Election 2015

[Edward Campbell]

Interesting take, especially considering no-one ever accused Trudeau Sr of being an introvert.

From Ibbitson's work quoted above it seems to me that Mr Harper is more like Richard Nixon - anger, funk, enemies, trust issues.

But remember, also, Acorn, that Nixon was a brilliant strategist who was, almost uniquely post Eisenhower, able to see America's vital interests in an ever shifting global context and act effectively (e.g. towards China) to promote and secure them. Yes, Nixon was, as Harper is, a deeply flawed human being, as are we all, but he also had remarkable strengths ~  complex and contradictory are just two of the terms used to describe him, I think they apply to Stephen Harper, too.

Will Stephen Harper be known for anything as extraordinary as Nixon in China: The Week That Changed the World? No, I think not, but nor should he be reviled, as Nixon still is, for lawless political chicanery.

 

[Kirkhill]

Before we go too overboard on Then and Now:

This is what the middle east looked like when Trudeau and Nixon were in charge

The security environment has changed considerably.

Yes, we had the Russians and the Chinese with nukes but both states had a firm hand on both their people and their weapons.

Today? 

I would remind that when the Social Justice Premier was confronted with a solitary act of insurrection he had no trouble imposing martial law on his home province with a dismissive "Just Watch Me".  In keeping with "Fuddle Duddle" in parliament, flipping the bird at Western farmers, "why should I sell your grain", pirouette at Buckingham Palace and any number of other juvenile acts and statements. (NEP and taking fish from Canadian fishermen to give to Eastern Block trawlers).

Harper has a long way to go before he plumbs the depths that Trudeau reached.

 

[ModlrMike]

I've met Mr Harper three times, and can only wonder if those commenting on his personality have done the same. Based solely on my first hand experience, he's nothing as described by either the media or his detractors.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is a very good ad from Justin Trudeau: short, sharp, pointed and it counter-attacks the CPC's "Just Not Ready" ads. Is it enough? No, of course not, but it's a good start.

My only complaint is that it reinforces the impression that he is a young man (one does not wish to say "callow youth") who may be inexperienced ...

 

[GAP]

His comment that he's not afraid of asking the rich to pay more so middle class taxes can be reduced is gonna come back to bite his rear....

 

[ModlrMike]

As is the “benefiting every single family isn’t what is fair” quote.

 

[a_majoor]

I have made this observation before, but it is worth repeating: I have had the opportunity to see the Prime Minister up close and personal at an event and he is 1800 from the cold and calculating persona depicted in the media. I have also (at a different time and event) seen the Young Dauphin give a speech at an event, and he was most certainly not "warm and charismatic" (for $20,000, he should have at least done more than telephoned in a speech full of warmed over left wing tropes).

So we are making assumptions which are based on reporting which is actively false (if not mendacious) in the way they characterize two of the party leaders. One only wonders what sort of man Tomas Mulcair really is (sadly, I have not had any opportunity to see him in person in any event, much less a small scale one, so am in no position to judge). And of course if the media is busy presenting a narrative rather than a factual accounting of events, what else are we wrongly speculating about?

One other issue which I hope to see more discussion on: who exactly is paying for all the partisan anti-CPC ads which have suddenly flooded the airways? Only the PSAC ones openly display thier affiliation and make it easy to determine who is funding them (the answer, of course, is us, through our tax dollars being diverted via union dues to partisan political advertising). But who are all these other people? I would find it extremely disturbing if (like much of the anti-oil sands "activism") the advertising is being funded by foreign sources. Remember the last election saw some activity by a group called Avaaz, which is an offshoot of the US political activist group Moveon.

 

[cavalryman]

One other issue which I hope to see more discussion on: who exactly is paying for all the partisan anti-CPC ads which have suddenly flooded the airways? Only the PSAC ones openly display thier affiliation and make it easy to determine who is funding them (the answer, of course, is us, through our tax dollars being diverted via union dues to partisan political advertising). But who are all these other people? I would find it extremely disturbing if (like much of the anti-oil sands "activism") the advertising is being funded by foreign sources. Remember the last election saw some activity by a group called Avaaz, which is an offshoot of the US political activist group Moveon.

Whenever I look at what the left is up to, I'm invariably reminded of George Orwell.  Where some of us take his novels as cautionary tales, lefties seems to take them as 'how-to' books. 

 

[McG]

Only the PSAC ones openly display thier affiliation and make it easy to determine who is funding them (the answer, of course, is us, through our tax dollars being diverted via union dues ...

Speaking of distorting facts, our tax dollars do not pay union dues; the union members pay union dues.  Our tax dollars do pay PS wages, but before any money gets put into union dues that money belongs to the employee who earned it.

Once that money is paid out as a wage, you no longer get to claim ownership over it as a tax payer. 

 

[a_majoor]

Since the money comes from us, then yes, we are indeed paying for it.

 

[Infanteer]

That's like saying we in the military are self-employed.  MCG is right.

 

[McG]

Since the money comes from us, then yes, we are indeed paying for it.

You can take that idea and stuff it.  My paycheck is my money, not your money as a tax payer.  How I spend my money is none of the taxpayer's concern. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

There has to be a cutoff.

People own their wages.  Any standard less is a concession to the people who see all income as something belonging to the government, and of which government lets you keep a portion.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Interesting take, especially considering no-one ever accused Trudeau Sr of being an introvert.

I'm not going to go hunting for quotation in print, but I have two of Christina McCall's books and PET fits that description - regardless whether she or anyone else used the "I" word.  One of his major political weaknesses was his unwillingness to play the back-slapping, glad-handing pol.

 

[jollyjacktar]

That's like saying we in the military are self-employed.  MCG is right.

To be fair, we too are taxpayers.  As tax dollars are the financial source of our pay, we are, however minutely, self employed to a very very small degree.  Said degree not easily measured.

 

[The Bread Guy]

To be fair, we too are taxpayers.  As tax dollars are the financial source of our pay, we are, however minutely, self employed to a very very small degree.  Said degree not easily measured.

That's like saying that since companies get, in one way or another, government subsidies/grants, their employees are sorta-kinda public service workers, to a degree not easily measured?

Toooooooooooooooo many shades of grey for me ....

Meanwhile, the final countdown:

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper was set to call a parliamentary election for Oct 19 on Sunday, kicking off a marathon 11-week campaign likely to focus on a stubbornly sluggish economy and his decade in power.

Harper's office said in a statement he is due to visit Governor General David Johnston - the representative of Queen Elizabeth, Canada's head of state - at 9:55 am (1355 GMT).

Harper is expected to seek the dissolution of Parliament, triggering the start of the campaign.

Polls indicate that Harper's right-of-center Conservative Party, which has been in office since 2006, could well lose its majority in the House of Commons.

That would leave Harper at the mercy of the two main center-left opposition parties, who could unite to bring him down. Minority governments in Canada rarely last more than 18 months ....

Countdown clock to PM's walk to GG here  ;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

David Akin has posted a new Predictinator:

The NDP have been leading for some time, now, at just the right moment for the CPC, momentum might be shifting.

David Akin says, in his blog that "here we go! The game is on as of Sunday. Prime Minister Stephen Harper hits Rideau Hall Sunday morning at 10 ET..  The fixed election date — which Prime Minister Stephen Harper has ignored before — is October 19th. We’ll see tomorrow if he keeps to his word and commits to that day  – which is 78 days or 11 weeks away from this Sunday ... In any event, every political journalist in the country has some prediction at this point how this will all turn out. (Just ask one!)  So, here’s where I stand, based on my completely untested and likely incorrect Predictionator model : If the vote were held today, I’d bet a nickel we’d come back with a Conservative minority government, and a strengthened New Democrat Official Opposition and a strengthened Liberal Party that, for the first time since 2000, won more seats and found more voters than the previous election."

And here is his latest prediction ...

   

          ... which appears to show that the CPC continues to gain and the Liberals continue to weaken.

Is the momentum shifting at just the right moment fore the CPC?
.
.
.
.
.
.
As always, remember ...

   

          ... and we have eleven "long times" to go until 19 Oct, and ...

         

              ... there can be a lot of "events" in eleven weeks which can derail campaigns, too: Trudeau's campaign, Mulcair's campaign and Harper's campaign.

 

[GAP]

I probably be wrong, but I do not see where an 11 week campaign does the CPC any favors.

I suspect Harper will ignore the Oct 19th date.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I probably be wrong, but I do not see where an 11 week campaign does the CPC any favors.

I suspect Harper will ignore the Oct 19th date.

Some commentators suggest that it will play to the CPC's financial strength: they have the most money and they can afford to run a steady, high cost, long campaign. The theory is that neither the Liberals nor the NDP have enough money to match the CPC's campaigning and they will have difficulty in husbanding their resources for such a long period.  :dunno:  I think it will, also, have some impact on third party advertising (see, e.g. Engage Canada's new ads). The CPC shut down an attempt to have a US style PAC supporting them; I suspect it, the long official campaign, will defang groups like Engage Canada and, therefore, deny the anti-Harper movement access to the media.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Caveat lector: David Akin, of Sun News is a member, here and is known by some members. He is, very generally, pro-Conservative, or, at least, not part of the anti-Harper movement.

Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Toronto Sun is his look ahead at the long campaign:

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/08/01/the-race-of-his-life

The race of his life
Stephen Harper starts his re-election bid weighed down by the economy and pork-barreling

BY DAVID AKIN, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF

FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, AUGUST 01, 2015

OTTAWA -- This wasn't the way it was supposed to start.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper begins a marathon campaign for re-election in running shoes made of lead, thanks to a contracting economy.

This even after throwing bags of pork-barrel cash at us in a blatant attempt to buy our votes with our money.

But for the fiscally conservative voter -- assuming that species still exists -- there may be little else on the menu this election season.

Harper is bound to tell you any number of times over the next 78 days until election day on Oct. 19, that his hand has been and will be the surest and steadiest to guide Canada's economy.

And yet that economy has now been shrinking for five straight months.

Every expert who uses the plain definition of the word "recession" says we're in one.

Harper is bound to be asked about the recession.

His answer might be, "Uh, which one?" That's right: On his nine-year watch, there have been two recessions.

Not great for a guy who boasts he's the best at managing the economy.

Now it may not be fair -- in fact, it's quite likely unfair -- to blame either recession on anything his government did or didn't do.

But when Canada pulled out of the first recession more rapidly than any of its industrialized peers, Harper boasted it was because of his government's policies.

If Harper wanted the praise then, it's going to be hard to avoid the blame now.

We are pretty much the only one of our industrialized peers in a recession right now, a point you're certainly going to hear from NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau.

The fiscally conservative voter will also be disappointed to see MPs from Harper's party engaged in an orgy of pork barrel spending in the final hours before the election call.

Conservative MPs were literally shovelling money out the door in their own constituencies, hopeful a cheque to improve this playground, that Legion, this curling club and that marina will earn enough goodwill to get them elected.

On Thursday last week, Conservative MPs hit the magic $1-billion mark for handouts. One billion dollars in one day!

I counted 108 cheque handouts that day -- there may have been more -- totalling $1.188 billion.

Within this pork-a-palooza were 84 cheques worth $839 million to be spent in ridings held by Conservatives.

Just three cheques worth $53.8 million will be spent in ridings held by New Democrats.

Just four worth $68.6 million will be spent in Liberal-held ridings.

The rest of the spending was for national programs.

I remember covering Harper's first winning campaign in 2006. Back then, he and his party stood for doing things differently than the Liberals.

Now, all Conservative partisans can do when I point out this flagrant attempt to buy our votes with our money, is shrug and say, well, the Liberals did it, too.

And yet, there may be little else on offer for the fiscal conservative.

Mulcair and Trudeau also have ambitious, mega-billion-dollar spending plans.

Both say they'll spend that money within a balanced budget framework but I'm skeptical it can be done without raising taxes or user fees.

Harper also begins this marathon without some of the runners that helped push him over the finish line in 2006, 2008 and 2011.

Renowned political pugilist John Baird quit months ago.

Peter MacKay and James Moore -- both of whom could reach out to progressives in the conservative base -- have retired to be better dads to their young families.

Steady, dependable James Rajotte, a longtime Harper ally, will not seek re-election in Edmonton and, as he left Parliament Hill, told reporters he was saddened at how hyper-partisan the place had become.

And, of course, that happy Conservative warrior, Jim Flaherty, is missed by all who enjoy a politician who plays the game with a smile on his face and his elbows up.

In every election, the Conservative campaign strategists have made it all about Harper, but this time it really is all about him. And here's the irony about this marathon, record-setting campaign.

Harper used one procedural trick or another to shut down debate in the House of Commons a record 100 times during the 41st Parliament.

And yet we are about to have the longest -- and most expensive -- election campaign in modern history, so we can have a full debate about the issues.

Maybe, finally, after nine years in power, Harper's turned a corner.

My opinion:

First: I remain persuaded that Stephen Harper is a more Chinese (a long term strategist) than American (a short term, next quarter, "what have you done for me recently?") sort of politician. I think he understands that it is time to go ... there will be no more Mackenzie Kings in Canada, no prime minister will serve 22 or even 15 years (Pierre Trudeau) in office. Nine or ten years is, likely, to be about the max ~ St Laurent, Mulroney, Chrétien and Harper. He will "go," either through electoral defeat or, very possibly, shortly after winning another term (perhaps a minority term) in office.

Second: Prime Minister Harper has left the Conservative Party strong, albeit not, yet, united. I think most Conservatives share his, Harper's, fiscal vision, which is not all that conservative, but divisions remain on the social issues between the Progressives, who Prime Minister Harper has, generally (almost always) supported (because he understands that the country is, broadly and generally, socially moderate), and the real "red in tooth and claw"* conservatives. This division will not be healed naturally ... the next leader must take a stand, as Harper has done, and enforce his or her will on the caucus and the whole party.

Third: As David Akin says, while "the fiscally conservative voter will also be disappointed to see MPs from Harper's party engaged in an orgy of pork barrel spending in the final hours before the election call ... for the fiscally conservative voter -- assuming that species still exists -- there may be little else on the menu this election season ... [because] Mulcair and Trudeau also have ambitious, mega-billion-dollar spending plans ... Both say they'll spend that money within a balanced budget framework but I'm skeptical it can be done without raising taxes or user fees."

_____
* Tennyson, In Memoriam A. H. H., 1850. Canto 56