Federal election thread -- August 4, 2015

722 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

Liberals promised childcare in 4 straight elections and delivered zero. 

At least the Liberals are consistent with their falsehoods.  Frown

mark_alfred

Mulcair was in Hamilton giving a speech about supporting small business.  I think it's Jan's daughter Alex who's beside him in the video.  link

Misfit Misfit's picture

Mark, I think you are right.

NorthReport
mark_alfred

That's kind of interesting.  I don't completely understand it, but it's kind of interesting.

NorthReport

Do Liberals ever tell the truth?

Norman Spector ‏@nspector4  6h6 hours ago

So, truth bad enough w/out #LPC misleading Canadians: Harper has run 2 surpluses 6 deficits, w/ official #s for 14-15 coming in October

 

mark_alfred

NorthReport wrote:

Do Liberals ever tell the truth?

Norman Spector ‏@nspector4  6h6 hours ago

So, truth bad enough w/out #LPC misleading Canadians: Harper has run 2 surpluses 6 deficits, w/ official #s for 14-15 coming in October

 

In fairness, the NDP also claimed the Conservatives had eight deficits in their "not working" ad:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MSvdY5OCAQ

JKR

mark_alfred wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Do Liberals ever tell the truth?

Norman Spector ‏@nspector4  6h6 hours ago

So, truth bad enough w/out #LPC misleading Canadians: Harper has run 2 surpluses 6 deficits, w/ official #s for 14-15 coming in October

 

In fairness, the NDP also claimed the Conservatives had eight deficits in their "not working" ad:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MSvdY5OCAQ

It's outrageous how the other parties are bullying those innocent Conservatives.  Luckily there are people who have the intestinal fortitude to quickly defend the Conservatives when they've been the victims of a vicious low blow. :b

NorthReport

Shrewd capitalists, eh! Laughing

Drivers charged $20 'toll' after deadly crash forces detour through First Nation

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/drivers-charged-20-toll-after-deadly-crash-...

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

Shrewd capitalists, eh! Laughing

Drivers charged $20 'toll' after deadly crash forces detour through First Nation

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/drivers-charged-20-toll-after-deadly-crash-...

What does this have to do with the federal election?

ctrl190

For those babblers who recall the 2008 election campaign, am I correct in thinking there was a lot of faux-media-outrage towards Jack Layton and the NDP for "moving to the centre," especially with a more "prog" Liberal leader in Dion?

 

 

terrytowel

As I has said in another thread

What I find interesting is that the Liberals and the NDP are using the same playbook Kathleen Wynne and Andrea Horwath used in last years Ontario election.

Wynne went to the extreme left and advocated big spending. While Horwath went to the centre-left (some would argue right) to go after the Rob Ford/Tim Hortons/Toronto Sun voters. By advocating lower taxes (removing the HST off home heating).

We all saw how that turned out and here we are a year later and these moves seem to be lifted from the exact playbook from last years Provincial election.

terrytowel

terrytowel wrote:

So it would be okay for Thomas Mulcair to be on Entertainment Tonight, but why not Justin Trudeau?

Brachina wrote:

Trudeau needs to project seriousness right now, and reinforces the idea he's a celebrity, not a leader. Mulcair could get away with it, he's proven his depth, Trudeau's is still in Question.

quizzical wrote:

no... imv ET is like reading the National Enquirer.

Well not to be outdone Entertainment Tonight Canada decided to give equal time to Thomas Mulcair as he was on ET Canada on Monday.

http://www.etcanada.com/blogs/etc_154898/ndp-leader-thomas-mulcair-talks...

So quizzical why would Mulcair appear on something you call the National Enquirer?

bekayne

JKR wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Shrewd capitalists, eh! Laughing

Drivers charged $20 'toll' after deadly crash forces detour through First Nation

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/drivers-charged-20-toll-after-deadly-crash-...

What does this have to do with the federal election?

Because it's Justin's fault

josh

ctrl190 wrote:

For those babblers who recall the 2008 election campaign, am I correct in thinking there was a lot of faux-media-outrage towards Jack Layton and the NDP for "moving to the centre," especially with a more "prog" Liberal leader in Dion?

 

 

No. Don't recall Jack Layton ever praising Thatcher or Thatcherism.

quizzical

terrytowel wrote:

terrytowel wrote:

So it would be okay for Thomas Mulcair to be on Entertainment Tonight, but why not Justin Trudeau?

Brachina wrote:

Trudeau needs to project seriousness right now, and reinforces the idea he's a celebrity, not a leader. Mulcair could get away with it, he's proven his depth, Trudeau's is still in Question.

quizzical wrote:

no... imv ET is like reading the National Enquirer.

Well not to be outdone Entertainment Tonight Canada decided to give equal time to Thomas Mulcair as he was on ET Canada on Monday.

http://www.etcanada.com/blogs/etc_154898/ndp-leader-thomas-mulcair-talks...

So quizzical why would Mulcair appear on something you call the National Enquirer?

i've no idea. i saw the ad of his coming on and refused to watch it. was it good?

Brachina

 Mulcair comes off as an adult, so the exposer won't do him any harm, Trudeau on other hand fits celebrity culture too much and it will make it harder to take him seriously. They both have image issues, this helps Mulcairs, this emphasises Trudeau's.

NorthReport

Justin Trudeau Ad

Doug Woodard

Poll shows treatment of vets could hurt Tory base:

http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/08/28/Vets-Treatment-Hurt-Tory-Base-Poll/

To me this is a sign that Harper is losing his contact with reality, and his ability to assess what matters to his supporters beyond his ideology and his power.

"Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad."

NorthReport

Paul Martin is just about the biggest failure in achieving expectations that Canadian politics has ever experienced. 

Norman Spector ‏@nspector4  6h6 hours ago

Dear Paul Martin: *This*--not @ThomasMulcair's party--is what the “far right” looks like. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/hungary/11532818/Hungarys-far-Right-anti-Semitic-Jobbik-party-wins-its-first-by-election.html …

 

NorthReport
  1. Norman Spector ‏@nspector4  6h6 hours ago

    Norman Spector retweeted Lorrie Goldstein

    Martin's no provincial politician--as G-20 mover, he above all should understand the nature of the "far right."

    Norman Spector added,

    Lorrie Goldstein @sunlorrie@nspector4 Unreal, right out of Kathleen Wynne's playbook in 2014 Ontario election --compared NDP's Andrea Horwath to Rob Ford! I kid U not. 0 retweets2 favorites ReplyRetweet Favorite 2More

  2. Norman Spector ‏@nspector4  6h6 hours ago

    Sad 2C a former PM throw around expressions like "far right" to label a party in contention to form next gov't http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thehouse/week-4-of-the-campaign-sees-parties-drawn-economic-battle-lines-1.3205839/paul-martin-blasts-ndp-for-move-to-far-right-1.3205843 …

 

clambake
mark_alfred

clambake wrote:

LPC attack ad on NDP. I can see this being effective: http://blogs.canoe.com/davidakin/politics/leading-in-the-polls-ndp-draws-a-mild-liberal-attack-ad/

 

The Liberals are featuring attacks on the NDP on the Lib's website now too.  Clearly they've decided that the disadvantage of acknowledging the NDP as a legitimate choice (that's being considered by the electorate) is outweighed by the disadvantage that ignoring the NDP would be to them.

Aristotleded24

[url=http://globalnews.ca/news/2193398/ndps-reckless-spending-would-wreck-eco... platform is billions short, critics charge:[/url]

Quote:
Conservatives and Liberals are ganging up on Tom Mulcair, claiming there’s a multibillion-dollar hole in the front-running NDP leader’s platform.

The two rival parties differ on precisely how deep that hole would be and on their suspicions of what Mulcair would do to dig himself out of it.

Liberals claim there’s a $28-billion gap between Mulcair’s promises of new spending and his pledge that an NDP government would be able to balance all its budgets over a four-year term.

Jason Kenney, the defence minister, says there’s at least an $8-billion gap and that’s just in the first year of an NDP government.

Ciabatta2

And the balanced budget pledge bites him again for the third time.

The wheels on the bus come off, off, off...

scott16

Ciabatta2 wrote:

And the balanced budget pledge bites him again for the third time.

The wheels on the bus come off, off, off...

Do you mean NDP or Lib?

Ciabatta2

I meant NDP

I'm going to balance the budget (yeah, right) + 28 billion dollar hole (regardless of accuracy) = strong Liberal "they're going to cut" narrative

This is going to kick the stuffing out of urban Toronto candidates

Jacob Two-Two

And you think that when their opponents accuse them of having a 28 billion dollar shortfall in their calculations, the NDP should respond by saying, "Don't worry about that, we're totally ready to have huge deficits"? This is what you think will bring Ontario voters on-side?

Yes, this attack might be a problem, but it was always going to be. If you had asked me two months ago if the Libs and Cons would claim that the NDP's numbers don't add up, I would have told you quite confidently that there was no chance of that not happening. They would say that no matter what the numbers were. So this would have to be dealt with no matter what. But I really don't see what you're proposing as a solution to that. In fact, it seems like the exact opposite.

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

And you think that when their opponents accuse them of having a 28 billion dollar shortfall in their calculations, the NDP should respond by saying, "Don't worry about that, we're totally ready to have huge deficits"? This is what you think will bring Ontario voters on-side?

Yes, this attack might be a problem, but it was always going to be. If you had asked me two months ago if the Libs and Cons would claim that the NDP's numbers don't add up, I would have told you quite confidently that there was no chance of that not happening. They would say that no matter what the numbers were. So this would have to be dealt with no matter what. But I really don't see what you're proposing as a solution to that. In fact, it seems like the exact opposite.

No, I think when Trudeau announced that he would be running deficits Mulcair should have said that he suspected he would find Harper's books in much worse shape than predicted but the NDP had to work with the numbers being predicted and within that context they expected to balance the books but only in a responsible manner that didn't disadvantage ordinary Canadians.

Jacob Two-Two

Well, given that you've barely written a thing on this board that wasn't focused on tearing down the NDP, I think we can safely disregard what you think they should do.

Apparently they already feel that they know enough about the country's finances to make the promise they did. I'll trust their assessment over yours, and certainly over Paul Martin's. I really don't think Mulcair is an idiot, which he would have to be if he promised a balanced budget with no idea whether he could deliver or not. Thanks for your faux concern though. That's always good for a laugh.

Pondering

Pondering wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

And you think that when their opponents accuse them of having a 28 billion dollar shortfall in their calculations, the NDP should respond by saying, "Don't worry about that, we're totally ready to have huge deficits"? This is what you think will bring Ontario voters on-side?

No, I think when Trudeau announced that he would be running deficits Mulcair should have said that he suspected he would find Harper's books in much worse shape than predicted but the NDP had to work with the numbers being predicted and within that context they expected to balance the books but only in a responsible manner that didn't disadvantage ordinary Canadians.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Well, given that you've barely written a thing on this board that wasn't focused on tearing down the NDP, I think we can safely disregard what you think they should do.

Apparently they already feel that they know enough about the country's finances to make the promise they did. I'll trust their assessment over yours, and certainly over Paul Martin's. I really don't think Mulcair is an idiot, which he would have to be if he promised a balanced budget with no idea whether he could deliver or not. Thanks for your faux concern though. That's always good for a laugh.

Don't ask questions to which you don't want the answer.

Jacob Two-Two

I didn't ask you that question. I asked Ciabatta2. You're free to answer it anyway, of course, and I'm free to point out that your opinion is worthless given your intense prejudice against the NDP.

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I didn't ask you that question. I asked Ciabatta2. You're free to answer it anyway, of course, and I'm free to point out that your opinion is worthless given your intense prejudice against the NDP.

Yes you are absolutely free to say so but it doesn't make it true or pertinent. The bias against Liberals here is at least as strong. Neither makes arguments more or less true. If my argument were weak you would attack it instead of me.

 

Jacob Two-Two

Pondering wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I didn't ask you that question. I asked Ciabatta2. You're free to answer it anyway, of course, and I'm free to point out that your opinion is worthless given your intense prejudice against the NDP.

Yes you are absolutely free to say so but it doesn't make it true or pertinent. The bias against Liberals here is at least as strong. Neither makes arguments more or less true. If my argument were weak you would attack it instead of me.

This is what you said, Pondering, in case you've forgotten:

Pondering wrote:

No, I think when Trudeau announced that he would be running deficits Mulcair should have said that he suspected he would find Harper's books in much worse shape than predicted but the NDP had to work with the numbers being predicted and within that context they expected to balance the books but only in a responsible manner that didn't disadvantage ordinary Canadians.

Do I really need to point out to you that there is nothing resembling an argument in that sentence? I have seen many examples from you like this where it seems for all the world that you have no idea what the word "argument" means. Saying "I think Mulcair should have done this" is not the same thing as making an argument to support that statement, and you frequency appear unable to tell the difference.

You made a statement, unsubstantiated by anything. I did offer an argument to refute your statement, however:

Quote:

Apparently they already feel that they know enough about the country's finances to make the promise they did. I'll trust their assessment over yours, and certainly over Paul Martin's. I really don't think Mulcair is an idiot, which he would have to be if he promised a balanced budget with no idea whether he could deliver or not.

Which of course you ignored, because you wouldn't know an argument if it bled to death on your front lawn.

To say you have weak arguments is to give you too much credit. On the rare occasion you have an argument at all, it is invariably weak, but that is a blue moon occurence. Most of the time you are just making delusional utterances that all available evidence refutes, and alternately calling them "arguments" or "opinions" as it suits your purposes.

It's true I'm biased against the Liberals, but it is bias that has been earned by them over three decades of their scummy and criminal behaviour. You could say an evolutionist and a creationist both have bises, but one has biases based on facts and evidence, and the other has biases based on wishful thinking. These biases are not equal, and neither are yours and mine. You just believe whatever you want to believe, and I believe what evidence tells me. The evidence tells me the Liberals have been scumbags my whole adult life, and more recent evidence tells me that they still are. It's a bias, but an intelligent informed bias. Your hate-on for the NDP is based on nothing but irrelevent nit-picking and tortured logic. It is completely without merit.

Brachina

 Mulcair has promise for funding for Wonen's Shelters so women and childern won't be turned away,which is certainly a wonderful thing, no one who needs help should be turned away. Sad that's the problem. I support restoring funding and increasing it for women, but there is still nothing for abused men, by all means more funding for violence against women, I support it %110, but lets have some support for men too, lets have some abuse shelters for men please, lets say no sexism, lets not wait for a lawsuit suing the government for discrimination (which I honestly believe will happen eventually and which will be won).

 

Ciabatta2

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

It's true I'm biased against the Liberals, but it is bias that has been earned by them over three decades of their scummy and criminal behaviour. You could say an evolutionist and a creationist both have bises, but one has biases based on facts and evidence, and the other has biases based on wishful thinking. These biases are not equal, and neither are yours and mine. You just believe whatever you want to believe, and I believe what evidence tells me. The evidence tells me the Liberals have been scumbags my whole adult life, and more recent evidence tells me that they still are. It's a bias, but an intelligent informed bias. Your hate-on for the NDP is based on nothing but irrelevent nit-picking and tortured logic. It is completely without merit.

 

Very well said, particularly the last line.  It is interesting to see the difference in cultures.  When the NDP moves too far from what its supporters perceive as its core values, they rise in anger.  When the Liberals move too far from what its supporters perceive as its core values, they cheer with pride.  It is fascinating.

Brachina

  www.equalitycanada.com/cause/violenceagainstmen/

 I had to type this out, rabble doesn't let me copy paste, but its worth it.

 

Ciabatta2

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

And you think that when their opponents accuse them of having a 28 billion dollar shortfall in their calculations, the NDP should respond by saying, "Don't worry about that, we're totally ready to have huge deficits"? This is what you think will bring Ontario voters on-side?

Yes, this attack might be a problem, but it was always going to be. If you had asked me two months ago if the Libs and Cons would claim that the NDP's numbers don't add up, I would have told you quite confidently that there was no chance of that not happening. They would say that no matter what the numbers were. So this would have to be dealt with no matter what. But I really don't see what you're proposing as a solution to that. In fact, it seems like the exact opposite.

No I don't but it all adds to the narrative and the perception that the NDP is saying whatever it can to win, and that the NDP isn't to be trusted financially.  The balanced budget pledge made the NDP look *less* credible than it would had it not issued such a pledge.  All it's going ot get from voters is either "yeah right" or "WTF?".

Now, with the Alberta econo update and the impeding recession, it makes them whole pledge look like bad judgment and bluster.  I never thought the NDP would end up making Trudeau look smart, but they're doing it.  (Although I don't think his stimulus will have any real econo impact at all.)

The NDP forgets that for many, voting is less of a vote for what they want but an indication of where they stand, or who they don't stand with.

Pondering

 

Ciabatta2 wrote:
Very well said, particularly the last line.  It is interesting to see the difference in cultures.  When the NDP moves too far from what its supporters perceive as its core values, they rise in anger.  When the Liberals move too far from what its supporters perceive as its core values, they cheer with pride.  It is fascinating.

What are the core values of Liberals? Also, even though I support Trudeau, I have no attachment to the party. The Liberals have the smallest base of all the parties because it is so non-ideological, a state the NDP appears to be trying to emulate.

Ciabatta2 wrote:

No I don't but it all adds to the narrative and the perception that the NDP is saying whatever it can to win, and that the NDP isn't to be trusted financially.  The balanced budget pledge made the NDP look *less* credible than it would had it not issued such a pledge.  All it's going ot get from voters is either "yeah right" or "WTF?".

Now, with the Alberta econo update and the impeding recession, it makes them whole pledge look like bad judgment and bluster.  I never thought the NDP would end up making Trudeau look smart, but they're doing it.  (Although I don't think his stimulus will have any real econo impact at all.)

And there we are in full agreement except I do think there will be an economic impact down the line.

Ciabatta2 wrote:
The NDP forgets that for many, voting is less of a vote for what they want but an indication of where they stand, or who they don't stand with.

For many voting has nothing to do with where they stand and everything to do with who they think will do the most adequate job of running the country for the next four years. Those are the people the parties need the most because they are the swing voters. I have no doubt that Mulcair will continue making Trudeau look smart over the course of the campaign.

The Globe and Mail debate on the economy should be a humdinger.

Aristotleded24

Brachina wrote:
Mulcair has promise for funding for Wonen's Shelters so women and childern won't be turned away,which is certainly a wonderful thing, no one who needs help should be turned away. Sad that's the problem. I support restoring funding and increasing it for women, but there is still nothing for abused men, by all means more funding for violence against women, I support it %110, but lets have some support for men too, lets have some abuse shelters for men please, lets say no sexism, lets not wait for a lawsuit suing the government for discrimination (which I honestly believe will happen eventually and which will be won).

[url=http://www.mens-resource-centre.ca/]We have such a centre in Winnipeg already[/url]

Ciabatta2

Pondering wrote:

What are the core values of Liberals? Also, even though I support Trudeau, I have no attachment to the party. The Liberals have the smallest base of all the parties because it is so non-ideological, a state the NDP appears to be trying to emulate.

Ciabatta2 wrote:
The NDP forgets that for many, voting is less of a vote for what they want but an indication of where they stand, or who they don't stand with.

For many voting has nothing to do with where they stand and everything to do with who they think will do the most adequate job of running the country for the next four years. Those are the people the parties need the most because they are the swing voters. I have no doubt that Mulcair will continue making Trudeau look smart over the course of the campaign.

The Liberals are non-ideological?  The Liberals, the most successful party apparatus of the 20th century, has the smallest base?  You can't make this stuff up!  You are so ridiculous it is almost fun, if it didn't turn people off your prefered party and leader.

We are in a post-credibility age.  All but the most hyperpartisan voters understand that party promises will not get implemented, that they are communicated to in talking points and that party platforms and plans are positioning only.

Voting is less about picking a leader or a plan and more about aligning oneself with groups of other voters that say something about your values.  This is well researched, and well known.  This is the core of Harper's electoral success.

I agree that Mulcair will get creamed at the economic debate.  But it has nothing to do with the quality of his plan versus Trudeau's plan - they're both phoney, all but the most partisan know this.  He'll lose because he's been outmaneovered - his rallying cry appeals to too few that haven't already parked their votes and he's put himself on the defensive.  (Although, to be fair, he's doing a pretty decent job respond to the cuts questions, which makes me think he was prepared for this.)  It is all about positioning.

quizzical

Brachina wrote:
 Mulcair comes off as an adult, so the exposer won't do him any harm, Trudeau on other hand fits celebrity culture too much and it will make it harder to take him seriously. They both have image issues, this helps Mulcairs, this emphasises Trudeau's.

lol, i think ALL the party leaders have image issues. what kinda of image are we looking for?

there's certain demographic of women voters i know who are voting Justin. why? they buy romance novels.

i can't be part of the romance novel crowd or religion driven politics crowd, what type of image really are we looking for?

Pondering

Ciabatta2 wrote:
The Liberals are non-ideological?  The Liberals, the most successful party apparatus of the 20th century, has the smallest base?  You can't make this stuff up!  You are so ridiculous it is almost fun, if it didn't turn people off your prefered party and leader.

It isn't necessary to be ideological to be successful. The Liberals go with the flow, they lean right and they lean left depending on the issue and the times.

The polls all show that Liberals have the smallest number of dedicated voters which isn't suprising as few people are passionately centrist.

Ciabatta2 wrote:
We are in a post-credibility age.  All but the most hyperpartisan voters understand that party promises will not get implemented, that they are communicated to in talking points and that party platforms and plans are positioning only.

I expect some to be broken but most to be kept unless there is a very good reason why not. I certainly expect politicians to be sincere in their intentions even if they don't always live up to them.

Ciabatta2 wrote:
Voting is less about picking a leader or a plan and more about aligning oneself with groups of other voters that say something about your values.  This is well researched, and well known.  This is the core of Harper's electoral success.

And yet the grand majority of voters do not associate with a particular party. 71% of voters have not decided who they will vote for. Both Harper and Mulcair have been working hard at being considered centrist.

Ciabatta2 wrote:
I agree that Mulcair will get creamed at the economic debate.  But it has nothing to do with the quality of his plan versus Trudeau's plan - they're both phoney, all but the most partisan know this.

The best arguments for social investment is that they pay off economically. Housing first programs are spreading because they save money by off-loading police, emergency services and shelters. First Nations are our fastest growing population. Neglect is economically stupid as short-changing them educationally on top of all the other deprivations they suffer almost gaurantees livelong dependency. It makes economic sense to support the First Nations in their efforts to heal themselves. Marijuana legalization will be an economic boost to the country. The environmental protections gutted by Harper were put in place by the Liberals.

Ciabatta2 wrote:
He'll lose because he's been outmaneovered - his rallying cry appeals to too few that haven't already parked their votes and he's put himself on the defensive.  (Although, to be fair, he's doing a pretty decent job respond to the cuts questions, which makes me think he was prepared for this.)  It is all about positioning.

Outmaneovered? Everyone has been saying the economy is stagnant at best and with the drop in oil we will have a deficit. We have no idea if the price will ever go back up so the loss may be structural. Mulcair knew all this and still chose to double down on promising a balanced budget, and even used the Conservative argument of not leaving debts to the future (our children). What is his rallying cry? The Conservatives and Liberals are evil so vote for me?

Mulcair has been riding high in the polls so you can't say he doesn't have the opportunity to win if he makes wise choices. The race starts in earnest after Labour Day. Voters will look at the platforms.

You are a party supporter, you feel solidarity with other supporters that goes beyond leadership changes and elections. That's fine, admirable even. I have no doubt that the NDP has on average much more progressive members. I'm not voting for members, I'm voting for the leader and executive that controls the agenda.

Jacob Two-Two

Hey, Pondering. What are you going to do when the Liberals come in third and all this effort you've been putting in leads to nothing? Thought that if you backed the right scumbags, that you'd get some plum position or other, didn't you? But it's not going to happen.

Better brush up that resume. You're gonna need it.

Ciabatta2

Pondering wrote:

Outmaneovered? Everyone has been saying the economy is stagnant at best and with the drop in oil we will have a deficit. We have no idea if the price will ever go back up so the loss may be structural. Mulcair knew all this and still chose to double down on promising a balanced budget, and even used the Conservative argument of not leaving debts to the future (our children). What is his rallying cry? The Conservatives and Liberals are evil so vote for me?

Mulcair has been riding high in the polls so you can't say he doesn't have the opportunity to win if he makes wise choices. The race starts in earnest after Labour Day. Voters will look at the platforms.

You are a party supporter, you feel solidarity with other supporters that goes beyond leadership changes and elections. That's fine, admirable even. I have no doubt that the NDP has on average much more progressive members. I'm not voting for members, I'm voting for the leader and executive that controls the agenda.

Yes, it is a manoevre.  We have become, for better or worse, a resource-based economy.  Stimulus will make good headlines, and will definitely play better than Mulcair's proposal - I expect Trudeau may actually win the election now, his timing was per-fect - but you obviously show little understanding of how election policy works.  It is all relative.  The NDP, in the lead, felt it had to define itself in order to win Conservative voters, before being framed by others.  They analyzed the situation, and picked a framing.  Trudeau, in third, is in the reactionary position (like the NDP of auld).  They analyzed the situation, analyzed the NDP's analysis.  Had the NDP announced stimulus, Trudeau would have announced balanced budgets.  The NDP gambled, the Liberals gambled on the NDP's gamble.  The Liberals had lower risk, but better analysis.  The Liberals win, the NDP loses.  

It is about positioning, not a plan or results.  Stimulus will do nearly nothing to help broad structural employment.  Economic benefits occur in sectors that make few long-term investments in productivity, are dominated by temporary hiring and that are already humming along given existing stimulus and low interest rates.  It will provide no lasting economic benefit or wealth creation.  The proof is in the bitumen - we've had almost seven years of stimulus, and our economy is still in the tank.

I am not a member of any party, and feel no solidarity to any of them.  I've been involved in all four, and employed by two.  I've voted Liberal more than I've voted for any other party.  The only solidarity I feel is to the volunteers of all parties - the often mocked and disdained foot soldiers that give up their valuable time in favour of getting door-slammed and hung-up on and eye-rolled to actually make our half-democracy work.

As a bit of an old hand, here is an honest to goodness quick tip: remember - most voters aren't like you.  They didn't make up their minds before the parties assumed their positioning.  You decided on your party and leader before they even had an agenda, and you have supported that agenda regardless of its twists, turns or content.  Remembering this will help you better understand their voting motivations and help you communicate with more credibility.

Ciabatta2

Pondering wrote:

Outmaneovered? Everyone has been saying the economy is stagnant at best and with the drop in oil we will have a deficit. We have no idea if the price will ever go back up so the loss may be structural. Mulcair knew all this and still chose to double down on promising a balanced budget, and even used the Conservative argument of not leaving debts to the future (our children). What is his rallying cry? The Conservatives and Liberals are evil so vote for me?

Mulcair has been riding high in the polls so you can't say he doesn't have the opportunity to win if he makes wise choices. The race starts in earnest after Labour Day. Voters will look at the platforms.

Yes, it is a manoevre.  We have become, for better or worse, a resource-based economy.  Stimulus will make good headlines, and will definitely play better than Mulcair's proposal - I expect Trudeau may actually win the election now, his timing was per-fect - but you obviously show little understanding of how election policy works.  It is all relative.

The NDP, in the lead, knows the Liberals will slowly eat into its vote.  The NDP felt it had to define itself in order to win Conservative voters, before being framed by others.  They analyzed the situation, and picked a framing.  Trudeau, in third, is in the reactionary position (like the NDP of auld).  They analyzed the situation, analyzed the NDP's analysis, picked a framing.  Had the NDP announced stimulus, Trudeau would have announced balanced budgets.  The NDP gambled, the Liberals gambled on the NDP's gamble.  Going third, the Liberals had lower risk, but way better analysis.  The Liberals win, the NDP loses.  

It is about positioning, not a plan or results.  Stimulus will do nearly nothing to help broad structural employment.  Economic benefits occur in sectors that make few long-term investments in innovation or productivity, and are dominated by temporary hiring and that are already humming along given existing stimulus and low interest rates.  It will provide many fancy university building (many ancillary to academic uses) but no place to employ those grads.  There will be minimal lasting economic benefit or wealth creation.  The proof is in the bitumen - we've had almost seven years of stimulus, and our economy is still in the tank.

Quote:

You are a party supporter, you feel solidarity with other supporters that goes beyond leadership changes and elections. That's fine, admirable even. I have no doubt that the NDP has on average much more progressive members. I'm not voting for members, I'm voting for the leader and executive that controls the agenda.

(Not that I need to justify it to anyone, but more FYI to you to help your future communications....) I am not a member of any party, and feel no solidarity to any of them.  I've been involved in all four, and employed by two.  I've voted Liberal more than I've voted for any other party.

As a bit of an old dog in this yard, here is an honest to goodness quick tip: remember - most voters aren't like you.  They didn't make up their minds before the parties assumed their positioning.  You decided on your party and leader before they even had an agenda, and you have supported that agenda regardless of its twists, turns or content.  Remembering this will help you better understand their voting motivations and help you communicate with more credibility.

The only solidarity I feel is to the volunteers of *all* parties - the often mocked and disdained foot soldiers that give up their valuable time in favour of getting door-slammed and ignored and hung-up on and eye-rolled, all to actually make our half-democracy work.

Mindless partisanism (is that a word?) makes their lives much harder, their 'jobs' much harder, and does more to discourage them than anything else.  It hurts them all.

(note: edited a thousand times because I just can't keep up with html and forums)

Pondering

Ciabatta2 wrote:
Yes, it is a manoevre.  We have become, for better or worse, a resource-based economy.  

We have always had a resource based economy and probably always will to some extent because we have a small population and a huge amount of land. Harper made the situation worse because of his single-minded focus on oil and freeing the market. 

Ciabatta2 wrote:
Stimulus will make good headlines, and will definitely play better than Mulcair's proposal - I expect Trudeau may actually win the election now, his timing was per-fect - but you obviously show little understanding of how election policy works.  It is all relative.  The NDP, in the lead, felt it had to define itself in order to win Conservative voters, before being framed by others.  They analyzed the situation, and picked a framing.  Trudeau, in third, is in the reactionary position (like the NDP of auld).  They analyzed the situation, analyzed the NDP's analysis.  Had the NDP announced stimulus, Trudeau would have announced balanced budgets.  The NDP gambled, the Liberals gambled on the NDP's gamble.  The Liberals had lower risk, but better analysis.  The Liberals win, the NDP loses. 

I know how it works, it's why Trudeau stayed silent while his numbers dropped and why he has played his cards close to the chest. The NDP released their 5 point platform because they were stuck in the doldrums last summer, also why they changed their marketing team. 

Trudeau has a very strong economic team so I think they would still have seen the writing on the wall and promised moderate deficits. 

I do know that the NDP didn't have to double-down against deficit spending. They could have moderated their message while still condemning Trudeau. 

Ciabatta2 wrote:
 It is about positioning, not a plan or results.  Stimulus will do nearly nothing to help broad structural employment.  Economic benefits occur in sectors that make few long-term investments in productivity, are dominated by temporary hiring and that are already humming along given existing stimulus and low interest rates.  It will provide no lasting economic benefit or wealth creation.  The proof is in the bitumen - we've had almost seven years of stimulus, and our economy is still in the tank.

The type of stimulous matters. Harper build a gazebo in the middle of nowhere because it was in a conservative riding. The Liberal plan is to invest in social housing, transit and other infrastructure. That kind of stimulous is an investment that pays dividends. For example, the housing first approach has been proven effective in reducing the use of emergency services. That requires affordable housing. Investing in transit will help us meet requirements to cut carbon pollution and will improve air in cities which saves the health care system money. 

Ciabatta2 wrote:
As a bit of an old hand, here is an honest to goodness quick tip: remember - most voters aren't like you.  They didn't make up their minds before the parties assumed their positioning.  You decided on your party and leader before they even had an agenda, and you have supported that agenda regardless of its twists, turns or content.  Remembering this will help you better understand their voting motivations and help you communicate with more credibility. 

I strongly support marijuana legalization and I support the Clarity act and disagree with the Sherbrooke Declaration. I know the leaders well and I am familiar with the information they have put out so far. Most people are not nearly as well informed as I am so it is no wonder they haven't decided (71% anyway).  

If anyone is ahead it is the NDP but having watched the leaders for so long, despite Trudeau's stance on C 51 and a few other missteps I think he is going to connect very well with Canadians. All they will need is the platform to come flocking back. In my opinion people want to support Trudeau but they couldn't say why due to the lack of policy. That started turning people to the NDP. All Trudeau has to do is prove that he is ready and present a strong platform. 

This is the kind of thing the NDP does, and it is nasty. I don't think underhanded attacks like this will sway voters who are deciding between the Liberals and the NDP. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/01/ndp-liberals-violence-against-wo...

On Tuesday, the NDP released a statement titled “Liberals oppose plan to combat violence against women.” In turn, star Liberal candidate Michèle Audette accused the NDP of making political hay with the sensitive issue.

Incumbent NDP candidate Nicki Ashton called Trudeau’s remarks “disturbing” and an “attack on the NDP’s commitment to end violence against women.”

“The Liberals are opposing the NDP’s concrete plan to help the most vulnerable women in our country, so they don’t have to ask the largest corporation to pay their fair share,” she said.

“That’s wrong.”

Where do you think the NDP's accusation will fall on the baloney meter? 

When Canadians get to know Mulcair and Trudeau better, I think they will choose Trudeau. 

 

mark_alfred

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Yes, it is a manoevre.  We have become, for better or worse, a resource-based economy.  Stimulus will make good headlines, and will definitely play better than Mulcair's proposal - I expect Trudeau may actually win the election now, his timing was per-fect

I dunno. In the moment with stock market worries regarding China and confirmation of a recession, people think "something dramatic must be done!" And Trudeau naturally appeases with his proposal of deficit stimulus financing.

But it's like after the Parliament Hill shooting. People felt that dramatic measures had to be taken, and thus Bill C-51 was created. Huge public approval initially, but it waned. People's aversion to having their rights infringed won out when people cooled down.

Regarding the economy, we're not talking about a potential melt-down of global finances like back in 2008, but rather that Canada (but not it's major trading partner the US) is in a bit of a slump because Harper focused too much on oil. So, people will cool down, and their aversion to accumulating more debt as a "fix" will become more pronounced.

So, I feel the NDP's message that we need a change in the direction of Canada will be favoured over the grandiose deficit utterings of Trudeau. People want good management of the country.

 

NorthReport

Norman Spector ‏@nspector4  6h6 hours ago

Toronto Star gets it about right @dgardner

Embedded image permalink

 

NorthReport

Norman Spector ‏@nspector4  15h15 hours ago

Justin Trudeau's position on deficits is only true if he writes P E Trudeau out of Canadian history! @gmbutts  Laughing

Embedded image permalink

 

Pages