Election 2015

[ModlrMike]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, APRIL 20, 2013

What’s amazing about the Conservative Party’s Justin Trudeau advertising isn’t their content, or their tone, or their mere existence.

Some of us predicted (a) the anti-Trudeau attacks were coming and (b) the Cons would target his life (in)experience. And so they have.

No, what is amazing is how Liberal partisans, and Trudeau himself, reacted to them.

The two spots themselves will prove to be effective, of course. They’re well done. Both have a sarcastic, biting tone, like all the best negative political ads do. Both contain cited Trudeau statements that legitimize the spots’ main critique, namely that he lacks the right judgment and experience. And both make extensive use of Trudeau stripping his shirt off for a charity ­— a reaction that prompted one friend to say: “I can’t unsee that, now.”

TV is a visual medium, so pictures matter more than words. That’s why so many people have reacted so strongly to the liver cancer charity striptease segment (for which Trudeau raised thousands, by the by, and for which Stephen Harper’s wife has also lent support). Whatever the context, whatever the motivation, Trudeau’s decision to remove his shirt for the cameras will indeed leave some voters wondering whether that is, you know, the behaviour of a prime minister.

The newly minted Liberal leader may look terrific, and possess impressive pipes.

But the fact remains, if you were to ask them (and you can bet the Conservatives did, in coast-to-coast focus grouping), lots of Canadians will likely say they do not want the nation’s leader cavorting like Channing Tatum in Magic Mike.

That said, the poison at the centre of the attacks is not the striptease stuff, nor Trudeau’s Pirates of the Caribbean-style facial hair, nor the snide references to his job experience (a “drama teacher,” the narrator sneers, as if drama teachers are somehow less reputable than Justin Bieber).

What is potentially lethal is the ancient, and out-of-context, quote of Trudeau saying these words: “Quebecers are better than the rest of Canada because we’re Quebecers.”

Those words ­— uttered before CTV News cameras in 1999 ­— are deadly. They dramatically buttress the notion that has been at the centre of the Conservatives’ anti-Trudeau narrative for months: That he puts Quebec before Canada. That he, like Stephane Dion, like Michael Ignatieff, owes allegiance to another place, and not Canada first.

It worked in 2008 and 2011; it can work again.

If the Conservatives’ spots are backed by a substantial media buy, then, they will make Trudeau less popular. But Trudeau stubbornly refuses to fight fire with fire. And, like Dion and Ignatieff before him, he is letting the Conservatives define him with non-Liberals before he can define himself.

When asked about the attacks on his first day on the job, Trudeau gave a Trudeau-esque shrug. Canadians are “tired of negativity,” he said.

No, actually, they’re not. Canadians, like voters everywhere, may express a lack of enthusiasm for so-called negative advertising. But the fact remains, mountains of studies have shown that such advertising works. It is the advocacy that voters tend to recall the most, as they head to the ballot box. It is the type of advocacy that has been shown to most affect citizens’ hearts and minds.

The reaction in the mainstream media, and on the Internet, was largely the same as Trudeau’s. Commentators claimed Harper’s ads will backfire, and no sensible person will heed them.

If they look back, these commentators will see they said the same thing when the anti-Dion and anti-Ignatieff barrages started, too. They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now.

Should we aspire to live in a world where such advertising doesn’t work? Of course.

But we don’t live in such a world.

As I always say: No one likes car crashes, either. But they always slow down to have a look.

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]

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]

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

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]

Ah, a world without attack ads, in which the candidates forthrightly reveal all their weaknesses and crazy-uncle principles to the voters.

 

[Edward Campbell]

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]

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

April 29, 2013

Canada’s budget watchdog, long a thorn in the side of the Conservative government, said Monday in its latest economic and fiscal outlook that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is indeed on track to balance Ottawa’s books by 2015, as he promised in the 2013 budget.

The watchdog—led by Kevin Page until his departure in late March, and now headed on an interim basis by the parliamentary librarian—nonetheless maintained that economic growth in Canada is tepid at best and that the Bank of Canada won’t raise its key interest rate until mid-2015.

Canada’s parliamentary budget office projects Canada’s real gross domestic product to advance 1.5% in 2013, which is unchanged from its last outlook released last October.

The latest predictions for Canadian growth in 2013 from both the Bank of Canada and the International Monetary Fund are similar, and the watchdog Monday noted that private-sector economists have in recent months revised downward their GDP forecasts to bring those more in line with the watchdog’s October forecast.

Unlike Canada’s central bank, though, the parliamentary budget office doesn’t see a rebound in Canadian growth next year. It’s projecting growth of 1.9% in 2014 and 2.7% in 2015, on its view that the Canadian government’s spending-restraint program will act “as an additional drag on economic growth and job creation” for the foreseeable future.

The Bank of Canada sees growth of 2.8% in 2014 and 2.7% in 2015.

Canada’s economy faces other stiff headwinds, from over-indebted consumers, a softening housing market and weak demand abroad for Canadian-made goods.

The watchdog said its view that the Canadian government remains on track to balance its budget in 2015 is based on anticipated increases in payroll taxes and its assumption that the government won’t exceed planned spending.

It estimates that the federal budget deficit hit 25 billion Canadian dollars ($24.58 billion) in the fiscal year just ended on March 31, and expects the shortfall to shrink to C$17.4 billion in fiscal 2014 before hitting a small surplus in the fiscal year beginning April 1, 2015.

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]

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
The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, May. 02 2013

What are the odds of a public-servants’ strike at about the same time as the next general election? From this chair, the chances appear about 50-50.

The Conservatives believe they can make the case that the federal public service is overpaid. All parties are competing to win the affections of the mythical, mystical middle class. The government is betting it can win over the private-sector middle class by taking on the public-sector middle class. Politically, it’s a gamble, but the sort of gamble this government likes.

Wages and benefits in the federal public service, according to several sources, are significantly higher than the private-sector average. The C.D. Howe Institute, a conservative think tank, estimated earlier this year that the average cost of employing a full-time federal worker (including wages and all benefits) doubled from $56,700 in 1999 to $114,100 in 2012. The private sector average increased by less than half, from $33,300 to $49,000.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business estimates that federal public servants are paid 17 per cent more than their private-sector counterparts. (The CFIB report was based on 2006 census date. An update is expected later this year.) Treasury Board President Tony Clement told The Globe and Mail that the government is determined to close that gap.

“Most of Canada works in the private sector,” he said. “They’re used to seeing wages of a certain sort, benefits of a certain sort, pensions of a certain sort, and I do believe we have to be within spitting distance of that when it comes to the broader public sector as well.”

While he declined to disclose the government’s negotiating position going into contract talks – most of which will occur in 2014 with contracts expiring in 2015 – he did say the government believed “we’ve got to make up some ground” in narrowing the wage-and-benefit gap between the public and private sector.

To make up that ground, the Conservatives are taking a three-pronged approach. First, the budget implementation bill gives the government the power to dictate the bargaining positions of crown corporations, and allows a Treasury Board official to be present at the negotiations – making that official the real power in the room.

The goal here is to bring wages, benefits and pensions in the broader public service more in line with the core public service.

Second, the government has given itself a mandate, when negotiating with unions representing the core public service, of “aligning the public service compensation and benefits to private sector norms and expectations,” as Mr. Clement put it. That can only mean wage and benefit restraint, and possibly claw-backs in some areas.

Third, the Conservatives plan to take a tougher line on disciplining, and even firing, underperforming public servants.

“I think it is perfectly reasonable for management to work with an underperformer, try to get him or her up to performance standards and if that fails after successive tries, then I think that we have the right to say that perhaps this job isn’t for you,” Mr. Clement explained.

Sum it all up and what do you get? Turmoil. Public sector unions, like their private-sector counterparts, seek to preserve and improve wages and benefits, and fight ferociously to keep either from being clawed back.

If the Conservatives are determined to align the wage and benefits packages of the crown corps with those of the core public service, even as they move to restrain the wages and benefits of the core public service, then there will be strikes.

Governing parties usually try to avoid massive disruptions of service, especially when those disruptions occur in the lead-up to an election, which is expected in spring 2015. Why would the Harper government take on such a challenge now?

Partly because they must. The long-term balancing of the books requires wage restraint in the federal payroll. That requires taking a hard line with the unions and sticking to it.

But also, one suspects, the Tories will welcome this fight. It allows them to be Conservatives again: taking on the unions, battling for the little guy. (Conservatives see no contradiction between the two.) Of course, such gambles can backfire, with the public voting for a quieter political alternative. If the Tories sense that danger, they may well back off.

But a major confrontation with the public service would strengthen the allegiance of the base, while also possibly strengthening support among undecided who worry about their own jobs and chafe at the financial security of the unionized bureaucracy.

Progressives will respond that the goal should be to increase the wealth and economic security of the middle class working in the private sector, rather than scaling back the wages and benefits of those working in the public sector.

One suspects that’s a debate Stephen Harper would be willing to fight an election over. Even if the public servants are on strike. Or maybe especially if they are.

John Ibbitson is the chief political writer in the Ottawa bureau.

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]

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

John Ibbitson
The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, May. 23 2013

Thomas Mulcair is using the Senate expenses scandal as an opportunity to launch the latest NDP campaign to abolish the Senate. The effort might eventually offer Stephen Harper a chance to turn a crisis into an opportunity.

The Leader of the Official Opposition launched the campaign Wednesday, urging Canadians to join his “roll up the red carpet” campaign.

“We’re going to stop trying to find excuses for keeping a bunch of party hacks, bagmen, political operatives and defeated candidates sitting in appeal of the decisions of the duly elected members of the House of Commons,” Mr. Mulcair told reporters. “That’s a game of the past.”

This is a tall order. Even if it were constitutional to simply eliminate one of the Houses of Parliament, abolition would require provincial consent. Anyone who doubts that should consult their provincial government for clarification. They will find that their premier either: (a) wants to protect their province’s over-representation in the Senate; (b) demands a whole new deal for their province within Confederation as part of any Senate discussion; (c) envisions a reformed, responsible and regionally representative Senate, which would be anathema to (a) and (b); or (d) would rather be defeated on a budget than have to think about it.

For the NDP, that doesn’t matter. Mr. Mulcair wants to exploit the election expenses scandal as a potential election wedge issue that plays on allegations of Conservative arrogance and corruption while exposing the dithering of Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, who hasn’t made up his mind about how, if at all, the Senate should be reformed.

This, we suspect, would be just fine with Stephen Harper. The Prime Minister has referred Conservative legislation that would have senators elected to fixed terms to the Supreme Court, which could rule on its constitutionality this fall. The Court has also been asked whether and how the Senate could be abolished.

However the Court rules, the government will have an opportunity to put forward new legislation to reform the Senate, and even to use the Senate ethics scandal as a weapon to push for those reforms.

Many senators – some of them Conservatives – fought the elected/fixed terms legislation. They will have a much harder time defending that position, as Marjorie LeBreton, Leader of the Government in the Senate, reinforced in a speech Wednesday.

“The unelected, unaccountable nature of the Senate is not sustainable,” she told her colleagues. “…the public reacts negatively because the institution does not have legitimacy … Unless and until this body is reformed, this is the reality.”

We could see, then, an election fought in part on the issue of Senate reform. The NDP would attempt to link the current imbroglio to the need to abolish an unelected, patronage-ridden and illegitimate Senate.

The Conservatives would respond that the best proof of Conservative accountability is its latest effort to reform the Senate (in whatever way the Supremes invite it to be reformed).

If the Liberals were caught between these two polar opposites, then that would satisfy both the NDP and the Conservatives.

Let’s make one thing clear: the 2015 election will not be fought on the issue of Senate reform. For all we know, the expenses controversy will be long forgotten by then. And in any case, the economy, whatever it’s state, is bound to be far more in the forefront of voters’ minds as they enter the polling booth.

But the NDP and the Conservatives could use it as a wedge against each other, and to embarrass the Liberals. For both the government and the official opposition, there would worse things.

I can understand why the NDP would adopt a Constitutionally nonsensical position but it is more difficult to understand the Liberals' deafening silence.

 

[GAP]

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]

...it is more difficult to understand the Liberals' deafening silence.

John 8:7 perhaps?

 

[Edward Campbell]

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.