn't see so many. I'm tired of them, but resigned to them, too; but

     3. _Corruption_ (and yes, I often emphasize it when i discuss it in the China thread, too) is a problem of a whole different order for me. _Corruption_ tells me about the very DNA of a political party. It was never surprising that the Liberals were more corrupt
          than the CCF/NDP or the PCs/CPC; they were, always, the big party and the party of Big Business, the Big Banks, Big Labour and Big Special Interests; until recently, until the Chrétien reforms to election financing (2003) they took a lot more money than
          the other parties ... and they dispersed a lot more, too ~ too often illegally. The Liberals felt self-entitled and they got careless; but _curruption_ was endemic in that party and I know that many, many Canadians found it more than just "business as usual"
          or something "they all did."

So, while I agree that all three are "problems," they are, for me, problems of much different orders.


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _If_ he wins, he will be:
> 
> 1. Surrounded by a pretty good, solid "front bench" of, mostly, seasoned politicians, many of whom are fiscal conservatives; and
> 
> 2. Advised by a strong, smart, professional and unbiased public service, the _Mandarins_, who are neither afraid of nor impressed by politicians and who have the good of the country at heart and in mind.



It still troubles me greatly that our countries leader would be nothing more than a figure head puppet.  Who are the Mandarins?


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Oct 2015)

When I think of Trudeau, I think of the movie Manchurian Candidate. Same guy, without the backstory to legitimize his run to be Prime Minister.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It still troubles me greatly that our countries leader would be nothing more than a figure head puppet.  _Who are the Mandarins?_




Broadly speaking the Clerk of the Privy Council and the deputy ministers of departments and some other officials of similar stature and position. In practice it's the Clerk and a relatively small, close group of very senior officials who advise the PM and the most senior ministers and who have access to the best available _strategic_ information, which is often economic intelligence, about Canada and the world. They are _apolitical_ but very, very politically savvy and ultra-sensitive to the interplay of policy and politics. I would characterise them as socially moderate, fiscally prudent and _internationalist_, as that word was used about, say, 50 years ago, when Lester B Pearson was prime minister.


----------



## dimsum (18 Oct 2015)

> Stephen Harper is the scapegoat in this election. His downfall – should it come to pass – will be likened in some quarters as a restoration of the natural governing order. But any celebrations should be leavened with a dash of humility. Anyone who thinks getting rid of Harper will restore social harmony among Canadians might want to read a little more Girard.
> 
> Post-sacrifice harmony is fragile. New desires bring new hatreds. Four years from now, you can bet voters will look for a new scapegoat.



http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/sibley-scapegoating-stephen-harper


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2015)

Unlike _Ekos_, which has a statistical tie, _Ipsos_ gives the Liberals a substantial lead over the CPC:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Oct 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It still troubles me greatly that our countries leader would be nothing more than a figure head puppet.  Who are the Mandarins?



From Yes Prime Minister (a documentary):

Bernard: "It (we) is a democracy after all.

Sir Appleby: "Whatever gave you that idea !!! We are an aristocratic government tempered from time to time by general elections.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> _The bureaucrats do not keep the legislature in line._  If they could, they wouldn't need to become politically engaged.
> 
> Trudeau is not necessarily going to be held in check by bureaucrats or other elected members.  All Trudeau needs is a strong CoS who enjoys putting other people in their places and to whose advice Trudeau defers.  We could end up with a northern version of Obama/Jarrett.
> 
> _The only thing holding the parliamentary agenda in check is parliament_, if the members decide not to be the ciphers many people accuse the current CPC bench-warmers of being.  It is not difficult for the PMO to demand and reward loyalty, and to withhold and remove position and advancement for disloyalty.




1. _Very true_ ... it is the cabinet whose views they "inform" and, when necessary, "moderate."

2. Also true ... but even when there is a very strong CoS (think Trudeau/Coutts and Chrétien/Pelletier) the _Mandarins_ found ways to assert their point of view: through ministers and, now and again, through the media.

3. _Yes and that's the way it needs to remain._


Edit: punctuation


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2015)

Now, in its final report for Campaign 2015, _Ekos_ says, "Deadlock Broken, Liberals Surging:"





Source: http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2015/10/deadlock-broken-liberals-surging/

My final word for this evening: those of you who have not already done so, please go out and vote for the candidate or party of your choice.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Oct 2015)

Interesting that 22% have an invalid response or undecided. That could be a turning factor in either parties' fortunes.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Oct 2015)

I echo My Campbell- if you have not already voted, please get out and vote tomorrow, whomever you chose to vote for.

I'm sure Monday night/Tuesday morning, we will have lots to discuss again!


----------



## Kat Stevens (18 Oct 2015)

This is the thread that never ends,
Yes it goes on and on my friends,
Some people started posting here not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue posting here forever just because...

This is the thread that never ends...


----------



## Altair (19 Oct 2015)

308 final prediction. 

LPC 146

CPC 118

NDP 66

BQ 7

GRN 1

308 has been historically accurate. 

Let's see how they do this time


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The bureaucrats do not keep the legislature in line.  If they could, they wouldn't need to become politically engaged.
> 
> Trudeau is not necessarily going to be held in check by bureaucrats or other elected members.  All Trudeau needs is a strong CoS  *Kathleen McWynnety* who enjoys putting other people in their places and to whose advice Trudeau defers.  We could end up with a northern version of Obama/Jarrett.
> 
> The only thing holding the parliamentary agenda in check is parliament, if the members decide not to be the ciphers many people accuse the current CPC bench-warmers of being.  It is not difficult for the PMO to demand and reward loyalty, and to withhold and remove position and advancement for disloyalty.



TFTFY


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Oct 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> This is the thread that never ends,
> Yes it goes on and on my friends,
> Some people started posting here not knowing what it was,
> And they'll continue posting here forever just because...
> ...



That could be easily remedied.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> I can't wait to see the results of the election simply to determine which pollsters are cooking the books.  The wide swings in the same time period are incomprehensible.  With a couple point swing in Ontario and the historic Liberal difficulty in finding the polling station, anything can happen.



Donna Dasko, a veteran _pollster_, offers some 'insider' thoughts in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/opinion-polls-taking-the-national-pulse-or-trying-to/article26850605/


> Opinion polls: Taking the national pulse, or trying to
> 
> DONNA DASKO
> Contributed to The Globe and Mail
> ...




I'm less worried about the _variations_ between e.g. _Ipsos_, _Nanos_ and _EKOS_ and all the others than I am by too many _variations_ in the _trends_.

It seems to me that most Canadians polls have been fairly consistent in identifying and reporting those _trends_ even if I am a wee bit suspicious of the resulting seat counts ~ vote efficiency, and all that.


----------



## kratz (19 Oct 2015)

> Will Mike shut down the site for 3 hours to provide the required time off for the DS to vote today?


   ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2015)

From _Elections Canada_:

     Polling hours ~ the aim is to give everyone 12 hours to vote but to have the polls close at nearly the same time, i.e the polls in Atlantic Canada Alberta close at the about same time (within an hour) as those in Ontario and the BC polls close just 30 minutes later; and

     Live election results [size=14pt]_here_[/SIZE]. 


Edit: for format, and to add:


----------



## blacktriangle (19 Oct 2015)

My vote is in. Civic duty complete. At the very least, I'm hoping to get my MP re-elected.

I'd like to thank everyone that contributed to this thread, shared links etc. 

I've always voted in the past, and this marks the second time I've done so while away from home. However, this was the first election where I paid close attention and feel I truly understood the issues. Army.ca kept me in the loop while deployed, and for that I'm appreciative. 

On that note, it's probably time to subscribe/donate to the site. It's been very helpful over the last decade.

It will be "interesting" to see what awaits us in the coming years.


----------



## Scott (19 Oct 2015)

Great banner on the site!

Off to the gym,band to make my mark.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> I'm less worried about the _variations_ between e.g. _Ipsos_, _Nanos_ and _EKOS_ and all the others than I am by too many _variations_ in the _trends_.
> 
> It seems to me that most Canadians polls have been fairly consistent in identifying and reporting those _trends_ even if I am a wee bit suspicious of the resulting seat counts ~ vote efficiency, and all that.



I'm more worried about stories in the press being manufactured, essentially, out of whole cloth.  There is increasingly less basis for the horse race tales beloved of the press. 

The bigger problem is that impact those tales have on public opinion.  I guess it is all up to how credible the media are perceived to be. A lot of people have an awful lot riding on the outcome of this election - and it is not just the usual suspects.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2015)

OK, this one if for Altair, just because it's really funny ...


----------



## George Wallace (19 Oct 2015)

Wednesday, after all the recounts are done, this will be appropriate to remember while you head out today:

Arriving soon at a Parliament near you.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> OK, this one if for Altair, just because it's really funny ...



That really is pretty good.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That really is pretty good.


Is that a post election picture? The CPC supporter wasn't able to shoot the zombie since he had his guns taken away lol


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Oct 2015)

Strangely - in view of the alleged characteristics of Conservative voters - there were no demons waiting at the polling station to carry me off to hell.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Strangely - in view of the alleged characteristics of Conservative voters - there were no demons waiting at the polling station to carry me off to hell.



No need to, if Trudeau or Mulcair win as you'll already be there...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (19 Oct 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Wednesday, after all the recounts are done, this will be appropriate to remember while you head out today:
> 
> Arriving soon at a Parliament near you.



They may still turn out to have predicted right with "Cubs sweep world series". That is still to be determined and, well, the Cubs ARE in the playoffs. But.. Go Jays Go anyway.


----------



## Altair (19 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That really is pretty good.


https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=Ui2DmINTKbM&u=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D0V5ckcTSYu8%26feature%3Dshare

I like John Oliver a tad more.

Rips into all leaders, but saves his best for last.

*Spoiler* He's not pro harper.


----------



## FSTO (19 Oct 2015)

Did my civic duty today. Although my card never showed up and I became the first "problem child" (my words) of the day!


----------



## FSTO (19 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> https://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=Ui2DmINTKbM&u=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D0V5ckcTSYu8%26feature%3Dshare
> 
> I like John Oliver a tad more.
> 
> ...



He was light on Mulcair and Trudeau. He saved the heavy ammo for Harper.


----------



## mariomike (19 Oct 2015)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Did my civic duty today.



Did mine too. Remembered the times when we didn't get early relief to do it.


----------



## OldTanker (19 Oct 2015)

I did my duty as well. 5 minutes from entering the hall till done. I made a point of thanking all the folks working there. I'm not sure if they are paid or volunteers but it was well run and slick (of course it helped I was the only one voting at the time


----------



## kratz (19 Oct 2015)

I thanked everyone at the poll station as well. No harm in being polite and respectful. 
I voted in the advance polls and was in/out within 20min.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Oct 2015)

John Oliver's take on the election...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0V5ckcTSYu8


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Oct 2015)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Did my civic duty today.



Same. The lady at the polling station had an attractive......oh never mind.  ;D

I voted is all I'm saying.


----------



## GAP (19 Oct 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Same. The lady at the polling station had an attractive......oh never mind.  ;D
> 
> I voted is all I'm saying.



You really have to stop going around in that state Jim........just sayin'....... ;D


----------



## dimsum (19 Oct 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Same. The lady at the polling station had an attractive......oh never mind.  ;D
> 
> I voted is all I'm saying.



An attractive what?  The public needs to know!   ;D


----------



## kratz (19 Oct 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Same. The lady at the polling station had an attractive......oh never mind.  ;D
> 
> I voted is all I'm saying.



Now I'll never know where / how to vote......oh never mind.   :warstory:


----------



## George Wallace (19 Oct 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> An attractive what?  The public needs to know!   ;D



REMEMBER!  It is nothing without pictures.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (19 Oct 2015)

OldTanker said:
			
		

> I did my duty as well. 5 minutes from entering the hall till done. I made a point of thanking all the folks working there. I'm not sure if they are paid or volunteers but it was well run and slick (of course it helped I was the only one voting at the time



They are all paid workers. My wife is a Deputy Returning Officer here in Kingston and she's making around $17 dollars an hour. Poll clerks, Information Officers and Polling Aides make anywhere from $13-16 dollars an hour based on position.

http://elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=job&dir=pos&document=index&lang=e


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Oct 2015)

I voted at 515 PM, London West. Polling station was a ghost town, maybe 4 or 5 people in there voting. One entrance to the parking lot was blocked off by construction, so the only entrance was the southbound lanes of a very clogged divided arterial road. I suspect many people chose to not even try to turn around in that traffic to vote, and still be home within a reasonable time after voting.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2015)

Well, it's shaping up, as expected, to be a Liberal landslide in Atlantic Canada. At 2020 Hrs (Eastern) they are leading in 32 of 32 seats.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Oct 2015)

I am headed to the Wine Keller to await the eventuality that will lead to the CAF becoming the modern army of Grand Fenwick.


----------



## TwoTonShackle (19 Oct 2015)

oh my.... will it continue into Upper Canada...


----------



## Michael OLeary (19 Oct 2015)

If you check the Elections Canada page, they show that the current stats are based on less than 800,000 voters (of a possible 25.6 mil registered voters). The only things we can tell so far is that the East Coast is red.


----------



## Bass ackwards (19 Oct 2015)

I went to the polling station around 7PM local time. 
It was fairly busy and I had to wait in line.  
The person I spoke to informed me they had been busy all day -a considerable turnout. 

Unfortunately, in this town there is not one -not _one_ election sign on peoples' lawns that doesn't have Niki Ashton's mug on it. This is a pretty safe riding for her and I'm confident my vote is wasted. 
But, wasted or not, the deed is done. Maybe I can start hollering for proportional representation...


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Oct 2015)

Sadly I fear the only ones in blue who'll win tonight are the Jays.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Oct 2015)

Vox populi vox dei.

The Latin translates to either the voice of the people is the voice of God, or possibly to my god, what do the people want?


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Oct 2015)

The regional projections for Conservative success in Atlantic Canada were never great.  Unfortunately, it looks like Mulcair's pro-liberty position on the niqab cost the NDP heavily.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The regional projections for Conservative success in Atlantic Canada were never great.  Unfortunately, it looks like Mulcair's pro-liberty position on the niqab cost the NDP heavily.



Except for Peter Stouffer, for me there's nothing unfortunate about the Dippers lawn darting.   Love it.


----------



## Scott (19 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Except for Peter Stouffer, for me there's nothing unfortunate about the Dippers lawn darting.   Love it.



Heck yes! Bye Megan!


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2015)

At this moment, 2218 Hrs (Eastern) _CTV News_ is showing the Liberals at 170, a majority.


----------



## cavalryman (19 Oct 2015)

I, for one, welcome our new airhead overlords.  The best possible outcome is a liberal majority of exactly a single MP.  The threat of a blue grit crossing the floor should keep the bozos from doing too much harm.


----------



## Navy_Pete (19 Oct 2015)

Why is this surprising?  The current government treated the normal people of Canada, all public servants, minorities and unions with contempt.  This is the result.

Their actual track record of good governance also is poor, the party manipulated the electoral process in 2011, has been abusing the legislative process and repeatedly getting bitch slapped by the Supreme court as a result, and generally has been running amok like a bunch of power mad toddlers while they could.  Also, they have this guy as a member;







I mean, really.

I'm not a fan of any of the parties really, but the Harper Government (TM) needs to go.  Even if Trudeau floats about for a few years and takes the occasional bit of advice from the Mandarins, and decides to occasionally work with the other parties on something, this is a well needed reset on a parliamentary democracy gone bad.  Also, it's terribly refreshing to see people actually get out and vote and be actively involved.

Mr Harper, for uniting large segments of Canada in their hatred of you personally and inspiring them to be politically active and vote, I salute you sir! 

One sad item I've seen so far is that Megan Leslie seems to be out.  I have always had tremendous respect for her personally and she is an excellent MP who is doing it for all the right reasons.


----------



## cupper (19 Oct 2015)

I give up.

You had one job Canada. Vote Republican.

But Noooooo. You had to go for the eye candy.

How do you think we are ever going to convince the 'muricans that they should become the 11th through 60th provinces. 

Our great health care system?

 >


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2015)

Shocker in Quebec: BQ: 9, CPC: 9, Lib: 53, NDP: 6 at 2224 Hrs (Eastern) ~ the NDP vote appears to have collapsed in Quebec.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Oct 2015)

American blogger Instapundit calls it thus:



> BAD NEWS FOR CANADA: Justin Trudeau projected winner.



Pretty sad when even the Americans can peg it so easily.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Oct 2015)

Looks like a solid Liberal majority: 175+ seats, the CPC at 95+ and the NDP at 20+


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Oct 2015)

Thanks Toronto. When we're as broke as Ontario, we know who to blame.


----------



## RocketRichard (19 Oct 2015)

I'm quite sure the Liberals will treat veterans far better than the Cons have.


----------



## TwoTonShackle (19 Oct 2015)

Conservative tears will be our natural resources for the next 4 years.  Although I'd bet oil sands burn cleaner then those tears.


----------



## cavalryman (19 Oct 2015)

I suppose the rest of Canada can now experience what we in Ontario have lived under the McWynnety regime.  Schadenfreude isn't just a really neat German compound word.  Ain't democracy a hoot!


----------



## Altair (19 Oct 2015)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> I'm quite sure the Liberals will treat veterans far better than the Cons have.


Same.


----------



## chanman (19 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Looks like a solid Liberal majority: 175+ seats, the CPC at 95+ and the NDP at 20+



Time to make sure my TFSA contribution is maxed out before they start rolling back the increase.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Thanks Toronto. When we're as broke as Ontario, we know who to blame.



Well, $10B per year in deficit is much less than we saw for the last four years.


----------



## SupersonicMax (19 Oct 2015)

chanman said:
			
		

> Time to make sure my TFSA contribution is maxed out before they start rolling back the increase.



I hope you have $50K stashed somewhere...  Most Canadians cannot afford maxing out TFSA so it makes sense to reduce it as it only benefit the very wealthy (and some exceptions in the middle class).


----------



## cavalryman (19 Oct 2015)

Speaking of schadenfreude, am I the only one waiting to see what happens when the new MND, Andrew Leslie walks into the puzzle palace later this week?  ;D

Talk about knowing where the skeletons are hidden.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Oct 2015)

I suppose it could have been worse. The NDP could have won...


----------



## Towards_the_gap (19 Oct 2015)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I'm not a fan of any of the parties really, but the Harper Government (TM) needs to go.  Even if Trudeau floats about for a few years and takes the occasional bit of advice from the Mandarins, and decides to occasionally work with the other parties on something, this is a well needed reset on a parliamentary democracy gone bad.  Also, it's terribly refreshing to see people actually get out and vote and be actively involved.
> 
> Mr Harper, for uniting large segments of Canada in their hatred of you personally and inspiring them to be politically active and vote, I salute you sir!




I agree with quite a bit of this. A small c conservative for most of my adult life (teenage flirtation with Rage Against The Machine-style Marxism notwithstanding), I've only found myself more and more disappointed with the Tories of late. 

This is the party of Cheryl Gallant for Pete's sake. Also the party which argued the government had no social contract with veterans. I could go on of course.

I'm embarrassed that our next PM will be the ludicrous pretty boy/fortunate son that is Trudeau, but I hope, at least, it gives the CPC a chance to regroup, clear out the dead wood/lunatic fringe of the party, and come back in time to limit the damage the airy-fairy party will do.

Oh, and thank goodness the NDP didn't seize power!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (19 Oct 2015)

So I know exactly what put the Liberals over.  I'm at a bar right now and the place is literally packed with students watching the election.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Oct 2015)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> I'm quite sure the Liberals will treat veterans far better than the Cons have.


They'll make a lot more of them, FRP 2.0.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Oct 2015)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> I'm quite sure the Liberals will treat veterans far better than the Cons have.



Do you really believe the authors of the NVC are going to do a 180?


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Oct 2015)

I would prefer the Liberals held to a minority, but a majority is healthier for Canada.  Two guys from Quebec deciding how to run Canada - three on days where Duceppe agrees with them, which would be most - would be unhealthy.

Loss of the TFSA contribution expansion isn't a big deal.  The rule of thumb is to save at least 20% of your gross income, which means a $10K limit is reasonable for anyone earning $50K or more, but a $5K limit is easily in reach.  The only problem will be if policies and outcomes continue to be hostile toward people who must save privately for retirement.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (19 Oct 2015)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Speaking of schadenfreude, am I the only one waiting to see what happens when the new MND, Andrew Leslie walks into the puzzle palace later this week?  ;D
> 
> Talk about knowing where the skeletons are hidden.



Oh to be a fly on the wall then....


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Oct 2015)

>So I know exactly what put the Liberals over.  I'm at a bar right now and the place is literally packed with students watching the election.

If true, then very appropriate.  Who better to legitimize increases in CPP contributions?  It's hard to argue against it with the people with the most to lose in favour of it.


----------



## dimsum (20 Oct 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> So I know exactly what put the Liberals over.  I'm at a bar right now and the place is literally packed with students watching the election.



To be fair, people have been calling for years for the youth vote.  I guess we're reaping the results.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >So I know exactly what put the Liberals over.  I'm at a bar right now and the place is literally packed with students watching the election.
> 
> If true, then very appropriate.  Who better to legitimize increases in CPP contributions?  It's hard to argue against it with the people with the most to lose in favour of it.



I'll post a photo, it's rudiculous.


----------



## runormal (20 Oct 2015)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> So I know exactly what put the Liberals over.  I'm at a bar right now and the place is literally packed with students watching the election.



I was floored today by seeing the amount of my peers that stated that they voted today, Facebook had a thing you could share once you voted. Blown away, completely different than 2011 when people told me to "fuck off" and stop posting political nonsense on Facebook. Granted all my friends are also four years older, so I'm sure that has changed everyone's insight/opinions as well. 







We will have to see, but I think a lot of students took Mr. Mercer's advice


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2015)

Bear in mind they might just be spectators, not participants.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2015)

So the NDP are on track to finish up roughly where they did in 2008.  Clearly their messages did not resonate.


----------



## Messerschmitt (20 Oct 2015)

chanman said:
			
		

> Time to make sure my TFSA contribution is maxed out before they start rolling back the increase.



It's future contributions that are affected, not the current room. Too bad, I enjoyed maxing out my TFSA, and could've done it with 10k as well.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Oct 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> From my viewpoint, this election boils down to two things:
> 
> 1. Has the 10 year media led Harper HaterTM campaign been effective?  and
> 
> ...



At the risk of repeating myself...


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Loss of the TFSA contribution expansion isn't a big deal.  The rule of thumb is to save at least 20% of your gross income, which means a $10K limit is reasonable for anyone earning $50K or more, but a $5K limit is easily in reach.  The only problem will be if policies and outcomes continue to be hostile toward people who must save privately for retirement.



Do you know any people making $50K a year saving 10K in TFSA?!  If anything, you should max out RRSPs first to benefit from the tax deductions and then consider investing into TFSAs.  

A person making $50K can put in $9K in RRSPs (provided that person or its employer doesn't contribute into a retirement plan).  That makes $41K of taxable income.  In Ontario, someone would have to pay $6K in income tax, $762 in EI Contributions and $1856 in CPP Contributions.  That leaves $2700 a month to live.  Where exactly do you take that extra $10K a year to invest?


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2015)

Tangent: 20% is the recommendation, regardless of income.  "Act your wage" is the governing principle.  In my experience, few people do.  Whether you go with RRSPs or TFSAs depends on what you think your income will be like after post-retirement (if it will be large, tax deferral makes less sense, in which case TFSAs have the advantage).

This election is the outset of an interesting experiment on government and individual finances.  I expect it to be the first time since about 1987 that a federal government will run an operating deficit without the pressure of recession-weakened revenues.

If Trudeau doesn't fulfill Wynne's hope, I at least will be $670 to the better next year.  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Oct 2015)

Congratulations to the Liberals, their supporters and Justin Trudeau.

See you in 4 years time.

TTFN


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2015)

For those interested: List of Canadian federal general elections.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Oct 2015)

Really bummed that Leslie survived and thrived...   :'(


----------



## thehare (20 Oct 2015)

And I wonder how many Liberal supporters are going to be aghast at winning a majority with 40% of the popular vote like they were with Harper?

*cough* It's a rhetorical question

Anyways, congrats to the Liberals. Not what I was hoping for, but alas democracy does not care about the wishes of a single individual.


----------



## Lumber (20 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Really bummed that Leslie survived and thrived...   :'(



Warum?


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Oct 2015)

The only real result I was interested was where my friend Robert-Falcon Ouellette (L) beat Pat Martin (NDP). It's not my riding, nor my voting preference, but I truly wanted him to win.


----------



## Altair (20 Oct 2015)

Interesting that 308 got it so wrong.

Ekos must have throwing them off.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Oct 2015)

The left wing only demands changes to the electoral system so they can take and hold power. If the current system suits them, electoral reform will be the furthest from their minds.

I'm very interested in the Senate powderkeg Trudeau wants to open with reform talking to the provinces. Talk about dividing the nation in short order...


----------



## Navy_Pete (20 Oct 2015)

Towards_the_gap said:
			
		

> I agree with quite a bit of this. A small c conservative for most of my adult life (teenage flirtation with Rage Against The Machine-style Marxism notwithstanding), I've only found myself more and more disappointed with the Tories of late.
> 
> This is the party of Cheryl Gallant for Pete's sake. Also the party which argued the government had no social contract with veterans. I could go on of course.
> 
> ...



Same here; I was a fan of the old pre-reform party merging conservatives, although Paul Martin liberals seemed generally reasonably effective all things considered.

I'm cautiously optimistic JT knows his limitations and will actually listen to a good group of smart people; my very limited personal dealings with some of the more senior folks in Ottawa left me generally impressed at their dedication to actually doing a service for Canada, despite the fact that they toiled ludicrously long, generally thankless hours behind the scenes.  He could do a lot worse then taking advice from the various mandarins in Ottawa.

If nothing else, if he carries through on the promise to reinvest in infrastructure that alone would be excellent; basic things like roads, water etc are in various and in some cases appalling states of disrepair throughout the country.  It will be a big chunk of money, but it's a sound investment, and pays off in the long run if you do it right the first time.  Imagine those emergency water main breaks cost an absolute fortune, and no one really likes overpasses falling down.  

And if push comes to shove, at least he can throw a punch!  In retrospect, watching JT beat up Brazeau was pretty sweet, given his recent track history with domestic assault.  (The 'float like an Algonquin, sting like a Cree' slogan was pretty catchy though).


----------



## Navy_Pete (20 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Really bummed that Leslie survived and thrived...   :'(



I live in that riding, it was interesting.  I think the cpc candidate mailed it in, and the Leslie team was very, very active in canvassing the area.  Plus he absolutely blew the rest of them out of the water at the local debate, it wasn't even fair.  Should be interesting when he rolls into NDHQ.

Interestingly enough, looks like Joe Oliver and Julian Fantino won't make it in.  And possibly Gilles Duceppe.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Oct 2015)

The IOUs are presented before the ink on the ballots is barely dry?


Justin Trudeau owes Kathleen Wynne after election win: Cohn

In the federal campaign, Ontario’s premier was an early adopter. And an enthusiastic endorser.


----------



## chanman (20 Oct 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Do you know any people making $50K a year saving 10K in TFSA?!  If anything, you should max out RRSPs first to benefit from the tax deductions and then consider investing into TFSAs.
> 
> A person making $50K can put in $9K in RRSPs (provided that person or its employer doesn't contribute into a retirement plan).  That makes $41K of taxable income.  In Ontario, someone would have to pay $6K in income tax, $762 in EI Contributions and $1856 in CPP Contributions.  That leaves $2700 a month to live.  Where exactly do you take that extra $10K a year to invest?



I'm currently in a lower tax bracket and still have a long working career ahead of me, so my investments have more time to grow. A TFSA means not having to pay taxes on the gains from investments in the account.

The savings from RRSP now aren't great for the tax bracket I'm in. I don't mean filling in the entire $50k, just double-checking I've contributed this year.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Oct 2015)

I doubt Andrew Leslie will be MND - skeletons in closets work both ways...


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Oct 2015)

chanman said:
			
		

> I'm currently in a lower tax bracket and still have a long working career ahead of me, so my investments have more time to grow. A TFSA means not having to pay taxes on the gains from investments in the account.
> 
> The savings from RRSP now aren't great for the tax bracket I'm in. I don't mean filling in the entire $50k, just double-checking I've contributed this year.



So, you don't invest the full 10K..  Got it.. You just proved my point that lowering the limit will have a very, very minimal impact the the middle class as the full 10K is hardly ever used.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Oct 2015)

Ouch.  Imagine this: You run for office and lose.  But not only do you lose - you get fewer votes than a cat.

Congratulations, Mary Joyce of the Marxist-Leninist party.  Bun Bun Thompson of the Rhino party got more votes than you!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Oct 2015)

C’est la vie, c’est la guerre, c’est la pomme de terre.

I'll wait for his throne speech before I make judgement, but the Liberal track record of keeping their promises, is sorely lacking.

As well, if I was still serving, I'd be dusting off my blue beret.

As the authors of the New Veterans Charter, it'll be interesting to see if they're ready to make timely, reasonable and concrete changes to their creation. They can't blame Harper anymore.

Perhaps also, Leslie will start trashing all those stovepipes and HQs that he wanted to do in the first place. If there's a silver lining, that would be it..


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I doubt Andrew Leslie will be MND - skeletons in closets work both ways...



Dear God I hope so.  The last ex-general foisted upon us really sucked.


----------



## chanman (20 Oct 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> So, you don't invest the full 10K..  Got it.. You just proved my point that lowering the limit will have a very, very minimal impact the the middle class as the full 10K is hardly ever used.



What? I invest the full 10k in the TFSA. I've maxed out the TFSA every year. It's RRSPs I don't make a contribution to.

In other news, the first thing in my mind seeing the electoral map of the Maritimes was "The East is Red"


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Oct 2015)

Do you have a family, a house and/or a car!?


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Oct 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Do you have a family, a house and/or a car!?



Or an F35?


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Oct 2015)

I think we can probably kiss them goodbye at this point!!  At least the conversion to the Super Hornet won't be too drastic...


----------



## dapaterson (20 Oct 2015)

Interesting: Reports are indicating that Stephen Harper will step down as leader, but remain as an MP.

Shades of Dief the Chief?


----------



## Altair (20 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Interesting: Reports are indicating that Stephen Harper will step down as leader, but remain as an MP.
> 
> Shades of Dief the Chief?


Rumor has it that parliamentary privilege is all that is keeping him from being called to testify at the Duffy Trial. 

Just a rumor.


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Oct 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Do you know any people making $50K a year saving 10K in TFSA?!  If anything, you should max out RRSPs first to benefit from the tax deductions and then consider investing into TFSAs.
> 
> A person making $50K can put in $9K in RRSPs (provided that person or its employer doesn't contribute into a retirement plan).  That makes $41K of taxable income.  In Ontario, someone would have to pay $6K in income tax, $762 in EI Contributions and $1856 in CPP Contributions.  That leaves $2700 a month to live.  Where exactly do you take that extra $10K a year to invest?



After my epic divorce where I lost everything, I borrowed the rest to make up the difference, and I changed the beneficiary to my (20 somethings years younger, hot and sexy) soon to be spouse. Take the focus not x per year, but X per month to make up or unused TFSA room accrued over the past years since plans inception. Time your payments to meet plan limits rougly within 18months of the synchronicity year, and according to what you can afford 
After that, do the same with rrsp's, take the amount your NOA states, borrow and make payments until they catch up. mind you, these are longer term, lower interest, special purpose loans The banks will work with you.

For TFSA, strike fast as this could be an early move by the libs, but they won't damage the program by much once they get an inside review of the cost-benefit analysis. Guys like Francesco Sorbera are not going to let Trudeau do much to the program without an alternate plan that is more beneficial.

For the record, I did not vote CPC, and have only done so once. Trudeau will support most of what us in the current foreign policy Mill, including TPP.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Oct 2015)

Let's stick with the election theme of the thread everyone. If you want to talk changes to investment strategies, start a new thread.

---Staff---


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Rumor has it that parliamentary privilege is all that is keeping him from being called to testify at the Duffy Trial.
> 
> Just a rumor.


I also heard a rumour that he is Hitler incarnate, but it was from rabble.ca so...


----------



## chanman (20 Oct 2015)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Do you have a family, a house and/or a car!?



Too soon, impossible (604 area code, see...), not needed under the present circumstances. Also atypically spare living, but I take your point about average households and their many other expenses.

Per *recceguy*'s request to remain on-topic, I think the outgoing government left the Liberals one heck of a hot potato in the high levels of household debt (mortgages especially).
I didn't recall hearing any ideas from the three main parties on how to defuse the housing bubble



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I think we can probably kiss them goodbye at this point!!  At least the conversion to the Super Hornet won't be too drastic...



I'm more worried it'll just drag on forever like the whole Sea King replacement


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2015)

>If nothing else, if he carries through on the promise to reinvest in infrastructure that alone would be excellent

If you have to borrow to maintain what you already have, you have a serious problem.  If you continue borrowing to add to the things you already have to maintain, you have a grave problem.  Maintaining status quo isn't growth.


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Let's stick with the election theme of the thread everyone. If you want to talk changes to investment strategies, start a new thread.
> 
> ---Staff---



I do think that our NATO allies will have an effect on our defence policy. 

Trudeau the Second may think he's the one in charge.....until our allies lean on him.....


----------



## Altair (20 Oct 2015)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> I do think that our NATO allies will have an effect on our defence policy.
> 
> Trudeau the Second may think he's the one in charge.....until our allies lean on him.....


As long as Canadian troops are continuing to train iraqi forces do you for see any issues?


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2015)

>I think the outgoing government left the Liberals one heck of a hot potato in the high levels of household debt (mortgages especially).

Huh?  When did we start blaming the federal government for our own spending?

But you did identify something that is a policy problem: whether to let people deleverage (reduce debt) without compensating for the fall in private spending with public spending.  So far governments here - and elsewhere - have demonstrated that they are desperate to put off that reckoning.  My guess is the longer the correction is put off, the harsher it will be when it becomes uncontrollable - but I have been wrong so far that the reckoning is nigh.


----------



## chanman (20 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I think the outgoing government left the Liberals one heck of a hot potato in the high levels of household debt (mortgages especially).
> 
> Huh?  When did we start blaming the federal government for our own spending?



I don't think I was blaming the federal government for it there - just pointing out that it's an issue that the outgoing party no longer needs to worry about handling. Although there was that early period (2006-2008) when the gov't backed 100% financing and 40-year term mortgages before backtracking on that.

That said, the housing-focused portion of the stimulus plan (Home Renovation Tax Credit) gave a shot in the arm to a cyclical industry (construction) that was going to result in a pool of excess workers the second demand for new housing slowed down.



> But you did identify something that is a policy problem: whether to let people deleverage (reduce debt) without compensating for the fall in private spending with public spending.  So far governments here - and elsewhere - have demonstrated that they are desperate to put off that reckoning.  My guess is the longer the correction is put off, the harsher it will be when it becomes uncontrollable - but I have been wrong so far that the reckoning is nigh.



Your guess sounds reasonable to me. There's any number of ways the correction can occur, and we'll likely see different ones in different places. Some areas might see subprime-like price crashes, while others might see prices stagnate for years (and years) until inflation eventually eats away at it.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Oct 2015)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> ...Interestingly enough, looks like Joe Oliver and *Julian Fantino won't make it in.*  And possibly Gilles Duceppe.



    :'(





  Not.



Congratulations to PM (designate) Trudeau.  Now to measure up (and hopefully exceed) the expectations he built up.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2015)

John Ibbitson speaks on "Three things Canadians will not miss about Stephen Harper," in this _Globe and Mail_ video and, in a second video on the "historic rebuke" the Liberals delivered to both Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair.

In both videos Mr Ibbitson makes the points that we shouldn't expect too much onto many promises too soon.

Those who have followed my thoiughts here will know that:

     1. I am pleased we have a majority government ~ it's not a government that proposed the policies I wanted but it can be effective and we can hold it to account, in four_ish_ years time, for how well it kept (or not) its promises;

     2. I am pleased to see the Liberals "reborn" as, finally, after 50 years, a _national_ party again. I never did like the idea of "destroying the Liberals" and having a NDP (left) <> CPC (right) two party system, à la Labour <> Conservatives in the UK;

     3. I look forward to a CPC leadership contest. I believe that we need two robust, _centrist_ and _national_ parties and that we can afford to have two more, narrower, more ideological left and right wing parties (NDP and whatever
         spins off from a too centrist CPC) and even one or two regional/provincial parties;

     4. I am very interested in seeing who joins M Trudeau on his front bench, especially in Finance, as President of the Treasury Board, as Foreign Minister and, of course, as MND and who he picks to be (remain?) as his Clerk and his Chief of Staff.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Shocker in Quebec: BQ: 9, CPC: 9, Lib: 53, NDP: 6 at 2224 Hrs (Eastern) ~ the NDP vote appears to have collapsed in Quebec.




The final results are less shocking: BQ: 10, CPC: 12, LPC: 40 and NDP: 16, but they seem to indicate that:

     1. The Liberals have restored much of their old, going all the way back to Laurier at the turn of the 20th century, base in Quebec;

     2. The NDP now has a secure foothold in the province; and

     3. The CPC has a respectable base in Quebec.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2015)

Jeffrey Simpson, speaking on behalf of the _Laurentian Consensus_, cannot resist being a bit nasty in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, but, 'bottom line up front,' as they say, check out his last paragraph ... it will be the truth:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/defeat-by-trudeau-is-the-ultimate-insult-for-harper/article26881327/
My _emphasis_ added


> Defeat by Trudeau is the ultimate insult for Harper
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I believe that we have witnessed and are witnessing _"the strange death of Liberal Canada,"_ in so far as "Liberal Canada" was Pierre Trudeau's Canada which Mr Simpson describes as "Quebec-centred politics. Constitutional reform fixation. Large fiscal deficits. Expanding government. Regional development programs. Generous social programs. A meddling state. Middle-power internationalism without any definition of Canada’s interests. Tweaking the Americans’ nose." I am pretty sure that is all gone. Yes, M Trudeau will have to "pay off" Quebec and Atlantic Canada, those 75+ seats are his new, firm base. How many deficits he runs ~ and I'm sure he will run one or two, just for show ~ and how large they are remains to be seen, but Pierre Trudeau's style of "regional development" (pork barrelling) and "generous social programmes" are done, I think. Some tweaking, to rob Peter and pay Paul, here and there, on the margins, but no more unaffordable "just society" rubbish, in my opinion.

As for scandals and _corruption_ ... who knows? But this is the Liberal Party of Canada so I will not be surprised when they appear.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Oct 2015)

My, my. I wonder what all these journalists will do with their time now that they don't have to campaign against Stephen Harper anymore? Of course there'll be a week or two of smugness and depreciation left for the final kick, then a few weeks of pandering and kissing up to the new regime. However, now their job is effectively done, they might as well take a vacation until the Trudeau Liberals have settled in and have the coronation and budget stuff out of the way. It'll be awhile yet before the fourth estate turns on their new political master.

Enjoy the quiet times. They won't last.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2015)

This, by Bruce MacKinnon in the _Chronicle Herald_, could be, arguably should be, the last word on this topic:





Source: http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorial-cartoon/2015-10-20-editorial-cartoon
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A refernce for those with short memories or those who don't follow sports:


----------



## dimsum (20 Oct 2015)

Ok, am I just dense?  How do the Liberals win 184 of 338 seats and a majority, but only have 39.5% of the popular vote   ???


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Oct 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Ok, am I just dense?  How do the Liberals win 184 of 338 seats and a majority, but only have 39.5% of the popular vote   ???



I thought they had 53%, or did that number stick around, in my head, after my nightmare last night?  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This, by Bruce MacKinnon in the _Chronicle Herald_, could be, arguably should be, the last word on this topic:



_It should be_, however, I believe the Canadian MSM will be poking the dead body with pointy sticks for a couple of weeks yet. The feeling of being cheated by the boogeyman is still too strong, they'll want to make sure he's dead.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Ok, am I just dense?  How do the Liberals win 184 of 338 seats and a majority, but only have 39.5% of the popular vote   ???




Isn't _FPTP_ wonderful?

     (I did a bit of a crude arithmetic analysis of recent Canadian election result a few years ago (here, on Army.ca) and concluded that FPTP does, indeed, reward the winners and punish the losers a bit ~ not hugely, as we can see the
      LPC got nearly 55% of the seats with (also nearly) 40% of the vote while the NDP got nearly 20% of the vote but on ly 13% of the seats. (The CPC were near "properly represented" with 29% of seats and 31% of the vote.) I'm
      not convinced that any system that rewards _weakness_ (small, fringe or 3rd and 4th place parties) is much good.)

I suspect we'll hear a lot about _PR_ from the NDP but not to much ~ maybe preferential ballots ~ from the Liberals ... maybe a Royal Commission and then  :boring:


----------



## Baz (20 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I thought they had 53%, or did that number stick around, in my head, after my nightmare last night?  ;D



They were running over 60% in Atlantic Canada, but as the rest of the country came in it brought it down...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (20 Oct 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Ok, am I just dense?  How do the Liberals win 184 of 338 seats and a majority, but only have 39.5% of the popular vote   ???



You need to stop thinking of the federal election as one election, it isn't.  What we really have in Canada is 338 different elections, they won the majority of those 338 elections.  The National Vote % is a pointless metric. It's set up this way for a reason though.  Canada is a country of regions, what people want in Toronto is far different than say Acadie-Bathurst, NB.

People really need to become more educated about our political system and why it's set up the way it is.  I was speaking to some of my Mrs friends the other day, a good number of them took political science in school but their level of knowledge concerning the Canadian political system was shockingly lacking, to say the least.  Makes me wonder what the heck they are learning in University.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Oct 2015)

But, but Trudeau can't be a legitimate Prime Minister- he only got 39.5 percent of the vote! That means that 60.5 percent of Canadians voted against him! 

(Just pointing out to the Liberal triumphalists, how stupid your argument was when the Conservatives won a majority in 2011 with about the same popular vote).


----------



## Baz (20 Oct 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Ok, am I just dense?  How do the Liberals win 184 of 338 seats and a majority, but only have 39.5% of the popular vote   ???



The same way the Conservatives won 166 of 308 in 2011, with 39.62.  See ERCs post below.  If you are pushing 40% then you are pretty much guaranteed a majority...

When you complete break it down, it's worse.  50% don't vote, give or take (I think it was around 55% of registered voters this time).  Some PITA numbers for the remaining 50%:
- 12.5% are always conservative
- 12.5% are always liberal
- 7.5% are always NDP
- 2% are always BLOC
- 1.5% are always green

That's 36%, which only leaves 14% of the eligible population which may swing.  They are who the election is about.

I would prefer other than FPTP, and can tell you exactly what I'd like if you want...


----------



## Baz (20 Oct 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> But, but Trudeau can't be a legitimate Prime Minister- he only got 39.5 percent of the vote! That means that 60.5 percent of Canadians voted against him!
> 
> (Just pointing out to the Liberal triumphalists, how stupid your argument was when the Conservatives won a majority in 2011 with about the same popular vote).



I did see the guy from Nanos on CTV last night talking about how they got 188 with 40%, and that means blah, blah blah... no, that is exactly what happens in our system, and works both ways.  There is a possible advantage that it leads to Majority Governements more often than other systems...

Craig Oliver's rant, what a jack-ass.  And saying it is the presses job to hold them to account; no, it's not, it's the people of Canada's...


----------



## Pencil Tech (20 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> John Ibbitson speaks on "Three things Canadians will not miss about Stephen Harper," in this _Globe and Mail_ video and, in a second video on the "historic rebuke" the Liberals delivered to both Stephen Harper and Thomas Mulcair.
> 
> In both videos Mr Ibbitson makes the points that we shouldn't expect too much onto many promises too soon.
> 
> ...



You need to purge your party of the toxic Harperites and bring back the Progressive Conservative Party (not with Peter Mackay). Then this country will have found its traditional balance again.]


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Oct 2015)

I think the election result provides a few interesting revelations:

1. the election was more about defeating Mr Harper as an individual than the Conservatives as a whole. It's not like they were reduced to two seats a la Kim Campbell;

2. once the NDP campaign started to lose momentum, many orange voters became red. I admit surprise that the BQ did not become the alternate vote in Quebec;

3. the BQ collapse in Quebec is now well established. Mr Duceppe has lost his seat on two successive tries. Perhaps this puts the separation squawking to bed.

It will be interesting to see if the various special interest groups get what they campaigned for. I highly doubt that the ABC Veterans are going to get much, if anything. I don't see a return to lifetime pensions, nor do I see the various VAC offices being reopened.

That being said, the sun still came up today and the earth still revolves around it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2015)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> You need to purge your party of the toxic Harperites and bring back the Progressive Conservative Party (not with Peter Mackay). Then this country will have found its traditional balance again.]




Nope. That was not a balance. The old PC Party (George Drew, John Diefenbaker, Robert Stanfield, Brian Mulroney, Jean Charest and Peter MacKay) were just Liberals in cheap suits, small town Canada trying to mix with the big city boys.

I agree, in part, that the CPC needs to shed *part* of its _social conservative_ wing, the "law and order," anti-abortion, intolerant/anti-gay, "religious right" part, and return to what I would call small town/main street Conservative values (social moderation, fiscal prudence, support for the _traditional_ family structure (i.e. two parent families (even if they are gay or lesbian parents) with jobs, mortages, kids in school, and so on.) What we (Canada) doesn't need is a reborn PC party.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Oct 2015)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> the BQ collapse in Quebec is now well established. Mr Duceppe has lost his seat on two successive tries. Perhaps this puts the separation squawking to bed.



I don't know.  I'm dismayed the buggers did as well as they did, they're not on life support or flatlined yet.  Very happy to see Gilles go down in flames, maybe he'll scuttle off to whatever rock he crawled out from under now.


----------



## Pencil Tech (20 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Nope. That was not a balance. The old PC Party (George Drew, John Diefenbaker, Robert Stanfield, Brian Mulroney, Jean Charest and Peter MacKay) were just Liberals in cheap suits, small town Canada trying to mix with the big city boys.
> 
> I agree, in part, that the CPC needs to shed *part* of its _social conservative_ wing, the "law and order," anti-abortion, intolerant/anti-gay, "religious right" part, and return to what I would call small town/main street Conservative values (social moderation, fiscal prudence, support for the _traditional_ family structure (i.e. two parent families (even if they are gay or lesbian parents) with jobs, mortages, kids in school, and so on.) What we (Canada) doesn't need is a reborn PC party.



Well I would have thought that your second paragraph described the names in your first paragraph but OK. Look, if anything can be learned from the Harper demise it's this: Canadians don't scare anywhere near as easily as Americans, so don't keep going down that Tea Party, Fox News path because we're not all sitting barricaded in our bunkers waiting for ISIS to knock down the patio door, and we don't think it's a crime wave out there (because we can read statistics), so having a 'law and order' PM say that marijuana is infinitely more dangerous than tobacco and then days later happily go on television with a crackhead and his drug dealer brother as showcase supporters is a towering monument to the cynicism and contempt that that evil little man Harper had for the intelligence of the people of this country; and we may not like niqabs but we hate being manipulated into acting like racists more. All the Baird and Calandra yelling, the narrowcasting and wedge politics, and Kory Teneykes (BTW how did Poilievre ever hold on to his seat?). That's not us man. That's why Trudeau won, and won big.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Oct 2015)

I would call this the "Revenge of the Laurentian Elites", as Gerald Butts and his team seek to reclaim the perques and privileges that accrued from under the "Laurentian Consensus".

As many people have noted, this may be good for the "Elites", but as middle and working class people in Ontario have found (and Canadians will quickly discover), not so great for the rest of us. The TFSA tangent upthread is a good example; it was a great way to assist people of more modest means to get ahead of the curve (there are several studies posted on the Making Canada Relevant Again economic super thread  which detail this), but isn't in itself something which supports large bureaucracies or provides well paid jobs to party stalwarts like the Ontario Pension Plan. It is good that the TFSA has been around long enough to have gained traction and a supporting constituency; "they" may hate it and try to chip away at it, but it will be politically difficult to kill.

Perhaps saddest for me is to see Canadians closing their eyes and going back to the smug "little Canada" mentality that was detailed in a Ruxted Group piece back in 2007, when it looked like Canadians were starting to grow up and take a larger "Big Canada" mentality and emerge on the world stage as a responsible middle power again the way we did from the 1940's and into the 60's. We had bought that reputation with a huge amount of blood and treasure, and paid again in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan to get where we were yesterday, now we stand to lose that investment and all the sunk costs it entailed.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2015)

There are many silver linings.

As of this morning, the LPC popular vote % is less than what the CPC won in 2011.  Henceforth the asinine "the government is illegitimate since 60% of Canadians voted against it" will be used only to mock those who bleated it incessantly during the years of Conservative government.  As the LPC takes up government, there will be many more things to be walked back.

With a strong (gale force) tailwind of anti-Harper hysteria, the LPC did not manage (current figures) to equal the aforementioned CPC popular vote %, and the CPC hung onto its 30+%.  Liberals and their supporters will find ways to interpret this as a strong mandate for their policies, and a strong rebuke to Conservatives.  I hope they do - overreach is the quickest path to a turnabout.

Harper beat Harper.  Trudeau did not beat Harper.  Although I'd like to believe the NDP vote collapsed due to an accumulation of its pandering to QC and unnerving public statements from its extreme left fringes, it's hard to escape the conclusion indicated by timing: Mulcair took a principled position on a minor issue (niqab); xenophobes turned away from the NDP; the sheep saw the drop in polls and joined the parade/stampede.  Until that moment, no amount of LPC or NDP positive chicken-and-pot, hope-and-change promises was able to shift the vote share.  It took a negative event to move votes.  Trudeau is the beneficiary of circumstances outside his control, including a discreditable shift on the part of the voters who deserted the NDP for the LPC.

The BQ is still essentially dead.

>that evil little man Harper

Another silver lining: the immature petulant intolerant rude abusive uncivil name-calling politics of division and fear practiced by people incapable of distinguishing policy issues from morality or with no tangible grasp of politics as practiced by all parties in Canada is going to slowly go away.  (Mulcair is right that the politics of "fear and division" is going away; he's just wrong about who he thinks is guilty of it).

>You need to purge your party of the toxic Harperites and bring back the Progressive Conservative Party (not with Peter Mackay). Then this country will have found its traditional balance again.]

Unfortunately, I doubt this brand of passive-aggressive inanity is going away: "you need to be exactly like the party I prefer on the terms I dictate; in fact, I'd prefer if you just went away and let my party rule forever".


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Oct 2015)

It's spiteful but I take a bit of joy with Cheryl gallant being elected again as a CPC MP.  She's such a train wreck.    A parting gift from Harper maybe.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2015)

And this comment I will make separately because I think it's important.

The anti-Harper / anti-CPC hysteria does not exist because the outgoing government was particularly corrupt* or mean-spirited.  Almost every time I've looked at some alleged shortcoming of the policies or practices of the Harper government, I've found it was basically an application of lessons learned (sometimes bitterly) from past Liberal governments.   In most cases you don't need to look further back than the Chretien government.

The hysteria exists because of the social media amplifier.  And now we're going to find out if the political "right" can be as unhinged and miserable as the political "left" over differences of policy.

[Add: *It was much less corrupt - nothing on par with AdScam or allegations against the PM of bribe-taking or meddling in deals ever surfaced]


----------



## dapaterson (20 Oct 2015)

So, a few links and quotes about the Liberal Party's military commitments:


https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/report-on-transformation/

We will implement the recommendations made in the Canadian Forces’ Report on Transformation.

The Canadian Armed Forces’ ability to protect Canada’s borders and work with our allies overseas should never be compromised. Threats to its ability to meet future obligations must be addressed head on.

The Report on Transformation made a series of recommendations on how to build a more modern, efficient, and effective military, including reducing the size of administration within government and the Canadian Armed Forces in order to strengthen front-line operations.


https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/investing-in-our-military/

We will maintain current National Defence spending levels, including current planned increases.

Under Stephen Harper, investments in the Canadian Armed Forces have been erratic, promised increases in funding have been scaled back, and more than $10 billion of approved funding was left unspent.

This mismanagement has left Canada’s Armed Forces underfunded and ill-equipped, and the courageous members of the Forces unsupported after years of dedicated service.

We will not let Canada’s Armed Forces be shortchanged, and we will not lapse military spending from year to year. We will also reinvest in building a leaner, more agile, better-equipped military, including adequate support systems for military personnel and their families.


https://www.liberal.ca/realchange/strategic-priorities/

We will immediately begin an open and transparent review process of existing defence capabilities, with the goal of delivering a more effective, better-equipped military.

The Canada First Defence Strategy, launched by Stephen Harper in 2008, is underfunded and out of date. We will review current programs and capabilities, and lay out a realistic plan to strengthen Canada’s Armed Forces.

We will develop the Canadian Armed Forces into an agile, responsive, and well-equipped military force that can effectively defend Canada and North America; provide support during natural disasters, humanitarian support missions, and peace operations; and offer international deterrence and combat capability.

We will continue to work with the United States to defend North America under NORAD, and contribute to regional security within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

We will ensure that equipment is acquired faster, and with vigorous Parliamentary oversight.

We will put a renewed focus on surveillance and control of Canadian territory and approaches, particularly our Arctic regions, and will increase the size of the Canadian Rangers.


EDIT: See also: https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/09/A-new-plan-to-strengthen-the-economy-and-create-jobs-with-navy-investment.pdf


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2015)

I agree, broadly and generally, with Brad: _it was_, last night, and for a couple of weeks leading up to last night, _time for a change_. Canadians never liked Prime Minister Harper; some respected him, as they should have because he was a (qualitatively) "good" prime minister ~ far  better than Prime Ministers Martin, Chrétien, Mulroney and Trudeau* ~ at the policy and "machinery of government" business, and his _government_ was not _corrupt_, the personal foibles of e.g. Mike Duffy being acknowledged, but they never 'warmed' to him. He was easy to dislike and to mistrust, Canadians, generally, will not miss the man, even though they might not respect his replacement very much.

Canadians wanted change and they voted for it ... that's all. M Trudeau is a nice, pleasant, telegenic young man. We will see if he haas the brains and balls to be prime minister of a G7 country. I _hope_ he does; but I'm prepared to be disappointed and even a bit embarrassed when I travel abroad.

There is nothing much more to "read in" to last night's results beyond it being "time for a change." Now the CPC and NDP have time ( a couple of years) to rebuild and reintroduce themselves to Canadians.

___
* Yes, yes, I know I left out Prime Ministers Campbell, Turner and Clark.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (20 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree, broadly and generally, with Brad: _it was_, last night, and for a couple of weeks leading up to last night, _time for a change_. Canadians never liked Prime Minister Harper; some respected him, as they should have because he was a (qualitatively) "good" prime minister ~ far  better than Prime Ministers Martin, Chrétien, Mulroney and Trudeau* ~ at the policy and "machinery of government" business, and his _government_ was not _corrupt_, the personal foibles of e.g. Mike Duffy being acknowledged, but they never 'warmed' to him. He was easy to dislike and to mistrust, Canadians, generally, will not miss the man, even though they might not respect his replacement very much.
> 
> Canadians wanted change and they voted for it ... that's all. M Trudeau is a nice, pleasant, telegenic young man. We will see if he has the brains and balls to be prime minister of a G7 country. I _hope_ he does; but I'm prepared to be disappointed and even a bit embarrassed when I travel abroad.



That's it in a nutshell.  Ten years is enough.  As long as Trudeau's handlers control him things might not be so bad.  If he starts thinking for himself look out.


----------



## TwoTonShackle (20 Oct 2015)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> But, but Trudeau can't be a legitimate Prime Minister- he only got 39.5 percent of the vote! That means that 60.5 percent of Canadians voted against him!
> 
> (Just pointing out to the Liberal triumphalists, how stupid your argument was when the Conservatives won a majority in 2011 with about the same popular vote).



The point people were making is that the majority of Canadians were voting for a progressive system, which was split and that a conservative system won out with less popularity because it was the only option on the right.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Oct 2015)

Another silver lining for us old farts.  The phrase "Pime Minister Trudeau" won't sound strange to our ears.  "PM Mulcair" or "PM May" would have taken some getting used to.


----------



## Strike (20 Oct 2015)

> We will ensure that equipment is acquired faster, and with vigorous Parliamentary oversight.



If you want one, you really can't have the other.  Whoever wrote that line doesn't really know how Ottawa works I think.


----------



## Altair (20 Oct 2015)

Nanos did the best again. This was their last results (Sunday)

They had:
Liberals 39.1 (actual 39.5)
Cons 30.5 (actual, 31.9)
NDP 19.7 (same, 19.7)
Bloc 5.5 (actual, 4.7)
Green 4.6 (actual, 3.5)


----------



## Baz (20 Oct 2015)

TwoTonShackle said:
			
		

> The point people were making is that the majority of Canadians were voting for a progressive system, which was split and that a conservative system won out with less popularity because it was the only option on the right.



That's the point people were trying to make, but it didn't stand up.  When it is convenient, the "progressives" group themselves together against the "non-progressives," but they aren't the same.

The real point is that there are 15% of the population, which translates to 30% of the voting population, that align them selves with more conservative values, and there are a group of people that think that is such a bad thing that they need to attack them every chance they get.  When that swells to just 20%, because people wanted a change from the "progressive agenda," and which is enough to create majority government, then they cried like little children.  Worse, they started demonizing the leader like he was hitler or some other dictator, and he wasn't.

By the way, I'm not a conservative, I'm a centrist; an area the liberals historically dominated which is why they won so much.  I'm progressive in that society needs to be for everyone, but I'm conservative in tthat everyone needs to take care o themselves to some extent; when they fall through the cracks then society should catch them.  I can't understand why the middle class in Canada continues to believe that more government support is in their best interest; it is the middle class that will pay for it!

I have no problem with the liberal platform, I just hope they keep some sembalnce of intact, especially the part about consulting with Canadians.  From the point of view of the military, I hope that maybe we can do what most other countries do and have a national discussion on it, but I think the chances of that are slim.  The F-35 decision, or whatever other aircraft epoeple are talking about over on that thread, shouldn't even begin until we have that discussion, and then define the requirements to meet the resulting defence policy.


----------



## FSTO (20 Oct 2015)

Strike said:
			
		

> If you want one, you really can't have the other.  Whoever wrote that line doesn't really know how Ottawa works I think.



Haven't governments been saying that since the Spanish Armada?


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2015)

>The point people were making is that the majority of Canadians were voting for a progressive system, which was split and that a conservative system won out with less popularity because it was the only option on the right.

And in doing so they revealed historical ignorance of Canadian politics: the LPC is above all a centrist party, not a leftist one (WTF is a "progressive system"?).  They were (and probably still are, or will be shortly) well-connected into the "Big" establishments - Business, Law, Labour, etc - which implies a rolling back of the clock (always allegedly a conservative trait) to reassert their old power structures and practices.

The vote split assumption requires the assumption that all of the LPC vote share "belongs" on the left.  The most progressives can argue is that part of the LPC vote share would migrate to the NDP if the LPC dissolved - not all of it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2015)

>It will be interesting to see if the various special interest groups get what they campaigned for. 

This (with variations) is becoming an overused phrase as various groups congratulate the incoming government and PM: "I hope they keep their promises to us".


----------



## Altair (20 Oct 2015)

BTW, are the ndp done after this election?

Not I terms of disappearing, they will always be around, but in terms of ever forming government at the federal level?

I doubt that they will ever have better conditions than this.

100+ seats.

Centralist leader

Centralist platform

Neutered wacky left wing.

Voters wanting change

Everything was there for them. Yet here we are today with them solidly in 3rd place.


----------



## cavalryman (20 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Neutered wacky left wing.


I wonder how much the bozo eruption that was the Leap Manifesto did in terms of revealing that the wacky left wing remained ever present behind the hidden agenda?  Or more to the point, people realizing the ever-present wacky left wing seems to be predominantly filled with silver spoon socialists that have no connection to ordinary workers?


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> BTW, are the ndp done after this election?
> 
> Not I terms of disappearing, they will always be around, but in terms of ever forming government at the federal level?
> 
> ...



I prefer Liberal red to Commie red.  As I've said, not sad to see them lawndart in their Stuka.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Oct 2015)

Strike said:
			
		

> If you want one, you really can't have the other.  Whoever wrote that line doesn't really know how Ottawa works I think.



Good, Fast, Cheap.  Two out of three, Strike.  ;D


----------



## Rocky Mountains (20 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> And in doing so they revealed historical ignorance of Canadian politics: the LPC is above all a centrist party, not a leftist one (WTF is a "progressive system"?).  They were (and probably still are, or will be shortly) well-connected into the "Big" establishments - Business, Law, Labour, etc - which implies a rolling back of the clock (always allegedly a conservative trait) to reassert their old power structures and practices.



When all is said and done, the NDP must feel like chumps.  In the effort to stop Harper they voted for the Liberals who ran on a Marxist campaign but will govern for the benefit of Eastern Canadian power elites, as usual.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Oct 2015)

Generally speaking it was a good election.

Regionalism has started to fray round the edges.  Interesting to see the continued Social Credit Connection between Calgary and La Beauce.  Also interesting to see the rise of the BQ and the continued strength of the NDP in Quebec.

Ontario is as Ontario was. Best of luck to her.

We have our very own Obama.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> BTW, are the ndp done after this election?
> 
> Not I terms of disappearing, they will always be around, but in terms of ever forming government at the federal level?
> 
> ...



The West Island versus the rest of Quebec. The question is how much is partly how much are the LPC detested off the Island and who is best positioned to defeat them.  The second issue is who will deliver the most jobs.

Liberals won because Quebec fragmented.  And despite my personal preferences that is a good thing for Canada.

Congratulations Altair et al. 

 :cheers:


----------



## Altair (20 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The West Island versus the rest of Quebec. The question is how much is partly how much are the LPC detested off the Island and who is best positioned to defeat them.  The second issue is who will deliver the most jobs.
> 
> Liberals won because Quebec fragmented.  And despite my personal preferences that is a good thing for Canada.
> 
> ...


Hard to say that quebec is fragmented. It voted in a bloc again, red this time.

Which is a mixed blessing because it can turn on him just as its turned on many parties and leaders in the past 30 years.

That said, I'm obviously happy with the result, but I'm not here to rum salt into any bodies wounds.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (20 Oct 2015)

Trudeau was left with 22 Senate vacancies to fill with patronage appointments.  It was polite of Harper to leave them.  The Liberals can have an immediate Senate majority without the obstruction the Conservatives had to suffer for a few years.  Mind you, after all the Liberal lecturing, Trudeau wouldn't appoint any Senators, would he?


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2015)

>I'm not here to rum salt into any bodies wounds. 

Actually, I'll take the rum but you can still keep the salt.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2015)

Trudeau has promised some sort of non-partisan advisory (to the PM) process for Senate appointments.

This is an example of where we find out whether Trudeau is under control of his party, or is his own man wielding the full power of his office as he pleases.  (The Liberals have a long track record of using Senate appointments as part of their power retention structure.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2015)

OK, the good news, according to report in the _Ottawa Citizen_: "Elections Canada says 68.5 per cent of eligible voters cast ballots in Monday’s federal election, the largest turnout of voters in more than 20 years ... Of the 25.6 million people registered to vote, close to 17.6 million turned up at polls across the country in an election that handed the Liberals led by Justin Trudeau a majority victory ... That kind of turnout hasn’t been seen since the 1993 election."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Nanos did the best again. This was their last results (Sunday)
> 
> They had:
> Liberals 39.1 (actual 39.5)
> ...



Old news. Move on.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> OK, the good news, according to report in the _Ottawa Citizen_: "Elections Canada says 68.5 per cent of eligible voters cast ballots in Monday’s federal election, the largest turnout of voters in more than 20 years ... Of the 25.6 million people registered to vote, close to 17.6 million turned up at polls across the country in an election that handed the Liberals led by Justin Trudeau a majority victory ... That kind of turnout hasn’t been seen since the 1993 election."



That is a good thing. (Try say it without hearing Martha Stewart.   )


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Oct 2015)

73% voted in my riding


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Oct 2015)

Hopefully people will remain this engaged in the process in subsequent elections.  Good to see them come out like this.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Oct 2015)

It will be interesting to see the demographic distribution... if we collect that information. I anticipate that the 18-24 group will have come out in record numbers. I also imagine that 1st nations vote participation will have increased. The question, as already posed, is if these trends will hold in the future. Four years is a long time in the political realm.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Hopefully people will remain this engaged in the process in subsequent elections.  Good to see them come out like this.



The young people who voted because they wanted the "free credit card" _should_ become quite engaged in 2019 when the credit card bill comes due. However, Ontarians have been seeing and paying the bill for the last 10 years, so I have my doubts....


----------



## thehare (20 Oct 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The young people who voted because they wanted the "free credit card" _should_ become quite engaged in 2019 when the credit card bill comes due. However, Ontarians have been seeing and paying the bill for the last 10 years, so I have my doubts....



To be fair, it _seems_ to me that a lot of the youth who voted in this election voted more so to remove Harper from office than for the "free credit card" of which you speak. I've been talking to a lot of my friends and colleagues in their early 20's, and the trend for their "reason to vote" seemed less policy driven (such as massive infrastructure investment) and more socially driven. A lot of youth seen Harper as a tyrant of sorts (I would disagree with them vehemently but that is neither here nor there), and simply wanted to replace him, and saw Trudeau as the best option to do that.

Interesting enough, quite a few of these individuals do echo some concerns over the large amount of spending Trudeau is promising. It seems they hedged their bets hoping that the spending is either worth it in order to remove Harper from office, or that Trudeau was simply making election promises and that this spending will never actually happen once the Liberals "look at the books" so to speak.

Either way, regardless of why they voted for the Liberals I do _think_ there will be a slightly different tune from some of these individuals in the next election if this spending is to take place.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Oct 2015)

thehare said:
			
		

> To be fair, it _seems_ to me that a lot of the youth who voted in this election voted more so to remove Harper from office than for the "free credit card" of which you speak. I've been talking to a lot of my friends and colleagues in their early 20's, and the trend for their "reason to vote" seemed less policy driven (such as massive infrastructure investment) and more socially driven. A lot of youth seen Harper as some sort of tyrant of sorts (I would disagree with them vehemently but that is neither here nor there), and simply wanted to replace him, and saw Trudeau as the best option to do that.
> 
> Interesting enough, quite a few of these individuals do echo some concerns over the large amount of spending Trudeau is promising. It seems they hedged their bets hoping that the spending is either worth it in order to remove Harper from office, or that Trudeau was simply making election promises and that this spending will never actually happen once the Liberals "look at the books" so to speak.
> 
> Either way, regardless of why they voted for the Liberals I do _think_ there will be a slightly different tune from some of these individuals in the next election if this spending is to take place.



Many of them will be working for themselves in four more years. When they see how much of their hard earned cash is being taken by the government, for those 'social policies' their tunes will change quick enough.

The spending will take place. If they need to, as they've done in previous years, the Trudeau Liberals will raid the EI and pension fund for the cash they need. However, not before they run into huge deficits through normal social spending.

Let's face it. Lots of people (special interests) vote liberal (or NDP) for the free money, or programs, they get. The people that vote conservative are, typically, the ones that the liberals (or NDP) take the money from to give to those others. 

Working people are going to see their take home pay reducing in the very near future.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2015)

Once people go through a T1 a few times with intent, their views can change.

And I see the "provinces" have weighed in.  I have long taken the position that it was pointless to criticize Harper for not meeting with the premiers, because the meetings would basically have been dogpiles asking for more money.  So now that they are looking at establishing relationships with PM Trudeau, what have been their grievances and what issues do they want to tackle?

From cbc.ca:

"Danny Williams...the core of their high-profile spat was Harper's decision to incorporate non-renewable energy resources into the federal equalization formula." [Money]

"Kathleen Wynne, particularly over her government's proposed provincial pension plan, which Harper said would amount to tax grab and mean higher taxes for Ontarians." [Money]

"Rachel Notley...Her government opposes some energy projects championed by the federal and provincial Conservatives." [Economic development, so money]

"Calgary Mayor Nasheed Nenshi...is among the group of big city mayors that includes Toronto's John Tory and Vancouver's Gregor Robertson who have repeatedly called for greater support from the federal government for transit and infrastructure projects." [Money]

"Philippe Couillard, who said he's looking forward to working with a federal government with more progressive positions on climate change and health-care transfer payments." [Money]

"Brian Gallant...added he wants to see some of the infrastructure spending promised by Trudeau sent to his province." [Money]


----------



## Rifleman62 (20 Oct 2015)

Wait for all the TV Specials on Trudeau now being the PM and living in the house he grew up in.

I wonder if his mother moves in with him same as Obama's mother in law.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2015)

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is an editorial that asks which Liberal Party M Trudeau is bringing to Ottawa:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/the-trudeau-government-first-some-ethical-questions/article26893759/


> GLOBE EDITORIAL
> The Trudeau government: First, some ethical questions
> 
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




It's not just me who is worried ...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (20 Oct 2015)

From the Australian, posted under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act:



> Canada withdrawing fighter jets from Iraq, Syria
> THE AUSTRALIAN OCTOBER 21, 2015 9:54AM
> 
> Canada’s prime minister-elect Justin Trudeau has told US President Barack Obama that Canadian fighter jets would withdraw from fighting the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, but gave no timeline.
> ...



 Article Link


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2015)

>It's not just me who is worried ...

No point worrying about certainties.  I expect the historical judgement of corruption in the Harper government will be that it was atypically low.


----------



## Navy_Pete (20 Oct 2015)

Uh.... did you miss Mike Duffy, Micheal Sona and Dean Del Mastro?  All election fraud, manipulation and bribery all seem a bit like corruption to me.


----------



## dimsum (20 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >It's not just me who is worried ...
> 
> No point worrying about certainties.  I expect the historical judgement of corruption in the Harper government will be that it was atypically low.



I had to read it again to make sure it was the G&M I was reading and not the NP or The Onion.  When did it have anything bad to say about the LPC?


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2015)

>Uh.... did you miss Mike Duffy, Micheal Sona and Dean Del Mastro? 

"Atypically low" != "categorically absent".  Do I need to explain how one man acting alone is different than, say, an orchestrated kickback scheme involving public contracts?


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Uh.... did you miss Mike Duffy, Micheal Sona and Dean Del Mastro?
> 
> "Atypically low" != "categorically absent".  Do I need to explain how one man acting alone is different than, say, an orchestrated kickback scheme involving public contracts?




Give it up Brad.  Let them have their day.  Lots of Events to come.  :cheers:


----------



## Altair (21 Oct 2015)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VBMfR9vMWzQ

Already a downfall parody about harpers...well, you know.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Oct 2015)

Let the World Socialists speak!

"Canada’s incoming Liberals will pursue austerity and war"
" “Team Trudeau”: Tried and trusted representatives of big business"


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Oct 2015)

So the lefties still aren't happy....  what a surprise  :tantrum: :tempertantrum:


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Many of them will be working for themselves in four more years. When they see how much of their hard earned cash is being taken by the government, for those 'social policies' their tunes will change quick enough.
> 
> The spending will take place. If they need to, as they've done in previous years, the Trudeau Liberals will raid the EI and pension fund for the cash they need. However, not before they run into huge deficits through normal social spending.
> 
> ...




And, according to an article in the _Ottawa Citizen_ the Public Service Unions will be amongst the first in line looking to renegotiate their sick leave benefits ... for a start. 

The article says:

    "On top of sick leave, the various unions have their own concerns that they hope the Liberals will fix.

     Chris Aylward, vice-president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, said one of its top priorities is re-opening the nine veterans’ offices the Conservatives closed across the country.

     He said PSAC will also be pressing to repeal legislation that changed labour rules for federal employees, took away pay equity rights, and weakened health and safety protection. It also wants to repeal labour legislation that made
     it harder to organize workers and forced unions to disclose its financial transactions.

     “We call on the new government to act on these promises without delay,” said PSAC President Robyn Benson."


----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That could be easily remedied.



Silly me, I thought someone said something about lightening up. Lesson learned, won't fall for it again.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Oct 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> So the lefties still aren't happy....  what a surprise  :tantrum: :tempertantrum:



No! The lefties are realists: They know that  the Liberals get themselves elected on left leaning platforms ... and then govern from the centre (while finding all sorts of good, credible on their face excuses for doing so.)  :nod:

BTW: I just noticed that we have a Justin Smiley in our set:  :warstory:


----------



## Kilo_302 (21 Oct 2015)

One thing that makes me happy is the immediate return of the long form census and the creation of a Chief Science Office. This is just common sense, we shouldn't be afraid of facts.

https://www.liberal.ca/open-letter-to-canadas-public-servants/



> Canadians also expect their government to produce policies and programs based on facts. Replacing the long-form census with the National Household Survey is another example of the Harper Conservatives’ short-sighted and ideological approach to governing. This policy hurts Canadians and the government programs and services on which they rely. A Liberal government will immediately restore the mandatory long-form census and make Statistics Canada fully independent. We will ensure evidence-based decision-making is once again a guiding principle of the Canadian government.
> 
> The muzzling of scientists and the Conservative suppression of scientific information is an assault on democracy and an embarrassment to Canada on the international stage. The Liberal Party of Canada is committed to revoking the rules and regulations that muzzle government scientists and allow them to speak freely about their work, with only limited and publicly-stated exceptions. In addition, we will consolidate government science so that it is easily available to the public at-large through a central portal.
> 
> Further to this, should the Liberal Party of Canada form the next government, we will create a Chief Science Officer, whose mandate will include ensuring that government science is freely available to the public, that scientists are able to speak freely about their work, and that scientific analyses are appropriately considered when the government makes decisions.


----------



## FSTO (21 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And, according to an article in the _Ottawa Citizen_ the Public Service Unions will be amongst the first in line looking to renegotiate their sick leave benefits ... for a start.
> 
> The article says:
> 
> ...



Who was the main force behind the changes? The government of the day? Or senior DM's?

I feel that the sick day's issue is the same as the military's old practice of banking leave, which TB quashed in the 90's.
Or am I out to lunch on that idea?


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2015)

The _Ottawa Citizen_ reports on some of the fallout from the 2015 election in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/blame+great+tory+implosion+campaign+manager+jenni+byrne+booted/11453597/story.html


> Who’s to blame for the great Tory implosion? Campaign manager Jenni Byrne booted from inner circle
> 
> JENNIFER DITCHBURN, THE CANADIAN PRESS  10.19.2015
> 
> ...



There was some earlier dissatisfaction with Ms Byrne, as reported, back in early September, by _CTV News_.





                    Jennie Byrne


----------



## Rocky Mountains (21 Oct 2015)

I think people might be shocked how little legislation comes from partisan political sources and how much comes out of the bureaucracy.  Good government is good government.  Compensating workers at a higher level than is needed to keep staffing positions at a reasonable level is a waste and nothing more.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Oct 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Silly me, I thought someone said something about lightening up. Lesson learned, won't fall for it again.



Sarcasm Kat. Sarcasm.


----------



## Jed (21 Oct 2015)

“She’s a lightning rod, partly because of her personality, but also because she’s a woman,” said the source. “She’s going to bear the brunt of a lot of knifing because she’s a woman at the top of the food chain.”

Why does somebody always drag the gender status into an issue? Personality certainly, but gender? This is so 1960's.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Oct 2015)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Silly me, I thought someone said something about lightening up. Lesson learned, won't fall for it again.




Hey, Kat, maybe this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, offers a fitting end to this thread:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/a-good-day-for-canada-an-awful-one-for-ndp/article26901780/
My _emphasis_ added


> A good day for Canada, an awful one for NDP
> 
> GERALD CAPLAN
> Special to The Globe and Mail
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Oct 2015)

I do agree that keeping the Liberal's feet to the fire of "introducing some proportionality" in the voting system should be done, if only for the entertainment value of seeing them try to wiggle their way out of it.  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Oct 2015)

any particular reason for all the hate for Chris Alexander?


----------



## Altair (21 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Ottawa Citizen_ reports on some of the fallout from the 2015 election in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Citizen_:
> 
> http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/blame+great+tory+implosion+campaign+manager+jenni+byrne+booted/11453597/story.html
> There was some earlier dissatisfaction with Ms Byrne, as reported, back in early September, by _CTV News_.
> ...





> A senior party source said the party will be in debt after this election is through, something the members aren’t used to.


 They have 4 years to replenish their coffers, but if this was a minority situation and they needed to run another election shortly I wonder how this would have played out


----------



## Privateer (21 Oct 2015)

> They promised unequivocally to introduce proportional representation before the next election can be held.



Wrong.  Here is what the Liberals said:



> We are committed to ensuring that 2015 will be the last federal
> election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system.
> As part of a national engagement process, we will ensure that
> electoral reform measures – such as ranked ballots, proportional
> ...



Source:  June 2015 "Real Change" document: https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/06/a-fair-and-open-government.pdf

I think that proportional representation is a bad idea for a number of reasons.  I would be interested in ranked ballots, as it lets people try to get a longer-shot candidate elected, without the fear that they are throwing away their vote.  Mr. Trudeau has, I believe, said that he himself likes a ranked ballot system, as opposed to proportional representation.


----------



## Altair (21 Oct 2015)

Privateer said:
			
		

> Wrong.  Here is what the Liberals said:
> 
> Source:  June 2015 "Real Change" document: https://www.liberal.ca/files/2015/06/a-fair-and-open-government.pdf
> 
> I think that proportional representation is a bad idea for a number of reasons.  I would be interested in ranked ballots, as it lets people try to get a longer-shot candidate elected, without the fear that they are throwing away their vote.  Mr. Trudeau has, I believe, said that he himself likes a ranked ballot system, as opposed to proportional representation.


I think ranked ballots will be the way he will go. PR is always a radical way to go when the party is in power, RB not so much.

He can keep his promise without crippling his party.


----------



## Pencil Tech (21 Oct 2015)

FSTO said:
			
		

> Who was the main force behind the changes? The government of the day? Or senior DM's?
> 
> I feel that the sick day's issue is the same as the military's old practice of banking leave, which TB quashed in the 90's.
> Or am I out to lunch on that idea?



It's not the same thing. Banked Public Service sick days have no cash value.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (21 Oct 2015)

Ranked ballots are too complicated.  Counting ballots and trying to get them to balance is already a challenge for poll clerks who are human and a long way out of school.  Computerizing the system would mean that Chinese hackers get to determine who wins.  I think the Liberals need to study the matter and determine our present system works best.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Oct 2015)

Here's a simple idea: Reserve a block of seats (50?) to be apportioned to the parties based on their performance in the election.  So, Liberals got 40% of the vote?  20 PR seats.  Conservatives got 30%?  15 PR seats.  And so on.  That way you're voting for both a constituency MP, and a member at large.

That way, even if you're in a yellow dog riding your vote will still count in another way.


----------



## Altair (21 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Ranked ballots are too complicated.  Counting ballots and trying to get them to balance is already a challenge for poll clerks who are human and a long way out of school.  Computerizing the system would mean that Chinese hackers get to determine who wins.  I think the Liberals need to study the matter and determine our present system works best.


thankfully he has 4 years to figure that out. 12-18 months in a minority situation would lead to rushing into one system or another without sufficient input and time to implement properly.


----------



## Altair (21 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Here's a simple idea: Reserve a block of seats (50?) to be apportioned to the parties based on their performance in the election.  So, Liberals got 40% of the vote?  20 PR seats.  Conservatives got 30%?  15 PR seats.  And so on.  That way you're voting for both a constituency MP, and a member at large.
> 
> That way, even if you're in a yellow dog riding your vote will still count in another way.


I'm confused. Sucks because that was suppose to be the simple idea...


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Oct 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> One thing that makes me happy is the immediate return of the long form census and the creation of a Chief Science Office. This is just common sense, we shouldn't be afraid of facts.
> 
> https://www.liberal.ca/open-letter-to-canadas-public-servants/



I think I may have to go to jail. 

Chief Science Officer = Head of the Sacred Congregation for Propaganda?

"Habemus Veritatem!"

Or it is time to move on.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm confused. Sucks because that was suppose to be the simple idea...



My fast writing is probably the problem.  Here's my proposal (a little more wordy):

Assume a House of Commons of 350 members.  Of those, 300 would be elected exactly as they are now.  No change at all.

For the remaining 50 members, we apportion seats based on popular vote in the election.  So we tally up every vote in the country, and award seats based on that.  So if the national vote was Liberals 40%, Conservatives 30%, NDP 18%, and Bloc and Green 6% each, then those 50 seats would be Liberals 20; Conservatives 15, NDP 9, Bloc 3 and Green 3.  They would be members at large, and not constituency MPs.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Here's a simple idea: Reserve a block of seats (50?) to be apportioned to the parties based on their performance in the election.  So, Liberals got 40% of the vote?  20 PR seats.  Conservatives got 30%?  15 PR seats.  And so on.  That way you're voting for both a constituency MP, and a member at large.
> 
> That way, even if you're in a yellow dog riding your vote will still count in another way.



Better yet - make the Senate the home of the party representation.  Leave the Commons the home of the local representative.  I don't mind ranked ballots.  I consider proportional representation to be as anti-democratic as it comes.  If we are going to accept anti-democrativ power blocks then put them into the Senate - Substitute the Lords of the Party for the Lords Temporal and the Lords of the Unions for the Lords Spiritual.


----------



## Altair (21 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My fast writing is probably the problem.  Here's my proposal (a little more wordy):
> 
> Assume a House of Commons of 350 members.  Of those, 300 would be elected exactly as they are now.  No change at all.
> 
> For the remaining 50 members, we apportion seats based on popular vote in the election.  So we tally up every vote in the country, and award seats based on that.  So if the national vote was Liberals 40%, Conservatives 30%, NDP 18%, and Bloc and Green 6% each, then those 50 seats would be Liberals 20; Conservatives 15, NDP 9, Bloc 3 and Green 3.  They would be members at large, and not constituency MPs.


Who would decide those members though? The party?


----------



## GAP (21 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Who would decide those members though? The party?



have xxx members prenamed from each party


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Ranked ballots are too complicated.  Counting ballots and trying to get them to balance is already a challenge for poll clerks who are human and a long way out of school.  Computerizing the system would mean that Chinese hackers get to determine who wins.  I think the Liberals need to study the matter and determine our present system works best.



The Irish manage - despite the double handicap of Guiness and being Irish. >


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Who would decide those members though? The party?


In other places where something similar happens, you have party-generated lists to draw from - no idea how the lists are drawn up/developed.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The Irish manage - despite the double handicap of Guiness and being Irish. >



I'm sure the Guiness helps a great deal.   ;D


----------



## Altair (21 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Better yet - make the Senate the home of the party representation.  Leave the Commons the home of the local representative.  I don't mind ranked ballots.  I consider proportional representation to be as anti-democratic as it comes.  If we are going to accept anti-democrativ power blocks then put them into the Senate - Substitute the Lords of the Party for the Lords Temporal and the Lords of the Unions for the Lords Spiritual.


Constitutional reform, no? Non starter.

I'm really interested in this independent and non partisan Panal that will select senators. At least harper was decent enough not to stack the Senate with conservatives before he left.


----------



## Privateer (21 Oct 2015)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Ranked ballots are too complicated.  Counting ballots and trying to get them to balance is already a challenge for poll clerks who are human and a long way out of school.  Computerizing the system would mean that Chinese hackers get to determine who wins.  I think the Liberals need to study the matter and determine our present system works best.



I have a colleague from Australia, where a version of this is used.  He likes the system.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Constitutional reform, no? Non starter.
> 
> I'm really interested in this independent and non partisan Pana that will select senators. At lest harper was decent enough not to stack the Senate with conservatives before he left.



I believe you're trying to say "At least he didn't pull a Turner."


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> Constitutional reform, no? Non starter.
> 
> I'm really interested in this independent and non partisan Panal that will select senators. At least harper was decent enough not to stack the Senate with conservatives before he left.



What makes you think the provinces won't challenge the panel selection?  Their problem is that they prefer an illegitimate Senate because then their Council of the Federation is the alternative - and that represents the Governments of the Day in the provinces.  As it stands the Federal Government can use the Senate, with its regional voice, as a big stick to beat the Provincial Governments over their collective heads and claim that the Federal policies reflect regional/provincial needs.

The way out for all parties - I believe - is for the Provincial Governments to appoint their Senators for the life of the Provincial Governments.  That way the provincial parties get to choose their Senators and after a provincial election the Senators are replaced by a new intake of sober bagmen representatives.

But that would take power away from the Premiers and put power in the hands of the Parties...... as if.


----------



## Altair (21 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> What makes you think the provinces won't challenge the panel selection?  Their problem is that they prefer an illegitimate Senate because then their Council of the Federation is the alternative - and that represents the Governments of the Day in the provinces.  As it stands the Federal Government can use the Senate, with its regional voice, as a big stick to beat the Provincial Governments over their collective heads and claim that the Federal policies reflect regional/provincial needs.
> 
> The way out for all parties - I believe - is for the Provincial Governments to appoint their Senators for the life of the Provincial Governments.  That way the provincial parties get to choose their Senators and after a provincial election the Senators are replaced by a new intake of sober bagmen representatives.
> 
> But that would take power away from the Premiers and put power in the hands of the Parties...... as if.


The Panal should be ok, because while they pick the candidate it's the prime minister suggesting that candidate to the GG.

Should be constitutional.


----------



## Baz (21 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Better yet - make the Senate the home of the party representation.  Leave the Commons the home of the local representative.  I don't mind ranked ballots.  I consider proportional representation to be as anti-democratic as it comes.  If we are going to accept anti-democrativ power blocks then put them into the Senate - Substitute the Lords of the Party for the Lords Temporal and the Lords of the Unions for the Lords Spiritual.



That's what I'd do, plus I'd make the GG elected.

Move the government to the Senate as a National House.  Each party submits a list which includes what Cabinet positions would be filled.  If a party gets 40% of the vote, then they get 40% of their list.  Keep it simple, 100 Senators.

The Commons remains a Regional House, using Ranked Ballots, or possibly Single Transferable Vote.  As it a regional house some type of multi seat regions could be done to make it more proportional, but I don't know its needed, that's what the upper house is for.

By the way, the "use 50 seats to be more proportional" is called Mixed Member Proportional... Germany uses a version of it.

Last thing, so Government doesn't bog down, if a bill is rejected in the senate but then passes the HoC, then the Government should be able to pass it somehow.  The Government will always be in Minority in a proprtional house so there should be a way to move forward...


----------



## Altair (21 Oct 2015)

Baz said:
			
		

> That's what I'd do, plus I'd make the GG elected.
> 
> Move the government to the Senate as a National House.  Each party submits a list which includes what Cabinet positions would be filled.  If a party gets 40% of the vote, then they get 40% of their list.  Keep it simple, 100 Senators.
> 
> ...


Quebec doesn't want the Senate changed.

Make no mistake, while quebec  seperatists aren't making noise right now, it's largely due to the federal government denying them the oxygen they need to keep that fire lit. 

You do crazy stuff like that, which even the federalist quebec liberals dislike, and suddenly that box of hell is opened again. 

Let's all just try to figure this out without needed to open up the constitution again. At least not while I'm alive.


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Oct 2015)

I'm fairly certain the days of the ROC being willing to play the "we're special, give us what we want or we'll leave" game are long past.  Canada is, more than ever, clearly a Federation of many unique and identifiably different societal elements, that on the whole, forms this wonderful country.  Is Quebec unique?  Yes.  Is, say, Newfoundland, unique?  Yes.  The "rest of the Maritimes?" Yes.  Gosh, New Brunswick is so unique that it's the only truly-bilingual province.  Ontario?  Which part? The North?  National Capital Region? Southern? Sure. Prairies (let's say, SK and MB)?  Yes.  Alberta?  Indeed. BC? Yup.  North?  Again, which one (of many)? The Yukon? Yup, and definitely different that NWT and for sure Nunavut.

So, I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that even with the Liberals at the helm, "Les séparatistes" will at bet get some air on the flames of separatism, and nothing close to pure oxygen of years past.

:2c:

G2G


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Oct 2015)

Exactly.  Franco society is distinct, without question.  Just like all the other cultural backgrounds which make up this country, like the First Nations, Italian, Ukrainian, Portuguese, Chinese, Indian and so on and so on... all distinct, every one.


----------



## Baz (21 Oct 2015)

I said it's what I'd, my preference say, not what's actually doable...


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> The Panal should be ok, because while they pick the candidate it's the prime minister suggesting that candidate to the GG.
> 
> Should be constitutional.



Harper's version was that the provinces would elect candidates that the prime minister would recommend to the GG for appointment.

I don't see the difference beyond the method by which the list of candidates were recommended to the prime minister.

GG appoints in both cases, as is the current practice.

PM recommends in both cases, as is the current practice.

The dispute is over whether the PM recommends party hacks (standard practice since 1867), or recommends Provincially designated candidates (by direct election, by election by the provincial legislatures or by appointment by the Premiers) or by direct Federal election.

In every case the process of PM recommending and the GG appointing is undisturbed.

The Provinces challenged on the grounds that... what? .... they were given too much say in the selection process?

The issue was loss of control by Ontario, Quebec and The Maritimes - 24 Senators apiece.  Add in the fact that the Federal Government is naturally supposed to be a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Toronto-Montreal Inc and you have the makings of a power struggle.


----------



## GR66 (21 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> What makes you think the provinces won't challenge the panel selection?  Their problem is that they prefer an illegitimate Senate because then their Council of the Federation is the alternative - and that represents the Governments of the Day in the provinces.  As it stands the Federal Government can use the Senate, with its regional voice, as a big stick to beat the Provincial Governments over their collective heads and claim that the Federal policies reflect regional/provincial needs.
> 
> The way out for all parties - I believe - is for the Provincial Governments to appoint their Senators for the life of the Provincial Governments.  That way the provincial parties get to choose their Senators and after a provincial election the Senators are replaced by a new intake of sober bagmen representatives.
> 
> But that would take power away from the Premiers and put power in the hands of the Parties...... as if.



Could one possible solution be to continue to have the PM assign the Senators but have a list of nominees provided by each Provincial party?  At each Provincial election the PM then assigns Senators from those lists proportionally based on the popular vote each party receives in the election.  Each incoming Senator would have to sign his/her resignation letter upon appointment (effective the next provincial election in their province).  

It would take a while for those sitting Senators who do not do the honourable thing and resign at then next provincial election, but better than what we have now I'd think.  

Could something like this be done without a Constitutional change?


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Oct 2015)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Could one possible solution be to continue to have the PM assign the Senators but have a list of nominees provided by each Provincial party?



What we're going to get is something like the Order of Canada nomination committee.  I don't see why there would be a problem with it, as the PM is not bound by their advice.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Oct 2015)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> What we're going to get is something like the Order of Canada nomination committee.  I don't see why there would be a problem with it, as the PM is not bound by their advice.



Which brings us back to square one: the PM can appoint whoever he dam well chooses.


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Which brings us back to square one: the PM can appoint whoever he dam well chooses.



It seems to work in the UK.  We don't need to open the Constitution to make this better.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Oct 2015)

Doesn't work in the UK either.  Blair was the last to take a crack at it by reducing the Hereditary Peers, the Lords Spiritual and the Law Lords,  introducing a higher proportion of party bagmen and putting in place some weirdness known as a Supreme Court.



> Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.



http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/



> The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases, and for criminal cases from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population. We are open on weekdays from 0930 to 1630.



https://www.supremecourt.uk/

Used to was that the final arbiters were the Law Lords but everybody had a right to appeal their judgements through Parliament to the Crown.

Tangent.  Apologies.  Aggravation.

Suffice it to say the British system ain't what it used to was and it hasn't changed for the better.


----------



## Privateer (21 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Doesn't work in the UK either.  Blair was the last to take a crack at it by reducing the Hereditary Peers, the Lords Spiritual and the Law Lords,  introducing a higher proportion of party bagmen and putting in place some weirdness known as a Supreme Court.
> 
> http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/sovereignty/
> 
> ...



I do law stuff for a living, and I have to say, respectfully, that I do not understand this to be correct.  That is, where matters could be appealed to the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, that was the final appellate body.  There were no further appeals.  The same for matters that were appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (which was made up of Law Lords wearing a different hat, and is now made up of the Supreme Court Justices doing the same).  Are you thinking of something else?


----------



## a_majoor (21 Oct 2015)

I kind of like the "Council of Confederation" idea (at least in abstract) since it represents a sort of evolutionary development which will eclipse the Senate, supplementing it with a relatively equal, elected and (possibly) effective body. I'm sure the irony of that is lost on most of the political and chattering classes.

(I also like it as an Amerophile since it roughly reflects the intention of the Founders when they designed the system for populating the Senate as the body which represented the interests of the States in These United States).


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Oct 2015)

Nothing stops each premier from maintaining a list of preferred nominees and keeping the PM advised of changes to the list.  How the names get on the list doesn't matter.  Whether the PM chooses to pick names from a list or decide nominations by other means doesn't matter.

I see the talk of party lists (for the House) is back.  Two huge and glaring iniquities: gives parties yet more advantages over independents; weakens the principle of direct representation.

Whatever else happens, we should never stray from the principle of one riding, one MP.


----------



## YZT580 (21 Oct 2015)

The charter of rights and freedoms was the worst thing that ever happened to this country: other than its author PET.  We are now effectively ruled by a handful of unelected, unaccountable judges residing in a palace on the Rideau.  At least the senate is reasonably harmless and does provide significant entertainment material on 22 minutes.  The Supremes are downright dangerous.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (22 Oct 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The charter of rights and freedoms was the worst thing that ever happened to this country: other than its author PET.  We are now effectively ruled by a handful of unelected, unaccountable judges residing in a palace on the Rideau.  At least the senate is reasonably harmless and does provide significant entertainment material on 22 minutes.  The Supremes are downright dangerous.



Do you have any concrete examples of this egregious usurping of powers that is "downright dangerous"?


----------



## Lumber (22 Oct 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The charter of rights and freedoms was the worst thing that ever happened to this country: other than its author PET.  We are now effectively ruled by a handful of unelected, unaccountable judges residing in a palace on the Rideau.  At least the senate is reasonably harmless and does provide significant entertainment material on 22 minutes.  The Supremes are downright dangerous.



Yes, I'm going to have to go PPCLI Guy on this one and ask you to demonstrate wherefrom you obtained such colourful sputum. "Effectively ruled"? I'm sorry, is the SCC drafting laws? Establishing policy? Are they negotiating tade deals and representing our interests at international conferences?... Being able to strike down laws as unconstitutional is an important check and balance in our parliamentary democracy. The SCC's ability to do this is a powerful ability indeed, but it is narrow in scope. They can only strike down laws based on cases brought before them, and they can't make new laws, set policies, or doing anything else associated with "ruling". As for the Charter? You can certainly debate what's good and what's bad about it, and what could be changed or made better, but "the worst thing to happen to this country"? That's a reach.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2015)

Maybe it's time to close this thread ...

Jeffrey Simpson, in a column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ says a somewhat snarly farewell to Prime Minister Harper's government (6th paragraph ~ the long one) and welcomes Prime Minister designate Trudeau's "kinder, gentler start:"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/jeffrey-simpson-trudeaus-kinder-gentler-start/article26897401/


> Trudeau’s kinder, gentler start
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




I'm another of those, I'm afraid, who trusts experience over promises ... I expect little from a Liberal government except for cronyism, _statism_, and regular whiffs of _corruption_.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Oct 2015)

I apparently have a fortitude for sour memories that goes back a little further than Simpson's.

The treatment of Preston Manning and Stockwell Day by Liberal attack dogs.

This series of ads.

The prejudice against Harper's innate personality which started [almost immediately] after the 2006 election with snide comments about his failure to measure up to some people's expectations of displays of public affection.

The media who made no pretense of objectivity and then whined when they were shut out.

The taxpayer-funded pro-government advertising that has been undertaken by governments at all levels for decades.

Use of parliamentary procedures and tricks also undertaken by governments at all levels for decades.

The constant fear-mongering and wedge-driving by the media and opposition political operatives over hidden agendas, Christian supremacy, right-wing extremism, etc.

Much of what the anti-Harper establishment objects to can be traced back and seen to be a reaction to their own poor sportsmanship in some cases, or simple abject hypocrisy in others.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2015)

Sophie Grégoire and Prime Minister designate Justin Trudeau and Laureen Harper and
Prime Minister Stephen Harper doing their civic duties today at the National War Memorial


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I apparently have a fortitude for sour memories that goes back a little further than Simpson's.
> 
> The treatment of Preston Manning and Stockwell Day by Liberal attack dogs.
> 
> ...



But Brad, that all happened before Justin Bieber invented sex.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2015)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> But Brad, that all happened before Justin Bieber invented sex.



 :rofl:

For the win!


----------



## Altair (22 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Maybe it's time to close this thread ...
> 
> Jeffrey Simpson, in a column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ says a somewhat snarly farewell to Prime Minister Harper's government (6th paragraph ~ the long one) and welcomes Prime Minister designate Trudeau's "kinder, gentler start:"
> 
> ...


election 2019 thread?


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Oct 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Sophie Grégoire and Prime Minister designate Justin Trudeau and Laureen Harper and
> Prime Minister Stephen Harper doing their civic duties today at the National War Memorial


<wild-ass, foil-hatted tea leaf reading>
Is it always "boy-girl-boy-girl", or did someone figure/say/demand the PM's won't sit next to each other?
Looky who's sitting right behind the incoming PM at a military function - sign of things to come?
</wild-ass, foil-hatted tea leaf reading>
 ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Oct 2015)

Yeah, I noticed that cabbage head in the crowd.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> election 2019 thread?




No, no, too soon ... just another Politics in <year> thread.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> election 2019 thread?



Be more forward thinking. _Election 2023_ is where we should be focused...... ;D


----------



## Altair (22 Oct 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Be more forward thinking. _Election 2023_ is where we should be focused...... ;D


election 2027 is the rubber match, should see if trudeau can outlast harper  >


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (22 Oct 2015)

Altair said:
			
		

> election 2027 is the rubber match, should see if trudeau can outlast harper  >



Trudeau ran on lofty ideals, and unlike Obama, has no one to blame but himself if he cannot achieve them as he has a majority government. A failure of the Liberal party (broken promises, corruption, etc) during this government could spell another opportunity for the NDP to move up as the Liberals would then be "just like the conservatives". I suspect that that will eb the NDP narrative for the next 4 years.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Oct 2015)

Time to shut it down and move to the new thread?

What say ye all?


----------



## Lumber (22 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Time to shut it down and move to the new thread?
> 
> What say ye all?



Agreed: "Post-Election 2015" or "How Army.ca Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Kilo and Altair"


----------



## YZT580 (22 Oct 2015)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Do you have any concrete examples of this egregious usurping of powers that is "downright dangerous"?



Whether you agree or not, their rejection of the head covering law was outside of their jurisdiction.  They transposed a social tradition into a religious requirement and then rejected a law on the basis of that fictitious requirement.  The ruling vis-à-vis assisted suicide has the same potential towards abuse as the Dutch and Belgians have discovered in their countries.  

There are others but most if not all are judgmental in nature, that is they depend upon your moral viewpoint.  The one thing for sure is we no longer are a nation of moral absolutes.  Everything is now subject to interpretation and that means that the judges are the ones deciding what is right or wrong and not our elected representatives.  The judicial branch should be able to re-interpret the will of the people.


----------



## Lumber (22 Oct 2015)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The one thing for sure is we no longer are a nation of moral absolutes.



There are no moral absolutes, but that's definitely a conversation for another thread that has the potential to be as bad as the thread on Gun Control.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Oct 2015)

You should always try to do the right thing.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Oct 2015)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> You should always try to do the right thing.


From who's viewpoint?  >


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Time to shut it down and move to the new thread?
> 
> What say ye all?



Perhaps, start by "unpinning" it from the _top tier_ ... it will, soon, die a natural death.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Trudeau ran on lofty ideals, and unlike Obama, has no one to blame but himself if he cannot achieve them as he has a majority government. A failure of the Liberal party (broken promises, corruption, etc) during this government could spell another opportunity for the NDP to move up as the Liberals would then be "just like the conservatives". I suspect that that will eb the NDP narrative for the next 4 years.



Sorry, but Obama had a supermajority in the Senate and an absolute majority in the House during his first term, and singularly failed to do anything beyond Obamacare (although looking at the debacle that has become, perhaps Americans should be thankful). There is a Cossack saying: "Don't blame your horses for defeat..."


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Oct 2015)

Time enough for that later.  Meanwhile, enjoy the barrage of hagiography while it lasts.


----------



## observor 69 (22 Oct 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Sorry, but Obama had a supermajority in the Senate and an absolute majority in the House during his first term, and singularly failed to do anything beyond Obamacare (although looking at the debacle that has become, perhaps Americans should be thankful). There is a Cossack saying: "Don't blame your horses for defeat..."



The Myth of the Filibuster-Proof Democratic Senate

September 11, 2012 by Andy Cohen 

A little more info on this comment.

http://sandiegofreepress.org/2012/09/the-myth-of-the-filibuster-proof-democratic-senate/


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Oct 2015)

It's not hard to unwind a myth when you start by creating a straw man.  Undoubtedly, in a world occupied by birthers and truthers and various other stripes of gullible or forgetful people, some are misinformed about the duration of the Democratic supermajority.  Nevertheless, for a time, one existed.  And there really was a Democratic House majority throughout [the first two years of] Obama's first term.  (The way Thucydides phrased it, we can be forgiven for reading it to mean the Senate supermajority existed for two years.)  And the Democrats really did miss the opportunity to pass one of their perennial wish items - the easiest would have been to raise tax rates.

Back to Canada - it's a majority government, and it campaigned on something bearing more than a little resemblance to Hopenchange ("Real change" being the campaign slogan which replaced the earlier "Hope and hard work").  The Senate can - if it wishes - throw in a wrench.  But the only thing standing between the Liberals and whatever they want to pass in the House is themselves.  The NDP do need to keep their powder dry; if the Liberals stumble, voters may not yet be ready to re-install Conservatives and may not even be ready to re-install Libs or Cons as a minority, which would give the NDP another shot.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Oct 2015)

OK. Let's see if we can move the discussion.

Post here: http://army.ca/forums/threads/120817.0.html

---Staff---


----------



## McG (4 Nov 2015)

Results still coming in: the Liberals have lost a seat to the NDP in recounts.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-candidate-wins-saskatchewan-riding-after-recount-elections-canada-1.2641158


----------

