Author Topic: Election 2015  (Read 2009992 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 436,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,552
  • Crewman
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2275 on: August 20, 2015, 12:32:04 »
And the "Lawn ornaments" are now coming out. 
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 102,200
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,217
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2276 on: August 20, 2015, 13:59:29 »
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.
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 66,609
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,230
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2277 on: August 20, 2015, 14:06:08 »
It's amazing how little I care about this.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Acorn

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 853
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2278 on: August 20, 2015, 15:34:01 »
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).
"Liberal societies cannot be defended by herbivores. We need carnivores to save us." - Michael Ignatieff, The Lesser Evil

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 218,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,068
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2279 on: August 20, 2015, 16:31:32 »
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
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” ~ Soren Kierkegaard

ignoramus et ignorabimus

Online PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 951,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,757
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2280 on: August 20, 2015, 16:36:54 »
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/

Quote
“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.”

Online Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 259,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,250
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2281 on: August 20, 2015, 19:17:25 »
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.
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 66,609
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,230
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2282 on: August 20, 2015, 19:39:31 »
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:
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 494,190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,451
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2283 on: August 21, 2015, 07:55:39 »
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/
Quote

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
The Globe and Mail

Last updated: Thursday, Aug. 20, 2015

It seemed like a safe prediction.

As chief executive officer of Abacus Data, a polling company, David Coletto had followed the 2012 Alberta election closely. In the campaign’s final month, his polls and those of his competitors showed the same thing: The right-wing Wildrose Party, led by Danielle Smith, was winning. In its final survey, Abacus had Wildrose up by 10 percentage points over the Progressive Conservatives.
So on April 23, as people across the province cast their ballots, Mr. Coletto was interviewed on Sun News Network and said the obvious: Ms. Smith would be the next premier of Alberta.

Mr. Coletto recently described what happened next.

“The results started coming in,” he said, “and my face goes white …”

The PCs had won easily. Their margin of victory, almost 10 points, was the opposite of what Mr. Coletto had predicted.

That election left Canada’s polling industry shaken. It wasn’t just scrappy upstarts such as Abacus that had blown the call – veteran firms such as Leger Marketing had misfired, too.

Nor was 2012 an anomaly: Alberta-scale disasters have become increasingly common in the world of public-opinion research, from Israel to Scotland to the United States.

In Canada, with a federal election looming, the polling industry is in a nervous state. Its earnings are shrinking, its reputation is tarnished and its methodologies are in flux. Known for their bravado and influence, many pollsters have been left feeling vulnerable.

“These are not the golden days of polling, that’s for sure,” said Scott MacKay, president of Winnipeg-based Probe Research. “There are many reasons and they sort of overlap and intersect with each other. It’s sort of the perfect storm.”


All images from the Globe and Mail article

Election-related revenues are a fraction of Canada’s $500-million polling industry – less than 4 per cent, according to the Marketing Research and Intelligence Association (MRIA) – but they play an outsize role in pollsters’ fortunes.

The lead-up to a vote is a smorgasbord of free publicity for companies such as EKOS, Nanos and Ipsos.

“Doing this work is almost the equivalent of a fashion gangplank,” said Angus Reid, 67, whose storied career in polling includes the founding and selling of his eponymous company. “It’s an opportunity to show off their research.”

By the same token, the spectre of failure looms over pollsters throughout a campaign. A botched election forecast is an excruciatingly public form of failure: Curtis Brown, vice-president at Probe, admitted to having anxiety dreams about fiascos such as the 2013 B.C. vote, which his colleagues in the industry got spectacularly wrong. (Probe didn’t have a poll in the field.)

The upcoming federal election appears especially difficult to call. The most recent Nanos Research poll for The Globe and Mail essentially shows a three-way tie, with the Conservatives, NDP and Liberals separated by less than the margin of error, each hovering around 30 per cent.

But even in the best of times, gauging voter intentions is fraught with difficulties. There are the “Shy Tories,” well documented in Britain, who deny that they intend to vote Conservative until doing just that.

The “Bradley effect,” meanwhile, is named after a black candidate for governor of California who led in the polls right up to voting day before losing to a white opponent.

In the privacy of the polling booth, fickle hearts and cold feet often prevail. As Abacus’s Mr. Coletto put it, “Ultimately, people are really unpredictable.”

People are even less predictable if you can’t get in touch with them and pollsters are having more trouble on that score. They now find themselves in an awkward state of technological limbo: With both phone and Internet polls plagued with problems, the industry lacks a consistent, affordable way to reach a wide swath of the population.

No less an authority than Nate Silver – the writer and statistician whose nearly perfect predictions of the past two U.S. elections made him a polling superstar – has warned of a sustained dip in quality.

“Polls, in the U.K. and in other places around the world, appear to be getting worse, as it becomes more challenging to contact a representative sample of voters,” he wrote in a post on his website, FiveThirtyEight.com, after this year’s British election, when polls failed to predict a Conservative majority.

Pollsters themselves are acutely aware that the industry is amassing a growing tally of failures. The jitters have gotten so bad that even polling successes now come laced with anxiety. When Albertan voters stampeded into the NDP camp ahead of this year’s provincial election, polls accurately picked up on the stunning shift. But some in the industry were “so spooked,” Mr. MacKay said, “that they didn’t even believe their own numbers.”

“The NDP was up 15 points the day before the election,” he added, “and you saw these guys on TV and their eyes were shifting and they were saying, ‘You know, anything can happen. People change their minds.’”

Fittingly for number crunchers, the pollsters’ malaise can be quantified: In 2004, the MRIA reported that its members earned $574-million; in 2014, that number was down to $509-million.

“Our industry has definitely taken a hit,” said Sébastien Dallaire, vice-president of public affairs at Leger Marketing.



It has been a gradual but painful descent for a sector that journalists and politicians once accorded a kind of mystique. In the late-1970s, the empirical weight of opinion-poll pronouncements was a new force in Canadian politics; pollsters, it was thought, wielded survey results as if they were crystal balls.

By the early 1980s, declining long-distance rates and the ubiquity of land lines led to a spike in telephone polling. Suddenly, it was cheap to call Canadians across the country, and, significantly, Canadians were picking up.

“The brilliance of polling in the 1980s is that virtually everyone was accessible through a single means of technology – the telephone,” said Andrew Laing, president of the media monitoring firm Cormex Research.

Angus Reid’s refusal rate was about 15 per cent in those days, he says – so nearly nine in 10 people who picked up agreed to answer his questions. Some people even complained when they were denied the novelty of having a pollster call them at home.

“In the early eighties, this was viewed as pretty sexy stuff,” Mr. Reid said. “Polling had sort of arrived from the margins to the mainstream and everyone loved it. It was really the salad days of the industry.”

Suddenly, pollsters such as Allan Gregg and Darrell Bricker were everywhere – advising political parties, being quoted on front pages and leading the nightly news, they had become minor celebrities.

“It was really exciting,” said EKOS Research president Frank Graves, who founded his company in 1980. “It was a period where you felt pretty comfortable that you knew how to do things, people listened … and you made a lot of money. It was a pretty good deal.”

But starting in the early 2000s, technological and social change began dulling some of the industry’s lustre.

Many cite weaker voter loyalty as a hurdle to predicting elections. “People are far more pragmatic and spontaneous than they used to be,” Probe’s Mr. MacKay said, “which is a nightmare for a pollster.”

Even more daunting, though, is the issue of getting voters to answer questions about their political preferences on the phone. More than half of Canadians under 35 don’t have a land line, and tracking down cellphone users is more expensive since they aren’t listed.

At the same time, caller ID has made it easier for land-line users to ignore pollsters. And those who do pick up often promptly hang up again, thinking they’ve encountered a hated telemarketer.

“It’s a call from someone they don’t know and it’s all the same,” Mr. Brown lamented.

Refusal rates for political polls, once below 20 per cent, now often top 90 per cent.

The growing inefficiency of paying for live interviewers has driven the industry toward less expensive techniques such as Interactive Voice Response (IVR) – robo-polling – and online panels.

That lower cost has allowed a raft of new firms such as Abacus, which does 80 per cent of its polling online, to enter the field.

“I don’t think Abacus could have started the way that we did 10 years ago,” Mr. Coletto said. “Physically, we needed some office space, a few computers and an Internet connection.… There are some barriers to entry, but they aren’t physical or capital-related.”

The old guard often treats these newcomers with thinly veiled contempt.

“There are a lot of people playing at this,” said Mr. Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Public Affairs. “You see these people pop up – who knows what their motivation is. To get a little publicity.”

Still, online polling has many credible proponents – Mr. Reid himself uses Web panels for his non-profit research foundation, the Angus Reid Institute. Boosters point to the different kinds of questions they can pose on the Web, asking respondents what they think of video clips or passages of text.

Mr. Reid, meanwhile, touted the relative intimacy of Internet questionnaires, which allow for interviews on sensitive topics such as sexual harassment that people might be uncomfortable discussing over the phone.

But finding a good response pool online is a “bit of an art form now,” Mr. Reid acknowledged. While randomness was once a watchword for pollsters – ensuring that samples weren’t self-selecting and skewed – Internet panels now solicit members with Web ads, often asking participants to complete multiple surveys in exchange for Air Miles, donations to charity, concert tickets and other goodies.

“Increasingly, people expect to be compensated for their time,” said Mr. Coletto, who conducts his polls through a panel of 500,000 people compiled by a separate market research firm.

Critics warn that polls conducted through these panels can yield warped results, since respondents have volunteered to participate and might be more opinionated than the general population, or motivated by money.

Nik Nanos, CEO of Nanos Research, which does live-agent phone polling for The Globe, said two-thirds of the polls conducted in Canada wouldn’t pass muster for publication in The New York Times, mainly because they aren’t random enough.



Online polls aren’t always wrong, he said, but they aren’t consistent either. “Do you want your survey right 19 times out of 20, or 15 times out of 20?” he asked.

Pollsters who try to take soundings from social media are greeted with even more skepticism. “Wild, voodoo polls,” Mr. MacKay called them.

“I see some of these Facebook polls and it makes me want to puke,” Mr. Reid said.

As dubious polling becomes more prevalent, the industry looks poised to have an unusually large impact on this year’s federal election. About two-thirds of voters are determined to replace the Harper government and many believe that whichever left-of-centre party looks likeliest to accomplish that goal will reap a bumper crop of strategic ballots.

That calculus will be heavily determined by polling: If the NDP, for example, leads by a healthy margin at the start of the campaign’s home stretch, lukewarm Liberals could flock to the orange tent – or vice versa.

In an effort to shore up their credibility and their bottom lines ahead of such a crucial test, Canadian pollsters have begun trying to self-police. Mr. Bricker was recently elected chairman of one such group, the Canadian Association for Public Opinion Research, which launched in June. It plans to set standards around transparency and polling methods to hold firms accountable when things go pear-shaped.

“In Canada, everybody just kind of runs away,” he said. “It hurts the industry, but most importantly, it’s a disservice to democracy.”

Others, such as Mr. Graves and Mr. MacKay, predict a return to old-school techniques such as door-to-door surveys, which they think could bolster polling’s legitimacy.

“I know it sounds primitive,” Mr. MacKay said.

Primitive maybe, but it could just prevent another Wildrose moment for pollsters.


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.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Online MARS

  • Mentor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 65,365
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 835
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2284 on: August 21, 2015, 09:02:32 »


     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". 

"Managers do things right; Leaders do the right thing"

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 150,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,857
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2285 on: August 21, 2015, 13:12:04 »
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

Offline S.M.A.

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 132,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,530
"Why defence matters in this election"- article
« Reply #2286 on: August 21, 2015, 13:22:49 »
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

Quote
Why defence matters in this election
GEORGE PETROLEKAS
Contributed to The Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Aug. 19, 2015 3:06PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, Aug. 20, 2015 11:23AM EDT

George Petrolekas is a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. He has served in Bosnia and Afghanistan and has been an adviser to senior NATO commanders.

Normally, in Canadian elections, defence is an afterthought. In the past decade, defence featured because of our engagement in Afghanistan. This time, defence may form, in part, the path to power.

More than any other party, the heretofore unseen NDP defence platform will have much to do with whether the party forms the government.

For years, the NDP has functioned as the social conscience of the nation. Its base of committed voters historically has not been large, but NDP policies have influenced every other party’s social platforms for decades. But to affect other parties’ platforms is not the route to power, only to influence.

In the 2012 election, the NDP captured the imagination of many Canadians, particularly in Quebec, vaulting the NDP to official Opposition status and putting the party within striking reach of forming a government. But its being on the cusp of power induces fears in some that an NDP government would displace what is positioned as a more principled and muscular vision of the country.

For the Liberals, an outlook that appears to be at variance with the grand liberal internationalist viewpoints appears to be struggling to find a foundation on which to rest. Is it activist? Is it isolationist? Is it globally responsible? These elements do not seem clear at all so far in this campaign.

To achieve power, the NDP will have to balance its perceived root philosophies with enough centrist positions to attract on-the-fence Liberals, and even some Conservatives willing to take a chance on Thomas Mulcair as prime minister. It is doing so with middle-of-the-road economic positions, but will have to be seen as more centrist on the defence file as well.

The NDP has narrowed its margin of manoeuvre, given its current stand on the anti-ISIS mission by declaring its first act would be to bring the troops home – in contrast to what most Canadians believe. In three national polls conducted during the mission-extension debate, a majority of Canadians (as many as 74 per cent) supported the air campaign and its extension. In earlier polling by Ipsos Reid, Canadians agreed that “everything possible” needs to be done to stop ISIS from establishing its self-declared caliphate – the Islamic State, as the group now refers to itself – and that included putting Canadian boots on the ground. Surprisingly, this pro-mission support was echoed in Quebec as well.

The whole NDP history on defence will be ridiculed by Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, including its long campaign to have Canada leave NATO during the Cold War. Mr. Harper won’t do that with Mr. Trudeau, because previous Liberal governments decided to send Canada to Afghanistan. As such, Mr. Trudeau’s current ideas on interventions abroad will be questioned.

And so for the NDP, the tipping point to power may indeed become the position it will take on its vision for the Canadian Forces.

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair will likely try to offset a perception of weakness in this area by outlining a comprehensive defence policy, likely reaffirming peace missions and care for veterans. It would go over well as many centrist Canadians have not abandoned the attachment to Canada’s blue-beret past.


The Liberals, in comparison, have a far more difficult task in front of them. So far, they have not been able to carve an identity that is clearly identifiable in the minds of voters. If anything, they have minutely calibrated on the edges, but not enough to create a discernible difference. No air strikes for example, but far more training of advisers.

If the Liberal position is unclear with respect to current engagements, so far, there has been little indication from either the NDP or the Liberals on what kind of military Canadians should be entitled to or how they would use it, except to say that fixing the Royal Canadian Navy would be a priority.

Mr. Harper is not immune on this file, either. Given past experience on the F-35, various procurement delays, and veterans, Mr. Harper generally gets a free ride because of perception of being action-prone abroad; the deep defence cuts of the past two years glossed over in part by rhetoric, and his willingness to use the Forces in the Ukraine, in support of NATO and also against ISIS.



NDP candidate Andrew Seagram quote from Toronto Sun column:

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2015, 13:25:43 by S.M.A. »
Our Country
--------------------------------
"A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: We did it ourselves."   - Lao Zi (老子)
-------------------------------------------
"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm."
- Winston Churchill

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 494,190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,451
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2287 on: August 21, 2015, 16:03:52 »
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 ...
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 106,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,589
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2288 on: August 21, 2015, 20:30:56 »
>to curry favour and votes

Serendipity strikes.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 544,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,506
The PM's hair falls under the official secrets act
« Reply #2289 on: August 21, 2015, 21:10:21 »
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?
Putting the *** in acerbic.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -7995.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 283,582
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,683
    • Army.ca
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2290 on: August 21, 2015, 21:21:28 »
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.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline cavalryman

    Done with the demented bureaucracy.

  • You can't put a pricetag on patriotism
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 37,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 439
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2291 on: August 21, 2015, 21:35:31 »
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.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -7995.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 283,582
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,683
    • Army.ca
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2292 on: August 21, 2015, 21:49:05 »
Or the Chicken Lady from KITH https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9T38OcxS30g
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Altair

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 51,904
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,123
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2293 on: August 21, 2015, 22:12:11 »
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.
Someday I'll care about milpoints.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 106,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,589
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2294 on: August 21, 2015, 23:36:38 »
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.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -7995.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 283,582
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,683
    • Army.ca
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2295 on: August 22, 2015, 00:38:06 »
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.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline X Royal

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 21,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 608
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2296 on: August 22, 2015, 12:03:26 »

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 106,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,589
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2297 on: August 22, 2015, 12:08:34 »
"'E say 'e knows f* nothing...I say 'e knows f* all!"
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Jed

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,570
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,120
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2298 on: August 22, 2015, 12:11:03 »
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.
As the old man used to say: " I used to be a coyote, but I'm alright nooooOOOOWWW!"

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 494,190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,451
Re: Election 2015
« Reply #2299 on: August 22, 2015, 12:35:52 »
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.

It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"