Election 2015

[George Wallace]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

“You might well imagine,” an adviser to Thomas Mulcair was telling me, “Tom coming out in September and saying Harper has driven down defence spending to one per cent of GDP. We’re going to raise it to 1.2 per cent. We have a military that’s being allowed to rust out and we’re going to fix it.”

Another adviser cautioned the level of support might not be that high – a 20 per cent increase – but significant enough to show Canadians the NDP is by no means soft on defence.

In raising the military budget, Mr. Mulcair could risk alienating parts of the party’s base, which might go all squirrelly. But in political terms, party strategists realize the Dippers could be vulnerable come voting day if they appear weak-kneed in the face of foreign threats; especially if there is more terrorism, ISIS savagery, or Russian sabre-rattling. The New Democrats oppose Ottawa’s modest contribution to air strikes against ISIS and also stand square against the controversial anti-terror legislation, Bill C-51.

But with their own limp record on defence spending, the Tories have left the NDP an opening. Team Harper came to power in 2006, talking about ramping up military spending to 2 per cent of GDP, a level not seen since the early 1970s. Outlays went up during the Afghanistan war but never got close to that level. Budget-balancing priorities then brought reductions, and spending has now settled in at a level about half the government’s original goal. Canada now places a dismal 22nd among 28 NATO countries on defence spending ....

We'll see ....

 

[Harrigan]

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]

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]

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]

How does it get paid for?  That's what we wait to hear. 

If stereotype is anything to go by ....

 

[Edward Campbell]

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 ...

                       

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

I entered this thread with the full knowledge that there are many staunch CPC supporters here, and I had zero expectation of persuading any of them to see things any differently.  Trust me, there is an abundance of lower hanging fruit in that regard.  However, the discussion seemed very one-sided, and I simply wanted to make it clear that there are a large number of veterans (some even right-leaning such as me) who see merit in an ABC campaign, or more vocal advocacy than what the Legion offers.  Once that got tossed out there, other like-minded people chimed in.  Believe it or not, sometimes the atmosphere in this forum is less than conducive to welcoming people to speak up when they feel differently than the herd.  I'm glad that others spoke up and recognized the merits of the campaign.

Some may think that the campaign will be ineffective.  I think the fact that the campaign is out there and getting more media attention than the RCL or traditional veterans advocacy groups will have a greater effect than some will give it credit for.  That said, we'll never really know how much it affected the outcome, so the question really is moot.

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: