Election 2015

[Brad Sallows]

>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]

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]

Nice find.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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
BQ             3.8% +0.1
(Change between Sept 19 - 20/2015)
.... The margin of error for a survey of 1,200  respondents is ±2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20 ....

 

[suffolkowner]

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]

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.

The Munk debate takes place Sept. 28 and yet again Elizabeth May won’t be on the stage with Stephen Harper, Tom Mulcair and Justin Trudeau.

The party filed a complaint Friday with the CRA alleging the debate format violated the agency’s policies that put limits on the political activities by charities.

The Aurea Foundation, a registered charity with the CRA, is helping fund the Munk debate on foreign policy. The Greens argue that excluding May from the debate has put Aurea in violation of the Income Tax Act, which states that charities cannot oppose or support candidates for public office ....

 

[Edward Campbell]

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.

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.

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

Published Monday, Sep. 21, 2015


CAMPAIGN NOTEBOOK

By JOHN IBBITSON (@JohnIbbitson)

When will one of them break out? This week? Thanksgiving? And who will do the breaking?

We are well into the second phase of this election campaign, the debate phase, and still the three national parties are locked in a tie. One of two scenarios is possible. In the first scenario the tie never breaks and the Conservatives, NDP and Liberals go into election day dead even. In that case fortune would favour the Conservatives who have the better ground game, especially in such crucial areas as the suburban cities outside Toronto.

In the second scenario, either the New Democrats or the Liberals take a significant lead. At this point the available universe of Conservative voters just doesn't seem large enough for Stephen Harper to make that breakout. But Thomas Mulcair could and Justin Trudeau is trying his own break away with one announcement after another — most recently with his promise to cancel the F-35 fighter program.

My hunch is the breakout, if it comes, will come at Thanksgiving when people sit down to talk this out. But maybe something will happen in this week's debate or the one to come.

Who knows? I don't think I've ever seen an election that's this hard to call.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 fairer shot.

 

[Edward Campbell]

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

UPDATED: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2015

If anybody tells you the federal election going on right now is just a regular run-of-the-mill political contest between rival parties, don’t believe it.

In fact, this election is actually nothing less than a full-blown cultural war.

Or at least, that’s the view of Canada’s cultural, media and academic elites, i.e. all those columnists, artists and professors out there who consider themselves intellectually and morally superior to the ill-educated rabble inhabiting the untamed suburban and rural wild lands that lay just beyond the borders of the civilized and sophisticated urban downtown cores.

Yes, for Canada’s urban downtown elites this election is about one thing and one thing only: driving Prime Minister Stephen Harper out of office not because of what he says, not because of what he does, but simply because of who he is.

Or to put it more accurately, Canada’s elites hate Harper because of what he isn’t – he isn’t one of them.

Harper is not part of their culture.

From the perspective of Canada’s crème de la crème, Harper comes from the wrong province (Alberta); he went to the wrong schools (University of Calgary); he travels in the wrong social circles.

This is why columnist Michael Harris, who for the past five years or so has made a career out of writing ridiculously over-the-top attacks on the prime minister, could describe Harper as an “American in a parka.”

That’s just another way of saying, “Harper is not one of us.”

This is why a few years ago Liberal leader Justin Trudeau told a Quebec TV audience that “Canada isn’t doing well right now because it’s Albertans who control our community and socio-democratic agenda.”

That’s just another way of saying, “Harper is not one of us.”

This is why Toronto Star columnist Heather Mallick could write in a British newspaper “Stephen Harper, a strange man with an awkward gait, an absence of social skills, and the dress sense of that guy at the back of the hardware store who sorts nails for a living.”

That’s just another way of saying, “Harper is not one of us.”

Even worse, during his time in office, Harper has done precious little to appease or placate his social betters.

Instead he continues to represent and provide a voice for his base, people the elites dismiss as teeming hordes of bible-reading, gun-owning, non-CBC watching barbarians.

So the goal for elites in this election is to get one of their own elected prime minister, somebody they can relate to, somebody who understands the importance of their status.

Alas, NDP leader Thomas Mulcair doesn’t quite fit the bill. Yes he has lots of ideas the elites support – mainly giving more tax dollars to them – but they really can’t imagine themselves sipping champagne with Mulcair’s blue collar supporters at wine and cheese parties or at poetry readings.

And so, they’ve gravitated to the only other option on the table: Liberal leader Justin Trudeau, who in many ways is the perfect elitist candidate.

True, the Liberal leader might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, true, he might not have the skills to manage a lemonade stand, let alone a national economy, but he does have important assets which elites cherish in their leaders: a sparkling family pedigree, inherited wealth and impeccable breeding.

Whereas Harper is boorish and bourgeois; Trudeau is enlightened and refined.

Besides, Trudeau is a Liberal – and for our cultural and media elites, that alone makes him a part of Canada’s natural governing class.

So there you have it, the elites are determined to make this election a clash between smart people and dumb people.

I’ll leave it for you to determine which side is actually “dumb.”

- Nicholls is a communications consultant and formerly vice president of the National Citizens Coalition.

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 ...