Trudeau campaign 2015 Part 3 - August 4th

619 posts / 0 new
Last post
Pondering

quizzical wrote:
not if a contract has been signed......

There is no contract.

Sean in Ottawa

Much discussion on his board about this over the last few months-- questions of Trudeau potentially propping up Harper. Trudeau seems to put that to rest today:

***

But when it came to the question of whether or not the Liberals would support a Harper-led minority government, Trudeau left no doubt where he stood.

"I have spent my entire political career fighting against Mr. Harper's narrow and meaner vision of what Canada can be and the government should do," he said.

"There are no circumstances in which I would support Stephen Harper continuing being prime minister."

***

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/09/22/tories-election-pledge-runs-...

This is what I assumed. The problem remains -- what if Trudeau has given an option that requires a coalition (the GG can do this if the parties are evenly divided all around 1/3. We have never had a minority so weak that the government had less than 41% of the seats and that was by far the weakest -- (Trudeau in the early 1970s).

That said, it looks like Trudeau will win his bet. I think the way things are going Trudeau will have more seats than Harper. At this time I suspect Trudeau will have a plurality leaving the other parties to figure out what to do and offering nobody a coalition.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

There has been some comment that Trudeau and Mulcair's position on the F 35s is identical. They are not.

Trudeau, however, stood his ground, saying there are other, less expensive, proven options already flying that would meet the requirements to replace the CF-18s.

One of Trudeau's foreign policy advisers, the retired Lt-Gen. Andrew Leslie who is running as a Liberal candidate in an Ottawa riding, said any of the other aircraft options would cost 15 to 30 per cent less than the F-35.

The savings, he said, would be spent on upgrades for the navy, which he characterized as being in a state of "crisis."

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/21/harper-mulcair-blast-trudeau-for...

versus

Stephen Harper and Tom Mulcair both blasted Justin Trudeau for announcing a day earlier he would scrap the multibillion-dollar purchase of 65 F-35 stealth fighters to replace the current aging fleet of CF-18s, and reinvest the savings into the navy.

Not the same. There was some suggestion that Trudeau ruling out the F-35s could open him up to legal issues or inappropriately makes determinations that should only be made during the procurement process.

I disagree because the costs and issues with the F-35s are well-established and there is nothing unreasonable about a country deciding they are too expensive and existing aircraft with a proven track record can better fulfill the needs of our armed forces.

Actually I think their positions are the same when you look at what was on record. Mulcair's blasting of Trudeau was puffery and will likley serve to hurt Mulcair. the F-35 is indefensible as a procuremnt plan or as a candidate for Canada. Trudeau's position I think is correct and Mulcair should have said so. There are enough grounds to reject the F-35 without any legal trouble being caused specifically by election comments. What Trudeau said is nothing more than what the NDP has said for years.

I would suggest that New Democrats call the NDP to complain but the party does not answer their phones with live operators unlike the other parties. Maybe that's why the NDP is so out of touch these days.

ETA: In fairness I called the NDP one more time after posting this and they answered the phone. This would be about my 20th time. As well their voice system does not indicate that they are unable to answer the call now but can at other times. They should change that.

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Much discussion on his board about this over the last few months-- questions of Trudeau potentially propping up Harper. Trudeau seems to put that to rest today:

***

But when it came to the question of whether or not the Liberals would support a Harper-led minority government, Trudeau left no doubt where he stood.

"I have spent my entire political career fighting against Mr. Harper's narrow and meaner vision of what Canada can be and the government should do," he said.

"There are no circumstances in which I would support Stephen Harper continuing being prime minister."

***

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/09/22/tories-election-pledge-runs-...

This is what I assumed. The problem remains -- what if Trudeau has given an option that requires a coalition (the GG can do this if the parties are evenly divided all around 1/3. We have never had a minority so weak that the government had less than 41% of the seats and that was by far the weakest -- (Trudeau in the early 1970s).

That said, it looks like Trudeau will win his bet. I think the way things are going Trudeau will have more seats than Harper. At this time I suspect Trudeau will have a plurality leaving the other parties to figure out what to do and offering nobody a coalition.

 

It now seems that the Conservatives will have to win an outright majority of over 169 seats to remain government. It also now seems that if the Conservatives don't get a majority, the NDP or Liberals will form the government depending on which party has more seats than the other. A government led by the second place party in seats is also now a good possibility.

Sean in Ottawa

JKR wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Much discussion on his board about this over the last few months-- questions of Trudeau potentially propping up Harper. Trudeau seems to put that to rest today:

***

But when it came to the question of whether or not the Liberals would support a Harper-led minority government, Trudeau left no doubt where he stood.

"I have spent my entire political career fighting against Mr. Harper's narrow and meaner vision of what Canada can be and the government should do," he said.

"There are no circumstances in which I would support Stephen Harper continuing being prime minister."

***

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/09/22/tories-election-pledge-runs-...

This is what I assumed. The problem remains -- what if Trudeau has given an option that requires a coalition (the GG can do this if the parties are evenly divided all around 1/3. We have never had a minority so weak that the government had less than 41% of the seats and that was by far the weakest -- (Trudeau in the early 1970s).

That said, it looks like Trudeau will win his bet. I think the way things are going Trudeau will have more seats than Harper. At this time I suspect Trudeau will have a plurality leaving the other parties to figure out what to do and offering nobody a coalition.

 

 

It now seems that the Conservatives will have to win an outright majority of over 169 seats to remain government. It also now seems that if the Conservatives don't get a majority, the NDP or Liberals will form the government depending on which party has more seats than the other. A government led by the second place party in seats is also now a good possibility.

The GG can require a coalition in order for a second party and third party to prove stability to get a shot at governing... Is in his discretion.

Ciabatta2

Yeah this was well timed and really puts the screws to the NDP.

Sean in Ottawa

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Yeah this was well timed and really puts the screws to the NDP.

Not necessarily I think. It means people do not need to rush to a majority to throw out Harper. That might be good for the NDP after all.

Ciabatta2

It forces the NDP to pick sides.  If the NDP says they are open to working with Harper, they look like fools.  If the NDP categorically rules out working with Harper, then that's pretty much saying that they'll prop up Trudeau.  You might as well vote Liberal.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Both of those hypotheticals seem to assume that the NDP will place third, and that all that will be left for them to do is to support (or not) one or the other "first".

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Mr. Magoo, I agree with you for the first time ever I believe. All this pontificating that the NDP has had the screws put to it on here is nonsense. The NDP has already said it'll work with the Libs. Trudeau is grandstanidng. You all assume no one remembers what anyone said and that every time Trudeau opens his mouth that sets the frame, like everyone is waiting for him to speak before making uyp there mind regardless of what Mulcair has said. That's ridiculous.

Ciabatta2

Aside from the NDP coming in third being relatively likely, even if they don't in this scenario an NDP minority presents the risk (in theory) of working with Harper because the NDP hasn't ruled it out and Trudeau has said no coalitions.  The only no Harper alternative is the Liberals.  (I don't say that as a partisan comment, but in terms of how Trudeau's most recent move shifts the dynamics.)

KarlL

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Yeah this was well timed and really puts the screws to the NDP.

Not necessarily I think. It means people do not need to rush to a majority to throw out Harper. That might be good for the NDP after all.

There is a certain gutsiness to this.  A scenario in which the Liberals finish either first or second and the Conservatives finish third is plausible given current polls. Not likely but plausible.  In effect, Trudeau has just told Harper to Eff Off.  I know that he didn't say, "I wouldn't accept support from Harper if I were ahead in seats" but his comments can hardly be calculated to foster that outcome.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
an NDP minority presents the risk (in theory) of working with Harper because the NDP hasn't ruled it out and Trudeau has said no coalitions.

It's amusing to me how much this election seems, to some wonks, to be all about what Mulcair hasn't ruled out.  Not what he's said he'll do, but what he hasn't taken a moment to assure those wonks of what he won't do.

KarlL

Ciabatta2 wrote:

It forces the NDP to pick sides.  If the NDP says they are open to working with Harper, they look like fools.  If the NDP categorically rules out working with Harper, then that's pretty much saying that they'll prop up Trudeau.  You might as well vote Liberal.

 


I dunno. If the NDP says we won't work with Harper either then you can presumably vote NDP safe in the knowledge that you'll get either an NDP government or a Liberal one unless Harper wins a majority. I know the seats don't work that way and that it still requires some consideration as to whether to vote strategically (or not if you can't stomach it) but if both rule out Harper he has a higher hill to climb.

KarlL

dp

KarlL

Dp

KarlL

Dp. Sorry. I won't try this again from an iPad.

Sean in Ottawa

KarlL wrote:
Ciabatta2 wrote:

It forces the NDP to pick sides.  If the NDP says they are open to working with Harper, they look like fools.  If the NDP categorically rules out working with Harper, then that's pretty much saying that they'll prop up Trudeau.  You might as well vote Liberal.

 

I dunno. If the NDP says we won't work with Harper either then you can presumably vote NDP safe in the knowledge that you'll get either an NDP government or a Liberal one unless Harper wins a majority. I know the seats don't work that way and that it still requires some consideration as to whether to vote strategically (or not if you can't stomach it) but if both rule out Harper he has a higher hill to climb.

 

What all this means is that you will get the stripe of the non Conservatives plurality. Either Trudeau props up Mulcair or Mulcair props up Trudeau. This is what no coalition means. Now it is a race to see who gets the most seats and then to see if the GG accepts (without requiring a coalition)  a government so weak that it might have less than 1/3 of the seats and no Senators to fill the gaps.

Essentially this situation does nothing for the Liberals that it does not do for the NDP. The problem, for the NDP, is that right now the momentum seems to be shifting from the NDP to the Liberals. Trudeau's gamble cuts both ways. Trudeau has been optimistic all along and the NDP have written him down if not off. Soon we will know if Trudeau's gamble backfires or pays off. If Trudeau comes if first, he is going to look brilliant. If he comes in last he will look a fool. This is not a huge gamble if you consider that few Liberal leaders survive a loss on the first time out. So Trudeau doubles down with a lot less to lose than you might think.

Mulcair also has little to lose. It is unlikely that he will stick around if he does not win or come very close. You want to be blunt? He won't even have the option. These three party leaders are chasing one job only. Second and third are unlikely to hold on to their leadership. I suspect they all know that there are no second chances with one possible exception. Trudeau could survive coming in second as it is a promotion and recovery for his party.

Mulcair now must realize that given the Spring we had, people all understand that this was a winnable campaign. If he does not win -- it is his fault.

Harper is done like yesterday's dinner if he loses power. There will be inquiries into Conservative dishonesty for the next half decade -- at least -- when this crew loses power.

In short only first place will do for Harper or Mulcair and only first or second will do for Trudeau.

Pondering

There is another angle. Trudeau is telling red tories that unless they can assure Harper a majority they better think twice about voting Conservative to stop the NDP. 

Even though the NDP vote seems to be dropping a bit Mulcair is still way ahead as preferred PM so it would be difficult to blame the loss on him. I think if he keeps Stornaway he stays leader to be opposition against whomever wins. If Trudeau wins it will likely be a minority. The NDP would be foolish I think to get rid of Mulcair so quickly. I can't think of any leader better able to work out deals favorable to the NDP. That takes an experienced politician who understands political negotiations and has an analytical mind. Another 1-4 years establishing himself and the NDP as the government in waiting would solidify the NDP position as the new alternative. 

I think the Conservatives are in big trouble. If Harper loses he will retire. He had a vice grip on the party and there is no one waiting in the wings other than perhaps Kenny. Many social conservatives and libertarians are disenchanted and both will be fighting for supremacy. I think the party could virtually disentegrate. That would cement the NDP's position as the natural alternative to the Liberals. 

That's all presuming Trudeau wins. I don't know if he could stay on in second place. I think so but I'm not positive. Maybe it would depend on how much he lost by and why.  

Ciabatta2

Trudeau will stay on as long as the Liberals gain in seats.  He is not going anywhere.  They have no other leadership potentials.

The only scenario where Trudeau is no longer leader is if the Liberals remained in third with the same or fewer seats.

Sean - absolutely right.  Bingo.  Trudeau has to go from third to second.  The "left" is where the easiest votes are.  The NDP has to go from second to first.  Much harder to do, and hence the "right" (lol) tack.

KarlL

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Trudeau will stay on as long as the Liberals gain in seats.  He is not going anywhere.  They have no other leadership potentials.

The only scenario where Trudeau is no longer leader is if the Liberals remained in third with the same or fewer seats.

Sean - absolutely right.  Bingo.  Trudeau has to go from third to second.  The "left" is where the easiest votes are.  The NDP has to go from second to first.  Much harder to do, and hence the "right" (lol) tack.

I agree with your last sentence, hence with Sean but not entirely with your threshold of even third place but with more seats being enough.  I think it is a matter of degree.  

If Trudeau ends up with 50 seats that's a discernible increase but means that Tom Mulcair will have done well or Harper will have.  In both circumstances, it would indicate an inability to harness the Liberal pony to the change dynamic.

I don't know that it was ever really in the cards that Trudeau would do worse than Ignatieff (in theory of course but that's about all), so 50 or even 60 seats wouldn't necessarily make Trudeau safe.  At the kind of numbers showing up on TCTC or 308 today, i.e., 95-105, then he becomes a major player in any minority scenario, plus 2/3 of caucus would have been elected on his watch for the first time and then he's safe for the time being.  

So what's the threshold?  Maybe 75, doubling the seat count from last time.

jjuares

KarlL wrote:

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Trudeau will stay on as long as the Liberals gain in seats.  He is not going anywhere.  They have no other leadership potentials.

The only scenario where Trudeau is no longer leader is if the Liberals remained in third with the same or fewer seats.

Sean - absolutely right.  Bingo.  Trudeau has to go from third to second.  The "left" is where the easiest votes are.  The NDP has to go from second to first.  Much harder to do, and hence the "right" (lol) tack.

I agree with your last sentence, hence with Sean but not entirely with your threshold of even third place but with more seats being enough.  I think it is a matter of degree.  

If Trudeau ends up with 50 seats that's a discernible increase but means that Tom Mulcair will have done well or Harper will have.  In both circumstances, it would indicate an inability to harness the Liberal pony to the change dynamic.

I don't know that it was ever really in the cards that Trudeau would do worse than Ignatieff (in theory of course but that's about all), so 50 or even 60 seats wouldn't necessarily make Trudeau safe.  At the kind of numbers showing up on TCTC or 308 today, i.e., 95-105, then he becomes a major player in any minority scenario, plus 2/3 of caucus would have been elected on his watch for the first time and then he's safe for the time being.  

So what's the threshold?  Maybe 75, doubling the seat count from last time.


I agree. Trudeau is safe at 70 seats. Harper will be gone even if he has a minority. Mulcair needs to be at least second for him to stay.

jjuares

The NDP campaign needs a shakeup. Whatever they are doing is not working.

Ciabatta2

Yup it's faltering and badly.  Need to go positive for the last three weeks.  Give people a reason to vote

JKR

I think the NDP' needs a better frame to communicate what it stands for. The Conservative's frame seems to be "continued secure leadership in a troubled world" while the Liberal's seems to be, "economic growth to end the recession."' The NDP's seems to be "experienced and prudent leadership." I think the NDP could construct a more powerful frame that can be expressed in just a few words.

Malcontent

If I were a betting man I would say the libs are the most likely to support Steve in a minority, they done it before and actually backed him almost all the time when he still had his minority when the Liberal Party refused to dump Steve and rid us of this menace during the coalition.  Even when Steve had a majority they still backed him. ie. C-51.

I guess it will depend too on final seat count.   When we go to the polls again next year I wonder if any of the three big parties will have a new leader? I would say the cons if anyone could/would...

I only say another election next year because both NDP/Libs say they will not back Steve and NDP/Libs both refuse to work with each other so I could see a hung parliament.  But maybe the GG will give the party with second most seats a chance to govern first?  Then if that happened the cons probably would not back either but would the libs/NDP back each other for a while? I would like to believe so but with all the bad blood between the two I really do not have that answer....

Misfit Misfit's picture

The liberals WILL back Harper. We are having an unusually long campaign to financially strap the Libs and NDP. The Liberals will not be able to afford another election next year or even the year after that at least. The Liberals will prop up Harper no matter what.

KarlL

Malcontent wrote:

If I were a betting man I would say the libs are the most likely to support Steve in a minority, they done it before and actually backed him almost all the time when he still had his minority when the Liberal Party refused to dump Steve and rid us of this menace during the coalition.  Even when Steve had a majority they still backed him. ie. C-51.

I guess it will depend too on final seat count.   When we go to the polls again next year I wonder if any of the three big parties will have a new leader? I would say the cons if anyone could/would...

I only say another election next year because both NDP/Libs say they will not back Steve and NDP/Libs both refuse to work with each other so I could see a hung parliament.  But maybe the GG will give the party with second most seats a chance to govern first?  Then if that happened the cons probably would not back either but would the libs/NDP back each other for a while? I would like to believe so but with all the bad blood between the two I really do not have that answer....

NO. They NDP and Liberals have not ruled out working with each other.  Neither has ruled out a minority government of one of them, supported by the other. Trudeau has ruled out a coalition (though Tom Mulcair has not).  That is different than a regular minority government and involves both parties in cabinet roles.

Coalitions are extremely rare in Canada, having only happened during wartime federally (WWI).  

Minority governments are far more common. NDP leader David Lewis allowed a Pierre Trudeau minority to continue from 1972-1974 and Lester Pearson was PM from 1963-68 and never had anything other than a minority. The Peterson-Rae arrangement in Ontario was a case of the second and third place parties coming together to defeat a Conservative government that had won more seats than either of them.

What the NDP and Liberals have each ruled out is supporting Harper's Consrvatives.

mark_alfred

KarlL wrote:
Whate the NDP and Liberals have each ruled out is supporting Harper's Consrvatives.

I trust the NDP would be open to an accord or coalition if Harper wins a minority.  I'm still not convinced the Libs would be though.  Trudeau's statement that he would not support Harper as prime minister doesn't necessarily mean he'll cooperate to oppose it and make sure it never happens. Sounds almost like he's planning on more hand sitting.

Anyway, the best bet for getting rid of Harper and getting rid of pro-corporate right wing anti-union ideals is to not vote for either Liberals or Conservatives, but to vote NDP.

quizzical

but if Harper is not PM would he support the Conservatives? i think he is leaving room  in his comment for support of Cons without Harper.

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

but if Harper is not PM would he support the Conservatives? i think he is leaving room  in his comment for support of Cons without Harper.

Good point, but at this stage of the game I think if either the Liberals or NDP prop up a Conservative government they will have handed the other a majority.

Nor do I think we will be back at the polls within a year. It will have to be at minimum 2 years if either the NDP or Liberals win. People who don't like the Conservatives will expect either the Liberals or NDP to prop each other up because there is so little difference between them. Whomever forces us back to the polls is going to have to have a damn good reason. 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

but if Harper is not PM would he support the Conservatives? i think he is leaving room  in his comment for support of Cons without Harper.

Indeed he has.

But I don't think that is the plan (even if the option is left most obviously on the table).

The Liberals want a case-by-case approach.

As well the Liberals are gambling that they will not be the third party having to make that uncomfortable position. Further, by rejecting coalition. Trudeau is also setting up the narrative to refuse to offer one should he come out ahead.

The Liberals want to beat the NDP and offer nothing in exchange for their support other than the fact that they are not the Conservatives.

This would backfire if the NDP came out ahead but, lucky for the Liberals, the NDP is blowing up their campaign offering Trudeau the driver's seat.

I figure the NDP has about a week to turn the momentum around before it is all over.

Very Far Away

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I figure the NDP has about a week to turn the momentum around before it is all over.

 

This is exactly what I think. I'm afraid NDP doesn't have the power / will / brain etc to turn the momentum. Day by day, Liberals are getting closer to forming a minority government. So sad.

Sean in Ottawa

I do not think the Liberals would pay a steep price for negotiating an arrangment with the Conservatives if:

1) they get the most seats

and

2) Harper himself is gone.

I believe Trudeau would require both conditions to even consider such an arrangment.

If the NDP is ahead of the Conservatives Trudeau will attempt a case-by-case program with them. Trudeau is against a coalition.

Personally I prefer the stability of coalition to a week case by case arrangement as both parties would be invested in success.

jjuares

Very Far Away wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I figure the NDP has about a week to turn the momentum around before it is all over.

 

This is exactly what I think. I'm afraid NDP doesn't have the power / will / brain etc to turn the momentum. Day by day, Liberals are getting closer to forming a minority government. So sad.


So what could be their best shot. How about something on drug prices and pharmacare that goes much farther than what's being offered? What else?

jjuares

I believe the NDP has to win the Chicago way.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3qQ17UnJk_Y

Very Far Away

jjuares wrote:
I believe the NDP has to win the Chicago way.
">https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3qQ17UnJk_Y

 

Yes, this is a great way:)

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
Very Far Away wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I figure the NDP has about a week to turn the momentum around before it is all over.

This is exactly what I think. I'm afraid NDP doesn't have the power / will / brain etc to turn the momentum. Day by day, Liberals are getting closer to forming a minority government. So sad.

So what could be their best shot. How about something on drug prices and pharmacare that goes much farther than what's being offered? What else?

Tomorrow night's debate will be pivotal. 

Aristotleded24

jjuares wrote:
Very Far Away wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I figure the NDP has about a week to turn the momentum around before it is all over.

 

This is exactly what I think. I'm afraid NDP doesn't have the power / will / brain etc to turn the momentum. Day by day, Liberals are getting closer to forming a minority government. So sad.

So what could be their best shot. How about something on drug prices and pharmacare that goes much farther than what's being offered? What else?

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-mulcair-niqab-quebe... this help?[/url]

Quote:

For his part, Mulcair has had to negotiate a tricky path thus far on the issue. His party needs to retain the hard-won votes it secured in Quebec in 2011 but cannot risk losing support in the diverse suburbs of Toronto and Vancouver, where voters appear to be opposed to the government's effort to impose a ban.

Mulcair accused the Conservatives of using the proposed ban to drive a "wedge" between voters, saying it's "an emotional issue that only affects a very small number of citizens in a very specific situation."

"Attacks, insinuations, campaigns of fear, complete scorn for our institutions. They are the stock and trade of this government," he said. 

"It seems to me that Canada and Quebec deserve better than wedge politics, the politics of division."

Sean in Ottawa

Aristotleded24 wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Very Far Away wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I figure the NDP has about a week to turn the momentum around before it is all over.

 

This is exactly what I think. I'm afraid NDP doesn't have the power / will / brain etc to turn the momentum. Day by day, Liberals are getting closer to forming a minority government. So sad.

So what could be their best shot. How about something on drug prices and pharmacare that goes much farther than what's being offered? What else?

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-mulcair-niqab-quebe... this help?[/url]

Quote:

For his part, Mulcair has had to negotiate a tricky path thus far on the issue. His party needs to retain the hard-won votes it secured in Quebec in 2011 but cannot risk losing support in the diverse suburbs of Toronto and Vancouver, where voters appear to be opposed to the government's effort to impose a ban.

Mulcair accused the Conservatives of using the proposed ban to drive a "wedge" between voters, saying it's "an emotional issue that only affects a very small number of citizens in a very specific situation."

"Attacks, insinuations, campaigns of fear, complete scorn for our institutions. They are the stock and trade of this government," he said. 

"It seems to me that Canada and Quebec deserve better than wedge politics, the politics of division."

I agree that this ban is not about equity for women and therefore agree with the position. But this is not substantive.

The NDP needs something more significant.

How about recognizing that this is likely to be a minority parliament. The NDP could point to a number of policies it and other parties share or are close on and identify areas of cooperation. Mulcair would look like a PM.

Some would say this would help the other parties by highlighting their policies as well as those of the NDP -- they would be wrong.

Rather it would show Mulcair as a leader and bridge-builder and this is more important to voters than individual policies.

Right now Mulcair is looking like a man who would oppose motherhood and apple pie if his opponents said it was a good thing.

Trudeau --- the guy who said he would run a positive campaign -- has attack ads not against the government but the leader of the opposition. The NDP has introduced petty attacks against Trudeau for policies that are barely any different from his own rather than saying -- "you are close but we would do this" -- Sometimes you need to be able to acknowledge when your opposition is close enough to you to work with on something. The failure of both the NDP and Liberals to do this may not drive supporters to the Conservatives but it will encourage them not to show up and to consider all politicians to be full of manure.

JKR

jjuares wrote:
Very Far Away wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I figure the NDP has about a week to turn the momentum around before it is all over.

 

This is exactly what I think. I'm afraid NDP doesn't have the power / will / brain etc to turn the momentum. Day by day, Liberals are getting closer to forming a minority government. So sad.


So what could be their best shot. How about something on drug prices and pharmacare that goes much farther than what's being offered? What else?

Judging by what I have been hearing while canvassing, the NDP has one issue that completely resonates in its favour
- Bill C-51.
If the NDP could somehow frame its campaign around this issue it could be a game changer. From what I've seen and heard, most people who support the Liberals and even the Conservatives seem to be strongly against Bill C-51.

terrytowel

JKR wrote:

Judging by what I have been hearing while canvassing, the NDP has one issue that completely resonates in its favour - Bill C-51. If the NDP could somehow frame its campaign around this issue it could be a game changer. From what I've seen and heard, most people who support the Liberals and even the Conservatives seem to be strongly against Bill C-51.

The Liberals have said if the NDP starts ramping up their C-51 talk, it shows the campaign is in serious trouble. As C-51 is way down the list of voters concerns. The economy is still at the top of voters minds.

Think of it, Trudeau talks about the economy day in and day out. Mulcair talks about C-51 day in and day out. That will just move more votes to the Liberals.

nicky

It is quite a warped perspective to think that pointing out the Liberal's betrayal of fundamental principles will make people more likley to vote Liberal.

Ciabatta2

I actually agree with terrytowel on this.  The focus on C51, albeit substantitve, comes across as small potatoes and partisan.  It is opposition politics, not election politics.  It is not a resounding issue when it comes to actually voting - in particularly now that the Liberals have "differentiated" (yeah right) themselves from the rest.

terrytowel

nicky wrote:

It is quite a warped perspective to think that pointing out the Liberal's betrayal of fundamental principles will make people more likley to vote Liberal.

The economy is more inportant on voters minds than C-51. All the polling shows that.

JKR

terrytowel wrote:

JKR wrote:

Judging by what I have been hearing while canvassing, the NDP has one issue that completely resonates in its favour - Bill C-51. If the NDP could somehow frame its campaign around this issue it could be a game changer. From what I've seen and heard, most people who support the Liberals and even the Conservatives seem to be strongly against Bill C-51.

The Liberals have said if the NDP starts ramping up their C-51 talk, it shows the campaign is in serious trouble. As C-51 is way down the list of voters concerns. The economy is still at the top of voters minds.

Think of it, Trudeau talks about the economy day in and day out. Mulcair talks about C-51 day in and day out. That will just move more votes to the Liberals.

I see your point. I agree with NR and you and many many others that the economy and jobs are the #1 issue for voters. The NDP could play up how they will grow the economy and create jobs through their policies like their small business tax deduction and infrastructure improvements. At the same time they could also launch attack ads portraying the historically weak economy during Harper's term in office. Harper has the worst economic record since the Great Depression. The voters should all be made aware of that. The NDP could also pledge to make full employment their top priority in office.

KarlL

JKR wrote:
terrytowel wrote:

JKR wrote:

Judging by what I have been hearing while canvassing, the NDP has one issue that completely resonates in its favour - Bill C-51. If the NDP could somehow frame its campaign around this issue it could be a game changer. From what I've seen and heard, most people who support the Liberals and even the Conservatives seem to be strongly against Bill C-51.

The Liberals have said if the NDP starts ramping up their C-51 talk, it shows the campaign is in serious trouble. As C-51 is way down the list of voters concerns. The economy is still at the top of voters minds.

Think of it, Trudeau talks about the economy day in and day out. Mulcair talks about C-51 day in and day out. That will just move more votes to the Liberals.

 

I see your point. I agree with NR and you and many many others that the economy and jobs are the #1 issue for voters. The NDP could play up how they will grow the economy and create jobs through their policies like their small business tax deduction and infrastructure improvements. At the same time they could also launch attack ads portraying the historically weak economy during Harper's term in office. Harper has the worst economic record since the Great Depression. The voters should all be made aware of that. The NDP could also pledge to make full employment their top priority in office.

I think it would be tough for the NDP to take over the infrastructure issue as a defining or at least as a distinctive issue, as Trudeau has staked out some of that ground already - indeed it is the basis of his three deficits promise.  

The small business tax rate might help a bit but most people who own small businesses are not likely to shift to the NDP unless they are there already for other reasons (some Liberals might but I don't think it would be a lot). The CONs may not have been good for small business in the broader economic sense but have been pretty good to small business in the policy sphere and there are a lot of Conservative small business owners.  If we are talking about employees of small business, I question whether a tax rate cut for the owners is likely to prove much of a motivation.  

 

terrytowel

I wonder if the NDP drop in the polls is that they put too much real estate on C-51. Mulcair was touring Canada a few months before the writ was dropped on a anti-C-51 tour gathering support. While the Liberals stayed low and worked on their Economic platform.

Even now Mulcair speeches are peppered with anti-C-51 talk, blasting Trudeau on it. While Trudeau is talking about the middle class and jobs. Staking out terriorty that should have been the NDP

Because of they embraced C-51 it gives the impression the NDP is just one issue party.

Pondering

Trudeau just staked out some more territory. Conservatives spend so much time and energy wooing the immigrant community based on conservative social values but when push comes to shove that isn't what is most important to immigrants.

A Liberal government would make sweeping changes to the immigration system, Liberal leader Justin Trudeau said Friday.

Trudeau said a Liberal government would:

  • double the family reunification limits that allow people to bring their parents and grandparents to Canada. That means the number would jump to 10,000 from the 5,000 imposed by the Harper government in 2014.

  • Trudeau said he would invest “millions of dollars” to expand the program, including doubling the staff to deal with the applications to deal with the backlog.

  • “nearly double” the budget for processing family class immigration applications, raising the maximum age for dependants to 22. The Harper government had cut off dependant applications at age 19.

  • “Wait times will come down,” Trudeau said.

  • give spouses immigrating to Canada immediate permanent residency, instead of the current two-year waiting period.

  • make it easier for potential immigrants to come to the country if they already have Canadian siblings.

  • Under the current government, “you can expect to wait five or six years or more” for family reunification.

    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/09/25/trudeau-pledges-sweeping-i...

    This will resonate with any Canadians that are not rabidly anti-immigrant. Family reunification is something that touches the heartstrings of Canadians and champions family values. The siblings comment reminds me that Alan's aunt was trying to sponsor two brothers and their families. It is common sense to many Canadians that if we are accepting immigrants they might as well be immigrants who already have established families in Canada. They will obviously find it easier to integrate.

    Aside from that most people have family so can sympathize with the desire to be together and particularly with how they would feel if their loved ones were endangered and they could do nothing to bring them to safety.

    Trudeau's answer to Harper's focus on investors and skilled workers is that families built Canada.

     

    mark_alfred

    The Libs are releasing their costing tomorrow apparently.

    Pages