Trudeau campaign 2015 Part 3 - August 4th

619 posts / 0 new
Last post
jjuares

Pondering wrote:

O’Born says the paraphrased statement is incorrect.

“I’ve contacted the Ricochet and have asked for a correction,” O’Born said in an email to The Gargoyle.

“I would never say anything about highlighting the family status of any other candidate because it isn’t relevant. Such a view would be reprehensible and has no place in any campaign.

Ricochet is a gossip rag.


I am not acquainted with this paper. But to be fair you should have included the fact that not only the reporter claimed that this was the stance of the Freeland campaign as reported to him but the editor also called the campaign to get confirmation and he is also claiming he received confirmation and they are sticking by their story. I don't know who is telling the truth, the campaign manager or the two journalists. Usually two carries more weight than one.

nicky

The Liberal campaign against the NDP and Tom Mulcair is becoming more shrill and more desperate.

The Liberals are increasingly fearful of an existential threat in this election. They are not only running third but they are looking at a third place finsish that will undermine their raison d'etre - the alternative party of power. 

They are falling to as low as 23% in some polls. With a soft Liberal vote and facing a widespread revulsion at the Conservatives they rightly fear a sharp polarization that favours the NDP. In particular they face annihilation in Quebec and may even lose their leader's seat (which may be a good thing for them.)

That is why Trudeau (and his ally May) are almot exclusively attacking the NDP. That is why we are seeing near hysterical attacks by Freeland and Vaughan and by the Liberal trolls on Twitter (and Babble.)

josh

Quote:

Justin Trudeau says a Liberal government would run modest, short-term deficits until 2019 in order to kickstart the economy.

. . . .

The party is also promising significant new investment in public transit, affordable housing and programs to help communities cope with climate change.

Trudeau’s refusal to rule out a deficit and insistence that economic growth will help take care of the balance sheet opened him up for attacks this week by both the NDP and the Conservatives, who are now using his position for a fundraising appeal among supporters.

New Democrats promised this week not to run a deficit, if elected.

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/27/liberals-propose-modest-deficits-to-kicks...

Point to the Liberals.

mark_alfred

Indeed.  Initially Trudeau was speaking of how the NDP could not justify how they could afford their promises (particularly child care).  Now that Trudeau is campaigning on the promise of a mild stimulus (so, reaching a $10B deficit that shall be balanced by, if I recall correctly, 2017 -- or maybe 2018), he kind of stumbled when asked about the NDP being close to a majority in a recent poll.  His previous line of "they can't afford their promises" contradicts his recent line of "they, like Harper, are not investing but rather are talking austerity".  He was twisting himself into a pretzel while trying to combine the two ideas into the one answer. 

mark_alfred

The reason the Liberals need to talk about going into deficit is that they're unwilling to increase government revenue via increased corporate taxation and reduced subsidies to the oil industry.  Reminds me of Paul Martin who "balanced" the budget via offloading costs to the provinces.  Trudeau is continuing to promote having citizens pay for tax cuts to large corporations and subsidies to the oil industry.  He's relying on a trickle down effect to later balance things.  Trickle down economics doesn't work.

Pondering

 

If Mulcair keeps his promise on no deficits then he can't afford to keep his spending promises.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/08/26/trudeau-is-talking-...

The ongoing economic crisis of the European Union is a perfect illustration of this. There, governments have largely embraced the mantra of balanced government budgets in the mistaken belief that this kind of fiscal policy was the exemplar of prudent economic management and provided a supportive environment for monetary policy. With more than 25-per-cent unemployment, ask any Greek or Spaniard how that’s working out for them today. In fact, the European experience illustrates that a mindless pursuit of balanced budgets actually creates the opposite conditions, as yet more income is sucked out of a slowing economy, unemployment grows and deficits rise inexorably.

Unemployment is hugely expensive. Public debt, by contrast, is relatively cheap (especially in today’s world). So why are we debating how to cut the deficit when we should be debating how best to use the cheap money to put more Canadians to work?

A patient can’t recover if a doctor refuses to examine him and sticks with a preconceived diagnosis. The same is true of an economy. Justin Trudeau’s message implicitly recognizes that fact, and he should be applauded for having the common sense to say so.

Marshall Auerback is an investment fund manager and a director of Economists for Peace and Security.

In accepting that there will be deficits Trudeau is being honest while Mulcair is reinforcing the neoliberal philosophy that all deficits are bad. There is no way you can whitewash that.

josh

Seems like balanced budgets is Mulcair's great passion.

mark_alfred

To accept the right-wing claim that there just isn't enough money is wrong.  There is enough without being slaves to the banks.  Courageously calling upon big business to pay their fair share, via corporate tax increases and via halting/reducing subsidies to big oil, is what the NDP is doing. 

Aristotleded24

mark_alfred wrote:
To accept the right-wing claim that there just isn't enough money is wrong.  There is enough without being slaves to the banks.  Courageously calling upon big business to pay their fair share, via corporate tax increases and via halting/reducing subsidies to big oil, is what the NDP is doing.

[url=http://enmasse.ca/?m=201111]I've made that point previously[/url]

jjuares

In Saskatchewan the NDP and CCF were careful not to run deficits. It was a great passion of Tommy Douglas. And one of the reasons was to "get the bankers off our backs. " if you have to go into the markets to raise money you effectively give bond traders and the market influence over your policies via ratings etc. Any social democratic government that isn't fiscally conservative simply won't survive and the empirical evidence is Canada is pretty overwhelming on that issue.

Aristotleded24

I'll also add that if you ever let the frame of public spending to be an either/or between program spending and balanced budgets, people will choose balanced budgets every time.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

To accept the right-wing claim that there just isn't enough money is wrong.  There is enough without being slaves to the banks.  Courageously calling upon big business to pay their fair share, via corporate tax increases and via halting/reducing subsidies to big oil, is what the NDP is doing. 

The NDP is also promising their first budget will be balanced even if it requires cuts and the modest corporate tax increase is not enough to pay for everything without running a deficit especially as they don't know what shape Harper is leaving the treasury.

The NDP has made balancing the budget their TOP priority.

LONDON, Ont. -- An NDP pledge to end income splitting won't be enough to balance the budget, Tom Mulcair conceded Wednesday, though he would not talk about spending cuts.

The Liberals pounced on Mulcair's insistence this week that an NDP budget would stay in the black as proof of an "austerity" agenda, but Mulcair doubled down Wednesday, saying even if market forces change he will not run a deficit.

"We are not entertaining any thought of that," the NDP leader said.

http://www.cp24.com/news/mulcair-says-ndp-not-entertaining-running-a-def...

Versus:

Justin Trudeau says a Liberal government won't balance the books for three straight years but will double spending on infrastructure to jump-start economic growth.

The Liberal fiscal plan would see "a modest short-term deficit" of less than $10 billion for each of the first three years  and then a balanced budget by the 2019-2020 fiscal year.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberals-infrastruc...

josh

jjuares wrote:
In Saskatchewan the NDP and CCF were careful not to run deficits. It was a great passion of Tommy Douglas. And one of the reasons was to "get the bankers off our backs. " if you have to go into the markets to raise money you effectively give bond traders and the market influence over your policies via ratings etc. Any social democratic government that isn't fiscally conservative simply won't survive and the empirical evidence is Canada is pretty overwhelming on that issue.

If you want to reject Keynesianism, and embrace austerity, just say it. Which is to reject stimulating an economy that it stagnant or in recession by way of deficit spending.

jjuares

josh wrote:
jjuares wrote:
In Saskatchewan the NDP and CCF were careful not to run deficits. It was a great passion of Tommy Douglas. And one of the reasons was to "get the bankers off our backs. " if you have to go into the markets to raise money you effectively give bond traders and the market influence over your policies via ratings etc. Any social democratic government that isn't fiscally conservative simply won't survive and the empirical evidence is Canada is pretty overwhelming on that issue.

If you want to reject Keynesianism, and embrace austerity, just say it. Which is to reject stimulating an economy that it stagnant or in recession by way of deficit spending.


Ah, the false dichotomy. How about raising corporate taxes ( something both the Cons and Liberals oppose), removing income splitting, reducing gov. adverts, eliminating a thousand of the communication officers the Cons employ and many other things. The interesting thing would be that by redirecting spending you could help stimulate the economy.

josh

jjuares wrote:
josh wrote:
jjuares wrote:
In Saskatchewan the NDP and CCF were careful not to run deficits. It was a great passion of Tommy Douglas. And one of the reasons was to "get the bankers off our backs. " if you have to go into the markets to raise money you effectively give bond traders and the market influence over your policies via ratings etc. Any social democratic government that isn't fiscally conservative simply won't survive and the empirical evidence is Canada is pretty overwhelming on that issue.

If you want to reject Keynesianism, and embrace austerity, just say it. Which is to reject stimulating an economy that it stagnant or in recession by way of deficit spending.


Ah, the false dichotomy. How about raising corporate taxes ( something both the Cons and Liberals oppose), removing income splitting, reducing gov. adverts, eliminating a thousand of the communication officers the Cons employ and many other things. The interesting thing would be that by redirecting spending you could help stimulate the economy.

All well and good. But if you're still spending the same amount as you're taking in, it will not give the economy enough of a push.

NDPP

Justin Trudeau fundraiser Picketed by Jewish Group Over Liberals' Support For Iran Nuclear Deal

http://www.canada.com/news/national/Justin+Trudeau+fundraiser+picketed+J...

"A Toronto Jewish group made the rare move of protesting one of its own community leaders on Wednesday evening, staging a picket outside billionaire Barry Sherman's house during his cocktail fundraiser for the Liberal party.

Defence League leader Meir Weinstein, who organized the protest, emphasized that his group wasn't 'looking  to get into any shouting matches or anything like that. We don't picket Jewish leaders in our community,' Weinstein said. 'But when it comes to Iran, that's the red line. If there was disagreement (on The Iran deal), that would be one thing. But there is unanimity.

The deal is horrible for Israel..."

Notice the deference and recognition of the billionaire as a 'Jewish leader in our community.' No doubt a curious and untypical politeness on the part of the JDL is designed not only to generate further support for the CONs, but a few more bucks for the Zios' war-chest from the bomb-bomb Iran crowd as well.

 

jjuares

josh wrote:
jjuares wrote:
josh wrote:
jjuares wrote:
In Saskatchewan the NDP and CCF were careful not to run deficits. It was a great passion of Tommy Douglas. And one of the reasons was to "get the bankers off our backs. " if you have to go into the markets to raise money you effectively give bond traders and the market influence over your policies via ratings etc. Any social democratic government that isn't fiscally conservative simply won't survive and the empirical evidence is Canada is pretty overwhelming on that issue.

If you want to reject Keynesianism, and embrace austerity, just say it. Which is to reject stimulating an economy that it stagnant or in recession by way of deficit spending.


Ah, the false dichotomy. How about raising corporate taxes ( something both the Cons and Liberals oppose), removing income splitting, reducing gov. adverts, eliminating a thousand of the communication officers the Cons employ and many other things. The interesting thing would be that by redirecting spending you could help stimulate the economy.

All well and good. But if you're still spending the same amount as you're taking in, it will not give the economy enough of a push.


You do realize that the low corporate tax rate that both the Liberals and Harper want represent to a significant number amount of money that actually leaves Canada? So it's multiplier effect is significant when it stays here, something the two right wing parties realize but they need the support of corporate Canada so they simply disregard.

jjuares

If this latest poll is correct then the Liberals have it correct. Forget Harper focus most of your real attacks on the NDP. They seem to be pivoting to that position.

blairz blairz's picture

jjuares wrote:
If this latest poll is correct then the Liberals have it correct. Forget Harper focus most of your real attacks on the NDP. They seem to be pivoting to that position.

I agree, and I believe the tories have known this for months! The Cons believe they would rather face theNDP down the road. They might be foolish in that but it fits their world view that the "socialists" are doomed to fail.

Pondering

Trudeau is getting positive press on his willingness to run a deficit while Mulcair is doubling down on his promise of a balanced budget. I can't wait to see the budgets. I wonder who will release theirs first. 

sherpa-finn

I think its an effective acknowledgement by the Liberal campaign brain trust that Justin has run out of time to establish the leadership gravitas or credibility in this election campaign, when compared by Canadians to either Mulcair or Harper.

As such, the Libs must feel obliged to pivot to much more dramatic policy statements, hoping presumably to peel away some of the soft NDP vote, Wynne-style.  Personally, I cannot believe it will work, given it seems so late in the game and Liberal credibility with the public on such grand pronouncements is so low. It seems to me to be more of a desperate Hail Mary pass than anything else.

That said, something similar did actually work for Wynne, - and they don't really have many options left at this point, given their total political miscalculation in Quebec. Time to 'Go long, Justin .... go long!'

mark_alfred

I agree he's trying to pull another Wynne.  Mind you, given that Forum is an outlier right now, since Ipsos basically echoed the others (showing a close three way race), I'm still not completely confident to call it desperation.  But it is weird to declare that a piddling $1.5B deficit is an economic meltdown requiring stimulus spending.  It is like Trudeau is losing his marbles.

Marco C

Ipsos? They haven't had a poll for 2 weeks.

 

I'm not sure I'd call JT's double down desprate, it's still to early for anyone to be desprate (unless you're the BQ). It is a bit misguided I think, this last week or has seen the LPC try to claim the Mulcair and NDP aren't progressive, starting with the insessent talk about the 10 year old Thatcher remarks followed by attacks for not following threw with the woman's issues debate and now balanced budgets not being progressive.

 

None of it is resonating (at least at not at the doorstep), but it's still early days. Now if they keep on attacking the NDP in this manner, thinking they can pull a Wynne style comeback they're going to get a rude suprise come October.

mark_alfred

Really?  I could have sworn I saw a recent Ipsos poll.

ETA:  Yeah, I'm pretty sure this is a new one:  http://globalnews.ca/news/2189008/new-poll-shows-tight-election-race-acr...

Quote:
This poll was conducted between August 24 and August 26, with a sample of 1,000 Canadians from Ipsos’ online panel and is accurate to within 3.5 percentage points 19 times out of 20.

Marco C

My mistake, I think I was dumbstruck today seeing the Forum poll.

mark_alfred

Yeah.  Hopefully other polls begin to echo what Forum showed today.  But in looking at it, it does seem like an outlier.  No other poll has the Cons that low in third.

Marco C

Indeed, I also don't thing the LPC is catching those numbers either. But as always (and as I tell the campaigns) its the trends that counts not the numbers.

NDP gaining slow but stedy

LPC stablelizing after the spring crash

CPC declining slowly

Jacob Two-Two

Forum is worthless. They have always overselected Liberal supporters. Now these supporters are fleeing to the NDP and Forum shows big NDP numbers instead, but it's still out of whack and plain wrong. The less you add them into your calculations, the better.

mark_alfred

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Forum is worthless. They have always overselected Liberal supporters. Now these supporters are fleeing to the NDP and Forum shows big NDP numbers instead, but it's still out of whack and plain wrong. The less you add them into your calculations, the better.

That makes sense.  So, inflated NDP and Liberal numbers, and deflated Con numbers.  That's too bad, I was quite pleased with the result.  Still, NDP is on top, with Cons and Libs a bit behind.  A pretty close three way race still, then.

Jacob Two-Two

mark_alfred wrote:

A pretty close three way race still, then.

I don't know about that. The last Angus Reid poll gave the NDP a 13% lead on the Libs. That doesn't feel very close. Could be an outlier but I think it's a trend.

mark_alfred

Hard to say.  No other poll had the Libs that low, except Ekos a couple of weeks ago.  I wonder when Ekos is releasing their next poll.

takeitslowly

The balanced budget might end up hurting the ndp and help trudeau

mark_alfred

It could.  It could look bold and daring.  Or it could look erratic and strange to people.  Kinsella, for what it's worth (perhaps not much) feels Trudeau has likely rolled snake-eyes with this move (link). 

josh

mark_alfred wrote:

Kinsella, for what it's worth (perhaps not much) feels Trudeau has likely rolled snake-eyes with this move (link). 

Yeah, no axe to grind there.

Ciabatta2

mark_alfred wrote:

It could.  It could look bold and daring.  Or it could look erratic and strange to people.  Kinsella, for what it's worth (perhaps not much) feels Trudeau has likely rolled snake-eyes with this move (link). 

It's a smart move.  Mulcair's balanced budget promise was unnecessary and looks like a big honking lie.  There was no need for it.

Trudeau is pulling the same sort of Kathleen Wynne-style move, trying to change the perception of the NDP's and Liberal party's leftiness with a few key planks to distract from the more meat and potatoes policy differences that truly show where the parties stand.

The problem for Mulcair is that it will prove effective.  Just like with Horwath, there are lots of NDP-inclined voters that don't like him and see themselves reflected more in Trudeau (a la Wynne.)  This will shake many of these loose.

The problem for Trudeau is that when Wynne pulled this, it was to shore up support for a win.  The Liberals were competing for first and the NDP for third.  This is not the situation federally.  This type of move will not attract the voters that bailed on the Liberals in droves and went Conservative in 2011.

So the real winner here is Harper.

josh

Ciabatta2 wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

It could.  It could look bold and daring.  Or it could look erratic and strange to people.  Kinsella, for what it's worth (perhaps not much) feels Trudeau has likely rolled snake-eyes with this move (link). 

It's a smart move.  Mulcair's balanced budget promise was unnecessary and looks like a big honking lie.  There was no need for it.

Trudeau is pulling the same sort of Kathleen Wynne-style move, trying to change the perception of the NDP's and Liberal party's leftiness with a few key planks to distract from the more meat and potatoes policy differences that truly show where the parties stand.

The problem for Mulcair is that it will prove effective.  Just like with Horwath, there are lots of NDP-inclined voters that don't like him and see themselves reflected more in Trudeau (a la Wynne.)  This will shake many of these loose.

The problem for Trudeau is that when Wynne pulled this, it was to shore up support for a win.  The Liberals were competing for first and the NDP for third.  This is not the situation federally.  This type of move will not attract the voters that bailed on the Liberals in droves and went Conservative in 2011.

So the real winner here is Harper.

The difference here is that Harper is a known commodity. Hudak was far more scary to progressive leaning voters, and the positions of the NDP and Liberals were reversed. So it made sense to go to the Liberals to block Hudak. None of that is at play here. So I don't think it will work for Trudeau, even though he's right on policy grounds.

mark_alfred

Ciabatta2 wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

It could.  It could look bold and daring.  Or it could look erratic and strange to people.  Kinsella, for what it's worth (perhaps not much) feels Trudeau has likely rolled snake-eyes with this move (link). 

It's a smart move.  Mulcair's balanced budget promise was unnecessary and looks like a big honking lie.  There was no need for it.

A big lie?  How so?  The parliamentary budget office predicted a $1.5B deficit.  In a two trillion dollar economy, this is a piss in the lake.  We're not talking about a near financial meltdown like 2008 that required stimulus.  Rather, the repeated deficits of the Harper government are due to their aversion to properly tax the corporate sector and their aversion to increasing government revenues (along with excessive reliance upon big oil -- including unnecessary subsidies). 

Also it's due to buying into the premise that there isn't enough money for fixed costs like universal child care.  But, like universal health care (which is less costly per capita than health care in the States) universal child care will be good for economy overall.  And it is within our means now to do this.  Buying into the right-wing premise of there not being enough money for long term fixed costs, and instead needing to occasionally apply bandaids like what Trudeau is now preaching (a one time short term small stimulus), is a mistake.  Digging deeper into debt rather than correcting the root of the problem (that being, insufficient revenue and excessive catering and reliance upon big oil) just makes it harder to get projects like universal child care off the ground.

Sean in Ottawa

Ciabatta2 wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

It could.  It could look bold and daring.  Or it could look erratic and strange to people.  Kinsella, for what it's worth (perhaps not much) feels Trudeau has likely rolled snake-eyes with this move (link). 

It's a smart move.  Mulcair's balanced budget promise was unnecessary and looks like a big honking lie.  There was no need for it.

Trudeau is pulling the same sort of Kathleen Wynne-style move, trying to change the perception of the NDP's and Liberal party's leftiness with a few key planks to distract from the more meat and potatoes policy differences that truly show where the parties stand.

The problem for Mulcair is that it will prove effective.  Just like with Horwath, there are lots of NDP-inclined voters that don't like him and see themselves reflected more in Trudeau (a la Wynne.)  This will shake many of these loose.

The problem for Trudeau is that when Wynne pulled this, it was to shore up support for a win.  The Liberals were competing for first and the NDP for third.  This is not the situation federally.  This type of move will not attract the voters that bailed on the Liberals in droves and went Conservative in 2011.

So the real winner here is Harper.

I disagree that Mulcair's statement was a lie. Both the Liebrals and the NDP are doing in part what they had to do.

The Liberals running from the left is a desperate gamble but the only remaining card. It is risky becuase Trudeau who has run from the right for a year is not credible.

The NDP's bargain with the public is that if the NDP will not blow the budget people are happy to see them get a chance. The NDP does have to run to the right of its band in order to govern -- to satisfy fears.  There is a lot of Conservative waste and the economy may be in difficulty but the federal finances do have some give now.

Change takes a bit of time and the NDP will have a lot of room adjusting priorities before needing to spend much more. It does mean that corporate taxes will go up. Conservative priorities the NDP does not value will get slashed for sure in order to make room.

The NDP will move more slowly but if this is what it takes to get power then this is something supporters will accept -- even if they do not like it much.

Don't expect Trudeau to criticize Mulcair from the left in the House either. If he is ahead of the CPC he will try to bury them so he will tack right after the election.

Ciabatta2

josh wrote:

The difference here is that Harper is a known commodity. Hudak was far more scary to progressive leaning voters, and the positions of the NDP and Liberals were reversed. So it made sense to go to the Liberals to block Hudak. None of that is at play here. So I don't think it will work for Trudeau, even though he's right on policy grounds.

I don't disagree, although I think some on the left underestimate the desire of many "progressive" voters to "feel" left while voting for a more mainstream, known quantity - you know, the yay transit, stop Harper crowd.  There is a real deep desire in many of these circles to feel left but a general distrust of the NDP (or a dislike of its working-class, populist aspect.)  Hence the love-in for Kathleen Wynne in Toronto.  Having cake, eating too, etc.

 

Re: mark_alfred (I can't seem to quote two posts).  I think the rationale for not running deficits is irrelevant.  I think the Parliamentary Budget Officer is irrelevant.  And oh gad I'm sick of hearing about Tommy Douglas and his no deficits.  What is relevant is a general trend of running deficits for a number of years, the public's disinterest in the financial details, and a *perception* that a) deficits will probably be required anyway, b) you can't trust a politician that says he'she won't run deficits, and c) you particularly can't trust the NDP to not run deficits. 

mark_alfred

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Re: mark_alfred (I can't seem to quote two posts).  I think the rationale for not running deficits is irrelevant.  I think the Parliamentary Budget Officer is irrelevant.  And oh gad I'm sick of hearing about Tommy Douglas and his no deficits.  What is relevant is a general trend of running deficits for a number of years, the public's disinterest in the financial details, and a *perception* that a) deficits will probably be required anyway, b) you can't trust a politician that says he'she won't run deficits, and c) you particularly can't trust the NDP to not run deficits. 

Yes, I agree the rationale is irrelevant.  But many people see running deficits as incompetence.  It wouldn't make sense to successfully attack the Cons as being incompetent financial managers to then say, "like them, we too will be incompetent."  It also wouldn't make sense to feed into that public mistrust of the NDP.  So I can't agree with you that "there was no need for it".

Brachina

 I point out that Mulcair has promised balanced budgets from the next budget onwards giving himself another year roughly in order to balance them. Cutting Oil subsidies will be enough alone to balance budgets, cutting tax loop holes, increasing corporate taxes, cutting income splitting, cutting bank subsidies, ect... will give the NDP more then enough room for its spending promises.

 

 I actually knew this was coming, when deseperate the Liberals will either shift heavily left or right or both at the same time, not having to keep your promises gives one room to promise anything that you think will help you win.

Pondering

sherpa-finn wrote:

I think its an effective acknowledgement by the Liberal campaign brain trust that Justin has run out of time to establish the leadership gravitas or credibility in this election campaign, when compared by Canadians to either Mulcair or Harper.

As such, the Libs must feel obliged to pivot to much more dramatic policy statements, hoping presumably to peel away some of the soft NDP vote, Wynne-style.  Personally, I cannot believe it will work, given it seems so late in the game and Liberal credibility with the public on such grand pronouncements is so low. It seems to me to be more of a desperate Hail Mary pass than anything else.

Running a deficit to grow the economy has been planned for a very long time. It's the basis for "the budget will balance itself" clip.

Harper may have dropped the writ early but the real campaign still only starts after Labour Day and most voters only make up their minds in the last 3 weeks of the campaign, that would be October.

It isn't at all "late in the game".  The campaigns have barely started.

 

Ciabatta2

ctrl190 wrote:

The difference is that you haven't seen the "Gang of 34" type lashing of Horwarth from the NDP base that you do with Mulcair. Mulcair, like Layton, speaks much better than the folsky Horwath did to the urbane sensibilities of the Beaches and Annex crowd. The Liberals are attempting to paint Mulcair and the federal NDP as "shape shifters," but unlike the Ontario election, it clearly isn't sticking. 

That's true.  Mulcair is better at it than Horwath, yes, but Trudeau is no slouch at this either.  We haven't seen a Gang of 34 yet, and we may never, but we also have almost two elections worth of time left in this one so there is ample time for the shape shifting drum to get beaten and for the Gerry Caplans to opine in the media about what has happened to their party.

(An aside, what was so interesting about the Gang of 34 was that it was such a classist move on the part of members of the the party that is supposed to recognize the limiting factors of class in economics.  What a beaut from that crowd.)

JKR

Brachina wrote:

 I point out that Mulcair has promised balanced budgets from the next budget onwards giving himself another year roughly in order to balance them. Cutting Oil subsidies will be enough alone to balance budgets, cutting tax loop holes, increasing corporate taxes, cutting income splitting, cutting bank subsidies, ect... will give the NDP more then enough room for its spending promises.

 

 I actually knew this was coming, when deseperate the Liberals will either shift heavily left or right or both at the same time, not having to keep your promises gives one room to promise anything that you think will help you win.

The NDP's priorities are growing  the economy, creating more quality jobs, providing more affordable childcare, protecting the environment, building more infrastructure like public transit, moving the  retirement age back to 65, increasing the GIS, making post secondary education more affordable, increasing health care spending, etc... So I think voters won't be put off by the NDP also stressing that a balanced budget is also one of their goals in an economy that's growing. I think most voters understand that if the economy does slow down considerably, the NDP would have deficit budgets in order to maintain their other priorities.

josh

Quote:

I think most voters understand that if the economy does slow down considerably, the NDP would have deficit budgets in order to maintain their other priorities.

"Understand" based on what?

ctrl190

The problem for Mulcair is that it will prove effective.  Just like with Horwath, there are lots of NDP-inclined voters that don't like him and see themselves reflected more in Trudeau (a la Wynne.)  This will shake many of these loose.

 

The difference is that you haven't seen the "Gang of 34" type lashing of Horwarth from the NDP base that you do with Mulcair. Mulcair, like Layton, speaks much better than the folksy Horwath did to the urbane sensibilities of the Beaches and Annex crowd. The Liberals are attempting to paint Mulcair and the federal NDP as "shape shifters," but unlike the Ontario election, it clearly isn't sticking. 

 

The problem for Trudeau is that when Wynne pulled this, it was to shore up support for a win.  The Liberals were competing for first and the NDP for third.  This is not the situation federally.  This type of move will not attract the voters that bailed on the Liberals in droves and went Conservative in 2011.

This we agree on. Many soft Dippers in the provincial election "held their nose" and went with Wynne to avoid Mike Harris 2.0. With the NDP in the lead, strategic voting for once could work in the NDP's favour. 

josh

Ciabatta2 wrote:

ctrl190 wrote:

(An aside, what was so interesting about the Gang of 34 was that it was such a classist move on the part of members of the the party that is supposed to recognize the limiting factors of class in economics.  What a beaut from that crowd.)

Yeah, how bourgeois of them to try to prevent the election of someone who wanted to turn Ontario into Scott Walker's Wisconsin.

JKR

josh wrote:
Quote:
I think most voters understand that if the economy does slow down considerably, the NDP would have deficit budgets in order to maintain their other priorities.

"Understand" based on what?

Based on the fact that the NDP would have to accomidate economic reality and the that NDP'ers are generally social democrats at heart.

josh

JKR wrote:

josh wrote:
Quote:
I think most voters understand that if the economy does slow down considerably, the NDP would have deficit budgets in order to maintain their other priorities.

"Understand" based on what?

Based on the fact that the NDP would have to accomidate economic reality and the that NDP'es are generally social democrats at heart.

Rather than having to divine the ways of the heart, I think the average voter would find it much easier to understand it if they could read it, or hear it.

JKR

josh wrote:
JKR wrote:

josh wrote:
Quote:
I think most voters understand that if the economy does slow down considerably, the NDP would have deficit budgets in order to maintain their other priorities.

"Understand" based on what?

Based on the fact that the NDP would have to accomidate economic reality and the that NDP'es are generally social democrats at heart.

Rather than having to divine the ways of the heart, I think the average voter would find it much easier to understand it if they could read it, or hear it.

If the question of running deficits during an economic downturn comes up, which it very likely will, Mulcair, Harper, and Trudeau, will all admit that deficit budgeting cannot be ruled out.

Pages