Trudeau in trouble, trailing NPD in Papineau according to CROP, Quebec's gold pollster - Sep 17

287 posts / 0 new
Last post
Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Oh brother thie issue isn't disagreement. The issue is discussion. Thread after thread, derailed by Lib sycophants. Smear, innuendo, and scorn by Lib sycophants. There is a huge difference between what this board was like in 2010 and how it is now. You can't have discussion when there is no room for it. On the part of most of the Lib sycophants on this board, discussion is the last thing they're interested in. Theyr'e interested in dominiating this board, and driving away anyone who won't toe the Lib line. Don't cry to me about the blues about partisanship. That is a strawman.

NorthReport

Liberals desperately trying to avoid ended up in last place will say anything...

....Chrétien we throw our platform campaign book into the shredder on election nite...................................

...................Martin puts his companies offshore to avoid all sorts of Canadian laws including paying taxes

..............Trudeau supports Harper draconian C51 and Liberals also supports keeping the rich, rich and the poor, poor where they belong

..............Quite the motley crew of role models for our Canadian society, eh!

JKR

Pondering wrote:

If Mulcair is elected his top priority will be a balanced budget.

Mulcair has never said that his top priority is balancing budgets. I think Mulcair's top priority is implementing many of the NDP's other platform policies that include raising the GIS, raising health care spending, $15 childcare, improved infrastructure, lowering taxes on small businesses, $15 federal minimum wage, etc... If the economy weakens, there will be deficits, no matter which party governs after October 19.

NorthReport

Liberals will lie beg borrow or steal

What we need are thousands of very black signs with a very large bold C51 right in the middle of it placed right next to every Liberal campaign sign you can find across Canada

Get going with this idea NDPers

You don't need to wait for anyone's permission just get out there and protest these very right wing Liberal policies

This is why the NDP if it has any chance of forming government Mulcair absolutely has to have a majority to prevent the right-wing Trudeau son from backing Harper which little boy Trudeau sure as hell is going to do given half the chance

It is kinda sad that Trudeau is trying to fulfill a tricky Dicky Nixon prophecy

Stockholm

This is all such a waste of time - do you realize that there are literally no more than 20 people in all of Canada who actually read the threads on babble about the election. I for one am glad that Pondering is willing to waste dozens of hours a week writing endless Liberal propaganda for an audience that can be counted on one hand. The more time she wastes on babble the less time she spends convincing any real live voters to support boy Justin. 

In fact invite partisan Liberal to spend ALL of their free time for the next month writing thousand word essays every day on babble on the virtuas of the liberal party...if a tree falls in a forest...

mark_alfred

Stockholm wrote:

This is all such a waste of time - do you realize that there are literally no more than 20 people in all of Canada who actually read the threads on babble about the election. I for one am glad that Pondering is willing to waste dozens of hours a week writing endless Liberal propaganda for an audience that can be counted on one hand. The more time she wastes on babble the less time she spends convincing any real live voters to support boy Justin. 

In fact invite partisan Liberal to spend ALL of their free time for the next month writing thousand word essays every day on babble on the virtuas of the liberal party...if a tree falls in a forest...

Good point.  Still, even twenty people reading such nonsense can ultimately cause up to twenty people to become frustrated and devote less time to more valuable pursuits.  This is the most important election in a generation.  We're on the cusp of moving Canada toward greater social democracy.  Toward a universal child care program. 

Time for me to get out and do what I can to help out.  Time to ignore anti-union pro-corporate ne'er-do-wells like ********* and her ilk here.  I resolve from now to election day to only read and post in the Tales from the trenches thread on volunteer work I've done. 

On that note, I visited some friends of mine at a neighbourhood street festival just south of St. Clair and Dufferin.  Andrew Cash showed up and chatted with us.  He's a great guy.  A couple of my friends are ESL teachers, who had a very interesting discussion on the current refugee and immigration situation of Canada.  Anyway, they signed up to help out with his campaign.  I live in Eglinton-Lawrence, so I'm gonna help out with Thomson's campaign.  I'll be so glad when the NDP win a majority on the 19th.  Till then!

jjuares

mark_alfred wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

This is all such a waste of time - do you realize that there are literally no more than 20 people in all of Canada who actually read the threads on babble about the election. I for one am glad that Pondering is willing to waste dozens of hours a week writing endless Liberal propaganda for an audience that can be counted on one hand. The more time she wastes on babble the less time she spends convincing any real live voters to support boy Justin. 

In fact invite partisan Liberal to spend ALL of their free time for the next month writing thousand word essays every day on babble on the virtuas of the liberal party...if a tree falls in a forest...

Good point.  Still, even twenty people reading such nonsense can ultimately cause up to twenty people to become frustrated and devote less time to more valuable pursuits.  This is the most important election in a generation.  We're on the cusp of moving Canada toward greater social democracy.  Toward a universal child care program. 

Time for me to get out and do what I can to help out.  Time to ignore anti-union pro-corporate ne'er-do-wells like ********* and her ilk here.  I resolve from now to election day to only read and post in the Tales from the trenches thread on volunteer work I've done. 

On that note, I visited some friends of mine at a neighbourhood street festival just south of St. Clair and Dufferin.  Andrew Cash showed up and chatted with us.  He's a great guy.  A couple of my friends are ESL teachers, who had a very interesting discussion on the current refugee and immigration situation of Canada.  Anyway, they signed up to help out with his campaign.  I live in Eglinton-Lawrence, so I'm gonna help out with Thomson's campaign.  I'll be so glad when the NDP win a majority on the 19th.  Till then!


I am working on two campaigns, one for a friend the other in my home riding. One looks good in terms of canvassing and signs. People beats money.

JKR

Stockholm wrote:

This is all such a waste of time - do you realize that there are literally no more than 20 people in all of Canada who actually read the threads on babble about the election. I for one am glad that Pondering is willing to waste dozens of hours a week writing endless Liberal propaganda for an audience that can be counted on one hand. The more time she wastes on babble the less time she spends convincing any real live voters to support boy Justin. 

In fact invite partisan Liberal to spend ALL of their free time for the next month writing thousand word essays every day on babble on the virtuas of the liberal party...if a tree falls in a forest...

I agree that these threads are mostly a waste of time in regard to winning the election when they are about debating inane arguments that have no resemblance to what is actually being discussed by many people in the campaign. But I also think these threads are useful when they contain arguments that resemble the dialogue taking place in the election by very many Canadians. The idea that Mulcair will impose austerity is being used in the campaign to discredit the NDP so I think it is important to be able to effectively refute this assertion. Mulcair has never said that he will put maintaining  balanced budgets ahead of the primary planks in the NDP platform like childcare, raising the GIS, more infrastructure funding, lower taxes for small businesses, greater health care funding, etc.... I'm canvassing for the NDP so I find it very helpful to be able to respond persuasively to people who might say that they worry that Mulcair is going to choose maintaing balanced budgets ahead of the NDP's main platform issues. The simple answer I am prepared to use to refute this idea is that if elected to government, Mulcair and the NDP will fulfill the promises made in their platform and if the economy deteriorates in the future the NDP, like the Conservatives and Liberals, will return to deficit budgets until the economy improves. I will add that this is a hypothetical situation as the current official economic statistics indicate that balanced budgets can be attained while growth is maintained in the economy. In the real world I'll try to use more common everyday language to get this idea across.

Pondering

"We've been categorical. We will not be running a deficit," he said during a campaign stop in London, Ont. "No, we will not be entertaining any thought of that. Our choices are different from Mr Harper's. We will not be running a deficit."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-economy-deficit-lea...

Which means:

adjective 1. without exceptions or conditions; absolute; unqualified and unconditional: a categorical denial.

I think if the NDP wins the election Mulcair will keep his word on that in order to prove he is a sound fiscal manager.

Rev Pesky

JKR wrote:
...Mulcair has never said that his top priority is balancing budgets...

As noted by Pondering above, it seems to me that Mulcair was promising a balanced budget, regardless of circumstance. He did say the NDP would have balanced budgets for four years after the election.

I mean, maybe it's not true, but do you really want to run around saying the leader of the NDP was lying about balanced budgets? After all, that is exactly the position of the right-wingers.

He may have said what he did about balanced budgets to convey the feeling that the NDP will be sound money managers. But why not approach it from the position that no one knows how bad the finances are because the Conservatives are basically unbelievable. That allows him to say that the NDP will balance the budget if it's possible, if the Conservatives haven't left such a mess that it will take some time to reach balanced budgtets. That would point out the poor financial abilities of the Conservatives (as wsell as their penchant for mis-stating), and at the same time allow some wiggle room in the case that it's needed (which I expect it will be).  

 

Jacob Two-Two

I haven't heard any caveats or conditions on his other election promises either. He didn't promise cheaper medicine the other day "depending on how things go. We'll see what happens". The fact that he isn't wishy-washy about a policy doesn't automatically make that policy the "top priority". Balanced budgets are very achievable and the NDP promises are modest. There'll be no need for all the desperate prioritizing that you seem to be imagining.

lagatta

I'll have to get to the "tales from the trenches"; I've been very busy lately (mostly looking for jobs and contracts, bureaucratic stuff including at our co-op) but have promised to help out around here; I think they need more help for Anne than for Alexandre, who are sharing a campaign office a bit east of where I live, on St-Hubert (the "Plaza" covered shopping street).

JKR

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

I haven't heard any caveats or conditions on his other election promises either. He didn't promise cheaper medicine the other day "depending on how things go. We'll see what happens". The fact that he isn't wishy-washy about a policy doesn't automatically make that policy the "top priority". Balanced budgets are very achievable and the NDP promises are modest. There'll be no need for all the desperate prioritizing that you seem to be imagining.

And I think it is also important to add that the NDP's policies will grow the economy which will help produce balanced and surplus budgets. Affordable childcare will free up people to participate in the job market more which will grow the economy. Added infrastructure will employ people and make the economy more productive which will grow the economy and help produce government surpluses. Increasing the GIS will put money into the pockets of people who will spend it and grow the economy.... So the NDP's policies themselves will grow the economy, employ more people, and help produce government surpluses. [They are Keynesian.]

JKR

Pondering wrote:

"We've been categorical. We will not be running a deficit," he said during a campaign stop in London, Ont. "No, we will not be entertaining any thought of that. Our choices are different from Mr Harper's. We will not be running a deficit."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-economy-deficit-lea...

Which means:

adjective 1. without exceptions or conditions; absolute; unqualified and unconditional: a categorical denial.

I think if the NDP wins the election Mulcair will keep his word on that in order to prove he is a sound fiscal manager.

I think Mulcair will keep his word on all the NDP's platform policies. He will implement all of the NDP's policies including balanced budgets. This will be especially true because the NDP's policies will create more well paying jobs and increase peoples' spending which will grow the economy and that will help produce balanced and surplus budgets in the future.

Sean in Ottawa

 

There are comments upthread about what this place has become and having the discussion here in context makes sense. Let's not pretend this throws any thread more than the direction of the site has generally. This particular thread is of little value anyway since it is based on a dubious NDP tactic that backfired and is populated by bucketfuls of Liberal glee and NDP denial. Publishing a poll that cannot withstand a critical review was stupid by the NDP. So this thread may serve best as an in-place example of what has happened to this place. And the BS statement, now being debated, that Mulcair has made his "top priority" deficits is quite useful.

I recognize that the direction of discussion here is controlled by Liberals and everyone follows this or just leaves and what we have left is either spin or counter spin but everything in a Liberal frame. This exhausts the potential for most other discussion as well as creating a lack of interest and purpose coming here. It is correct to state that the Liberals have little interest in coming here to move large numbers of votes, but their purpose here has served very well to kill off this place as an incubator for ideas that can be discussed. It is now a presentation and refutation place for Liberal spin.

The redefinition of the Liberal party as "progressive" and the moving of the discussion to the right has left little purpose in this place that is not already covered by the Toronto Star. There was a reason a place to the left of the Liberals was created and why losing it through an "evolution" as Pondering calls it into a general opposition site debating Liberal perspectives (for and against) is a loss. The NDP community is not right of the Liberals. A conversation among the NDP and further left community may serve as a conscience to the NDP pushing the NDP to its community but this place is no longer that. It is a war ground for Liberals to attack the NDP and promote their agenda and for the NDP to defend itself. No longer is it a place with room to discuss issues that are left of centre. These ideas degenerate into Liberal talking points almost instantly along with the (justified) angry reaction from non-Liberals.

Only in a Conservative dream is the Liberal party left of centre. It is a centre party that “runs from the left” -- the oldest fraud in Canadian electoral history. The NDP does not gain from running to the left of its real positions and at times runs to the right (and governs from there) in order to achieve an electoral consensus big enough to form a government in order to achieve things that would be impossible if purity were maintained. But anyone who does not understand that dynamic is not worth listening to on a board like this. But that is the crap we are subjected to if we come here. This place has been lost because of the failure to recognize this.

I do not mean to say that there are not Liberals who are left or New Democrats who are right of some Liberals. But these people do not deny this dynamic. Those truly left Liberals engage in pushing their party to the left. The Liberals here -- increasingly -- are engaged in campaigning for their party here rather than discussing ways to promote a progressive agenda. There is a difference and this place seems unable to tell the difference or care about it.

This is the first election where I spend little time here coming only to respond to this or that odd thread – sucked into this crap or so disgusted that I read a few posts and leave. I am here but there is so little discussion about left ideas that I usually come in -- learn my lesson and go away for a few days only to come back through force of habit or a nostalgia for what this place once was only to get spun, rinsed and repeated.

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

JKR wrote:
...Mulcair has never said that his top priority is balancing budgets...

As noted by Pondering above, it seems to me that Mulcair was promising a balanced budget, regardless of circumstance. He did say the NDP would have balanced budgets for four years after the election.

I mean, maybe it's not true, but do you really want to run around saying the leader of the NDP was lying about balanced budgets? After all, that is exactly the position of the right-wingers.

He may have said what he did about balanced budgets to convey the feeling that the NDP will be sound money managers. But why not approach it from the position that no one knows how bad the finances are because the Conservatives are basically unbelievable. That allows him to say that the NDP will balance the budget if it's possible, if the Conservatives haven't left such a mess that it will take some time to reach balanced budgtets. That would point out the poor financial abilities of the Conservatives (as wsell as their penchant for mis-stating), and at the same time allow some wiggle room in the case that it's needed (which I expect it will be).  

 

This debate frame is an example of one reason why some are leaving this place and others are protesting that this place is adopting a Liberal spin frame for discussion or so mired in debating one that there is little left.

***

Liberals are saying Mulcair made balanced budgets his top priority. I have never heard such a statement and it is without foundation outside a Liberal war room. Liberals say this because they want to make out that Mulcair is a Conservative with the same priorities as the Conservative Party. Of course it is a lie and most people know this including the Liberal Shills on this Board. They say it anyway because they are trolling -- derailing and dominating the agenda of the Board since this debate chokes out what could otherwise be here.

Mulcair has indeed promised balanced budgets. He has also promised spending on childcare, minimum wage, drug plan, and a number of other things. Nowhere has he ranked a balanced budget above any other commitment. He has stated repeatedly that there is no conflict between the program he proposes and a balanced budget and therefore suggested that there is no need to rank a balanced budget above any other priority.

There is a very good NDP point in this. The NDP believes in financial, social and environmental sustainability. A chronic deficit is by definition not sustainable. A chronic deficit is one that is created by a government NOT as a result of an economic downturn but in an economic context that the government should be able to meet its commitments. The NDP promises to run its finances, the environment and the social agenda of the country in balance.

Mulcair stated that he did not think the economy was so weak to justify adding debt. However, given that statement, if the economy did deteriorate he could easily run a deficit. What the NDP is saying is that there is no justification for chronic deficits and he would not run one. He has never ruled out a deficit in the event of an economic emergency for the country -- and that is what deficits are for and what you run a surplus in good years to cover. Mulcair is correct in that the financial position of the federal government is not presently so dire that money cannot be found through modest tax increases on corporations, and the closing of tax loopholes. The fiscal problems of the federal government have been used as a excuse for lousy priorities and Mulcair rejects this saying there is room to do these things. He is correct: if you lay down a program that runs in deficit in a year the government should be in balance, you will make serious cuts when the economy cycles into a bad period and those cuts are costly to reverse. This is never a problem for more right wing governments because they do not have a problem with slashing something. The NDP wants to build programs that do not require slashing every time it rains.

The Liberals by stating that they would run deficits are implying that their promises require an unsustainable framework. The NDP denies this is necessary or wise.

The Liberals also suggest that you can create programs in the first year and throw large amounts of money at them, however the NDP has maintained that larger programs would come in over a few years. There are very good operational reasons why all the money is not spent right away, in some cases the infrastructure that would make that spending wise comes in over time.

So to recap: Mulcair has balanced the budget but he has not, as the Conservatives have, placed a balance budget above his other commitments or ranked them in importance. He has stated that a balanced budget and his program is not incompatible and there is no conflict. This is a different message and I really wonder why we would be indulging in lies and spin from the Liberal war room on this and other points.

 

Ciabatta2

Sean both your posts are excellent.

Sean touched on it above, and I agree.  I've always found a good leftish argument for balanced budgets is consistency and sustainability.  We need to avoid the spend/slash cycles that often result from overspending.

Most periods of significant government spending have been followed by administrations that slash programs and leave deeper and deeper cuts that we never recover from.  

The veracity of revenu estimates notwithstanding, Mulcair has established a long-term financial basis for his spending.  Trudeau has not.  The risk with Trudeau's plan is that after 8-10 years of overspending, what will the narrative be?  Will this open the door to another conservative government that rides into power with a mandate to cut cut cut?

Want effective long-lasting social programs?  Ensure they are financially sustainable.  Don't give the Harris/Eves Chrétien/Martin types the excuse they are looking for to gut the system.

quizzical

let's say the Liberals here did believe they have a progressive agenda and weren't just spreading Liberal propaganda, what would or could be considered to be a progressive move by the Liberals?

and let's leave out the bogus claim of legalizing marijuana, as we now know it was fabrication for the nation.

also imv having deficit spending is not progressive, i imagine scenarios like "oh we will build infrastructure" and a olympic oval or a new NHL hockey arena is built, so what's left?

quizzical

Ciabatta2 wrote:
Sean both your posts are excellent.

agree, and hopes he posts here more for those like me who are just learning.

Quote:
Sean touched on it above, and I agree.  I've always found a good leftish argument for balanced budgets is consistency and sustainability.  We need to avoid the spend/slash cycles that often result from overspending.

over spending on what? tokens for the supporters gained through privatization? it's been my lived experience under the BC Liberals and the AB PC's they never over spend on projects building or sustaining the social economy.

Quote:
Want effective long-lasting social programs?  Ensure they are financially sustainable.  Don't give the Harris/Eves Chrétien/Martin types the excuse they are looking for to gut the system.

i hate the term 'social programs'. the reality is for an economy to be healthy the social well being of peoples has to be healthy. the 2 are intertwinned. it's social economy which needs to be maintained or the monetary economy will fail as well.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

let's say the Liberals here did believe they have a progressive agenda and weren't just spreading Liberal propaganda, what would or could be considered to be a progressive move by the Liberals?

and let's leave out the bogus claim of legalizing marijuana, as we now know it was fabrication for the nation.

also imv having deficit spending is not progressive, i imagine scenarios like "oh we will build infrastructure" and a olympic oval or a new NHL hockey arena is built, so what's left?

A progressive Liebral might talk about policy (other than selective gotcha moments and the latest Liberal press release), less on how fantastic Trudeau is (and how bad the others are) and less on partisan attacks on the NDP generally. A progressive Liberal might not ape Liberal party line but also criticize that party as well as the others and propose or discuss policies that no party has endorsed. A progressive Liberal would not be so bloody predictable and therefore more interesting.

We are seeing a predictable barrage of Liberal war room messages against the NDP, a hostile reading of each point and twisting of the facts into a Liberal narrative. In short campaigning not policy discussion. This of course squeezes out room for more thoughtful and important criticisms of NDP and other policies.

I have here at times criticized the NDP and at times I have praised, even defended, Trudeau as well I discuss policy ideas that are not part of the current political debate between the parties and I engage in analysis that is personal rather than straight-up cheer-leading. I am not alone but this kind of discussion, which used to be normal here, is drowned out by debate over the predictable swill from the Liberal party war room. I am an NDP supporter but not uncritically. I do feel uncomfortable at times really analyzing an NDP message with Liberal vultures overhead who use this site for their advocacy and attack rather than any discussion whatsoever on Canadian public policy.

One Liberal shill claims to disagree with C-51 (while also minimizing its importance) but this is the limit of any criticism of the Liberal party or leader. This is the token point raised to offer a pretence at balance. Otherwise everything from the Liberal party is presented as golden. And everything from the NDP is criticized in the most cynical manner. The volume of this destroys threads as every political discussion comes down to the debate over the Liberal message (for and against). Ignoring does not work becuase most threads end up limited to this or so thoroughly derailed that this is all that survives. The prime function of a constructive critique of left policies, and proposals for discussion is mostly lost.

For this site it is a disaster. After the election -- if it is eventually a majority -- when all the shills go away, will there be enough of what was once here to want to reclaim the board? And if there cannot be a debate from a left perspective rather than over a Liberal message during an election, why would people want to come back here outside of one? Instead of broadening the tent what they have done is take it down.

I do remember Liberals being here before -- proposing alternate ideas for their party and the other parties as most of the NDP posters here do. Other than the rare nod to the existance of other topics the prime motive of these posters is to find anything possible to slam the NDP and promote the Liberal party. In this context, New Democrat supporters who used to criticize constructively no longer feel able to do so becuase it will become part of this Liberal barrage. Many of those people are gone now.

It is quite shocking that the debate over the Liberal party has taken over this site even as that party slipped to third in the House of Commons. You would think they were the government already.

 

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

 

i hate the term 'social programs'. the reality is for an economy to be healthy the social well being of peoples has to be healthy. the 2 are intertwinned. it's social economy which needs to be maintained or the monetary economy will fail as well.

It is obvious that you understand the relationship between social, environmental and financial. You get it for sure. This is the point we want people to see in balance. Very easy to understand the NDP position in this case.

That said there is part of this in the Liebral deficit position as well. The difference being that Trudeau either does not forsee the potential for more difficult times ahead, or thinks things will become much better than they are.

Both the Liberals and the NDP agree that running a deficit at times might make sense -- the problem is the parties disagree as to whether this is one of those times. The NDP beleives that the reduction in corporate taxes and creation of loopholes would give room to do what is needed; that we must be wary of future difficulty and spend wisely. Whereas the Liebrals contend that we are in a situation where the government cannot balance the books with their promises.

The Liberal contradiction of course is that the Liberals claim that their tax increase on wealthy people is more significant than the NDP tax on corporations yet somehow this is still not enough to balance the books udring years that are not projected to be resessionary.

The NDP, to be fair, has failed to communicate this as strongly as they could have but the position and circumstances are clear.

Sean in Ottawa

It is a Liberal-CPC lie that the only way you can have NDP policies is with a deficit. Since the Liberals are running from the left (to govern from who-knows-where), they are presuming a deficit must exist to bring in these policies.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
I have here at times criticized the NDP and at times I have praised, even defended, Trudeau as well I discuss policy ideas that are not part of the current political debate between the parties and I engage in analysis that is personal rather than straight-up cheer-leading. I am not alone but this kind of discussion, which used to be normal here, is drowned out by debate over the predictable swill from the Liberal party war room. I am an NDP supporter but not uncritically. I do feel uncomfortable at times really analyzing an NDP message with Liberal vultures overhead who use this site for their advocacy and attack rather than any discussion whatsoever on Canadian public policy.

You damn the Liberals and Trudeau with faint praise and backhanded compliments, and refer to Liberal supporters with distain. You have the gall to refer to other posters as cheer-leaders and vultures and their contributions as swill while praising your own as "personal analysis".

You hold yourself superior based on being an NDP supporter placing yourself in a position to judge the suitability of other posters quite literally defending the notion that Liberal or Trudeau supporters should be second class citizens on babble. Newsflash. The NDP is a mainstream centrist party too.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
It is quite shocking that the debate over the Liberal party has taken over this site even as that party slipped to third in the House of Commons. You would think they were the government already.

If so it is a reflection of the level of attacks on the Liberal party and on Trudeau. Even a casual glance at thread titles over the past few months will show a large number of attack threads on the Liberals and few on the NDP. Aside from that we are in the heat of an election period so quite naturally supporters of opposing parties are going to tend to defend their perspective and be critical of the parties they don't support.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
For this site it is a disaster. After the election -- if it is eventually a majority -- when all the shills go away, will there be enough of what was once here to want to reclaim the board? And if there cannot be a debate from a left perspective rather than over a Liberal message during an election, why would people want to come back here outside of one? Instead of broadening the tent what they have done is take it down.

During it's entire existence babble has not attracted a significant portion of the Canadian activist community nor any other community, not even NDP members or union members. There has been no overwhelming invasion of countless Liberals destroying babble. One or twenty posters can't destroy a thriving community.

If this precious community you so value isn't strong enough to withstand an election period it isn't much of a community to begin with. Historically it already split into two boards.

Maybe the disaster that befell babble is a destructive intolerant clique that would rather see it destroyed than allow it to be more moderate.

Rev Pesky

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Liberals are saying Mulcair made balanced budgets his top priority. I have never heard such a statement and it is without foundation outside a Liberal war room.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Star NDP candidate Andrew Thomson, a former Saskatchewan finance minister, said in a CBC interview Tuesday that some cuts are "inevitable" to balance the budget.

Both of the NDP quotes seem to show a balanced budget as a top priority. Neither of the statements came from Liberals. Nowhere have I seen a statement from the NDP that they will be prepared to run a deficit if it is necessary to achieve their promises on childcare, healthcare, etc.

I should make myself clear. I absolutely believe governments should not run deficits. A deficit is just another way of handcuffing future governments, while enriching the wealthy of the day. So I am not ideologically opposed to the NDP plan. All I'm saying is that the measures they talk about to increase revenue are speculative. They don't know how much money can be raised by raising corporate taxes until that money actually comes in. And it's very clear the NDP will make cuts if the tax revenues do not meet expectations.

I believe the NDP would make cuts in places the Conservatives wouldn't, and vice versa, so presumaby the NDP cuts would be more 'progressive' than Conservative cuts. But the fact remains, a balanced budget is a priority for the NDP, even if cuts in spending are required to make that balance..

 

 

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Liberals are saying Mulcair made balanced budgets his top priority.

True that was not a quote but he did say his promise to balance the budget from year 1 and every year after is categorical. As a lawyer and generally very educated man I am sure he knows exactly what that word means.

cat·e·go·ri·calˌkadəˈɡôrək(ə)l/adjectiveadjective: categorical

  1. unambiguously explicit and direct."a categorical assurance"synonyms:unqualified, unconditional, unequivocal, absolute, explicit, express, unambiguous, definite, direct, downright, outright, emphatic, positive, point-blank, conclusive, without reservations, out-and-out "a categorical assurance that annual premiums would not increase"antonyms:qualified, equivocal

He hasn't used that terminology or anything similar on any other of his pledges. The NDP budget is predicated on the price of oil rising when that is not at all assured. It is fair to ask if the spending promises or balanced budget promise would take precedence if meeting spending required running a deficit or raising taxes.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Of course it is a lie and most people know this including the Liberal Shills on this Board. They say it anyway because they are trolling -- derailing and dominating the agenda of the Board since this debate chokes out what could otherwise be here.

This does not strengthen your argument that you are unbiased.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The Liberals by stating that they would run deficits are implying that their promises require an unsustainable framework. The NDP denies this is necessary or wise.

That is a right-wing argument. The country is facing an infrastructure and education deficit. Canada's debt to GDP ratio is excellent which allows us to borrow money to invest in Canada in ways that increase our future wealth.

jjuares

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am not alone but this kind of discussion, which used to be normal here, is drowned out by debate over the predictable swill from the Liberal party war room. I am an NDP supporter but not uncritically. I do feel uncomfortable at times really analyzing an NDP message with Liberal vultures overhead who use this site for their advocacy and attack rather than any discussion whatsoever on Canadian public policy.

 


To me this is the biggest loss. I now refrain from criticizing the NDP not because I don't have concerns but because I don't want to join in with the Liberal propagandists. I am involved in the campaign and have been involved with progressive movements all my life. It was always my goal to prod the NDP and others to move left. I used to find value here because others here were trying to do the same. Most of these people had many valuable things to say. They reaffirmed my position as well giving me insights and arguments to use as I pushed for a more left position within the NDP and other organizations. That is all gone now. The board is dominated by a ridiculous discussion about which is more progressive, a party with roots in the labour movement or one that has been an integral part of corporate Canada for 70 years? To ask the question is to answer it. The election will almost certainly end in a minority which means that these political operatives of the Liberal Party will probably hang around. As I said in an earlier post I used to participate in another forum before it became totally dominated by an organized Liberal presence. Here it may not be as organized but what they lack in organization they more than make up for in disruptive techniques and sheer volume.

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Liberals are saying Mulcair made balanced budgets his top priority. I have never heard such a statement and it is without foundation outside a Liberal war room.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Star NDP candidate Andrew Thomson, a former Saskatchewan finance minister, said in a CBC interview Tuesday that some cuts are "inevitable" to balance the budget.

Both of the NDP quotes seem to show a balanced budget as a top priority. Neither of the statements came from Liberals. Nowhere have I seen a statement from the NDP that they will be prepared to run a deficit if it is necessary to achieve their promises on childcare, healthcare, etc.

I should make myself clear. I absolutely believe governments should not run deficits. A deficit is just another way of handcuffing future governments, while enriching the wealthy of the day. So I am not ideologically opposed to the NDP plan. All I'm saying is that the measures they talk about to increase revenue are speculative. They don't know how much money can be raised by raising corporate taxes until that money actually comes in. And it's very clear the NDP will make cuts if the tax revenues do not meet expectations.

I believe the NDP would make cuts in places the Conservatives wouldn't, and vice versa, so presumaby the NDP cuts would be more 'progressive' than Conservative cuts. But the fact remains, a balanced budget is a priority for the NDP, even if cuts in spending are required to make that balance..

 

 

The NDP has always maintained it would cut Conservative priorities to have room to put in their own. There is no doubt of that.

I like people to be somewhat precise and I don't like bullshit. I understand what words mean and they are important. I won't be pleasant when people play games with them. And this is what the Liberals are doing.

When anyone says that x is "their" (singular) priority it means that it x comes ahead of everything else. If they say it is "A" priority it means it may come ahead of some things --  but not others.

The word priority means ranking of importance and that it comes ahead of other things. As soon as you are speaking singular it means that this thing could displace all other things. If you want to contend that the NDP has made the budget as their singular priority you need to back up that statement put in the same exclusive way by the NDP as you have framed it.

The NDP has not placed any reference to the budget as an objective that ranks ahead of anything. They have simply placed balancing the budget as not being incompatible with their promises. If there is any reference to Mulcair stating that the budget balance comes ahead of all other NDP proposals then post that now. Rather what we have are statements that the NDP plan is costed and the promises are not incompatible with balancing the budget. To be blunt this is not a ranking of priorities at all and to say it is would be a lie.

I am not sure if the NDP has stated that some promises are ranked lower than a balanced budget or dependant on that -- if that is the claim it has to be backed up or called out as propaganda. Certainly I have no reference for the NDP placing the budget as "their" or "the" priority placing it ahead of childcare or any and all other specific priorities.

quizzical

wth it didn't show my comments in response.

Sean in Ottawa

jjuares wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I am not alone but this kind of discussion, which used to be normal here, is drowned out by debate over the predictable swill from the Liberal party war room. I am an NDP supporter but not uncritically. I do feel uncomfortable at times really analyzing an NDP message with Liberal vultures overhead who use this site for their advocacy and attack rather than any discussion whatsoever on Canadian public policy.

 

To me this is the biggest loss. I now refrain from criticizing the NDP not because I don't have concerns but because I don't want to join in with the Liberal propagandists. I am involved in the campaign and have been involved with progressive movements all my life. It was always my goal to prod the NDP and others to move left. I used to find value here because others here were trying to do the same. Most of these people had many valuable things to say. They reaffirmed my position as well giving me insights and arguments to use as I pushed for a more left position within the NDP and other organizations. That is all gone now. The board is dominated by a ridiculous discussion about which is more progressive, a party with roots in the labour movement or one that has been an integral part of corporate Canada for 70 years? To ask the question is to answer it. The election will almost certainly end in a minority which means that these political operatives of the Liberal Party will probably hang around. As I said in an earlier post I used to participate in another forum before it became totally dominated by an organized Liberal presence. Here it may not be as organized but what they lack in organization they more than make up for in disruptive techniques and sheer volume.

I agree.

It is a combination of volume and the trolling aspect -- raising arguments that are meant to derail and are not honest discussion. Like this statement that implies that the NDP is putting a priority of the budget over its program rather than what they have said which is they can do both.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

I saw a shot of Trudeau's campaign office which is on Park Ave. There were 6-10 people there all on the phone. I also saw a shot of him playing with his kids on the western edge of Jarry Park. It doesn't matter to him whether he gets elected, as he is loaded. He could do anything he wants.

I was very disappointed when BZ got scummed out by the Liberal team for some overenthusiastic nationalism. I had high hopes for her. The NDP now have to use another candidate. The Liberals are claiming the NDP dropped in a false poll in saying they were in the lead, however it is very easy to conceive the Bloc vote could unite with the NDP to get rid of Trudeau. We saw Liberal voters uniting with the NDP in Alberta, and that made a great impression on Quebec.  It is why I have been saying Trudeau has a hard row to hoe in this campaign.

Hearing the Liberals whine about polls is as bad as hearing Donald Trump boast about them. Polls are all crooked anyway, as are the motives of people who use them in their political calculations. It is bad enough to use a poll. It is even worse to talk about someone else's.

Papineau is densly populated, but people are still moving into it, because it has a huge amount of living space available. We could use the 2011 stats to use the above as a reasonable model, and assume a Bloc shift to the NDP. Trudeau loses in that scenario.

I was going to try to break it down into nationalities, but I find that to be vile and disgusting. I think the inflows and outflows to Papineau since 2011 have more or less been a wash between Liberal and NDP. The Bloc vote has gone down. Not nice to see the Bloc with a bigoted ad that has an oil drop turning into a niqab. Doesn't anyone realize that women from some cultures have to dress a certain way or they will be maimed, killed, or even worse? The main thing we need to do right away is Shut The Fuck Up about it, and quit pandering to bigotry and racism OK? If you want to live in a country where all laws are not subject to the Charter of Rights, GTFO of here.

Interesting how they behaved a lot better in the first debate when Elizabeth May was present than in the second when she wasn't.  

Rumour has it Bill Clinton called Donald Trump, and another rumour is that Stephen Harper called Gilles Duceppe. Oh nonononooooo Gilles is such a nice guy! So progressive! Well, if I considered myself to be progressive, I would not allow that crap to go out of my advertising department. I would put my foot down, and say the Bloc stands for a progressive nationalism which has a decent part to play in the national debate.  Gilles Duceppe has shown that he has not lived up to the hope of a progressive Bloc. The Bloc is still in the hands of extreme nationalists. Just another shade of blue. F*** them.

#piggate

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Liberals are saying Mulcair made balanced budgets his top priority.

True that was not a quote but he did say his promise to balance the budget from year 1 and every year after is categorical. As a lawyer and generally very educated man I am sure he knows exactly what that word means.

cat·e·go·ri·calˌkadəˈɡôrək(ə)l/adjectiveadjective: categorical

  1. unambiguously explicit and direct."a categorical assurance"synonyms:unqualified, unconditional, unequivocal, absolute, explicit, express, unambiguous, definite, direct, downright, outright, emphatic, positive, point-blank, conclusive, without reservations, out-and-out "a categorical assurance that annual premiums would not increase"antonyms:qualified, equivocal

He hasn't used that terminology or anything similar on any other of his pledges. The NDP budget is predicated on the price of oil rising when that is not at all assured. It is fair to ask if the spending promises or balanced budget promise would take precedence if meeting spending required running a deficit or raising taxes.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Of course it is a lie and most people know this including the Liberal Shills on this Board. They say it anyway because they are trolling -- derailing and dominating the agenda of the Board since this debate chokes out what could otherwise be here.

This does not strengthen your argument that you are unbiased.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
The Liberals by stating that they would run deficits are implying that their promises require an unsustainable framework. The NDP denies this is necessary or wise.

That is a right-wing argument. The country is facing an infrastructure and education deficit. Canada's debt to GDP ratio is excellent which allows us to borrow money to invest in Canada in ways that increase our future wealth.

I won't respond to the rest of your typical stuff (never worth it) but will address this one representative point.

The statement that the NDP would balance the budget may be categorical as a promise but it is based on given economic asumptions. The statement that the NDP would bring in a number of initiatives is equally categorical. Nowhere have they ranked the budget over these other priorities. To define the budget in singular form as "their" priority or "the" priority is an outright lie.

Now you are writing crap that is beside the point: the straw man is the word categorical in order to avoid the whole issue of what the word priority means especially when it is placed in the singular.

It is absolutely dishonest to suggest that becuase one promise can be described as categorical that it would therefore be a priority over another promise that also has been described as categorical.

You are playing games and that is why I won't go down more points with you. I have no respect for you because you are not being honest and this is your MO.

Pondering

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The NDP has always maintained it would cut Conservative priorities to have room to put in their own. There is no doubt of that.

I like people to be somewhat precise and I don't like bullshit. I understand what words mean and they are important. I won't be pleasant when people play games with them. And this is what the Liberals are doing.

When anyone says that x is "their" (singular) priority it means that it x comes ahead of everything else. If they say it is "A" priority it means it may come ahead of some things --  but not others.

The word priority means ranking of importance and that it comes ahead of other things. As soon as you are speaking singular it means that this thing could displace all other things. If you want to contend that the NDP has made the budget as their singular priority you need to back up that statement put in the same exclusive way by the NDP as you have framed it.

The NDP has not placed any reference to the budget as an objective that ranks ahead of anything. They have simply placed balancing the budget as not being incompatible with their promises. If there is any reference to Mulcair stating that the budget balance comes ahead of all other NDP proposals then post that now. Rather what we have are statements that the NDP plan is costed and the promises are not incompatible with balancing the budget. To be blunt this is not a ranking of priorities at all and to say it is would be a lie.

I am not sure if the NDP has stated that some promises are ranked lower than a balanced budget or dependant on that -- if that is the claim it has to be backed up or called out as propaganda. Certainly I have no reference for the NDP placing the budget as "their" or "the" priority placing it ahead of childcare or any and all other specific priorities.

It is not the claim. It has already been acknowledged that the term "priority" was not a quote and was in reference to his use of the term categorical.

The claim is that Mulcair has stated that his decision to have a balanced budget for his four years should he win is categorical. None of his other assertions were categorical and they can't all be categorical. Some must take precedence over others as not even the NDP can promise that over four years nothing will happen that threatens his plan especially as his plan is predicated on oil prices rising.

This is also an issue Trudeau can be challenged on depending on how he costs his platform, based on what projections, and what happens if projections don't match reality. Will he cut back, raise taxes, or run a larger deficit?

Trudeau has bet on playing his cards close to the chest all the way to the end it seems. Mulcair bet on early releases which so far have benefited him but could also backfire as now the Liberals can use that information in making their own plans. Harper will play his cards even closer to the chest by not presented a costed platform at all and relying on his "steady hand on the tiller" approach which has stood him in good stead for several elections.

By taking the approach he has Trudeau has made specific criticisms more difficult. You can't really attack someone's budget when they haven't presented one. On the other hand Mulcair has also stated that things have been left out of the budget because he doesn't want to announce all his measures yet.

All three parties know that many voters will not firm up their decisions until the last couple of weeks or even the last couple of days. That is partly why there has been so little movement in response to the debates. The French debate on Thursday will likely have one of a two outcomes. Either things will stay the same or Trudeau will have a small uptick.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

The NDP have a strong candidate in Papineau that is doing all the right things. I'd still be shocked if Trudeau lost his seat,though. And what does this mean if Trudeau loses but the LPC wins a minority?

A quick trip back to the polls is bad news if you hate Stephen Harper.

Charles

It would mean the Liberals would choose a new leader who would become Prime Minister. As ghastly as I find the prospect of that party having any claim to power in Canada, at least this would mean finding someone more qualified than Trudeau, which would be pretty much any other MP. 

Pondering

Charles wrote:

It would mean the Liberals would choose a new leader who would become Prime Minister. As ghastly as I find the prospect of that party having any claim to power in Canada, at least this would mean finding someone more qualified than Trudeau, which would be pretty much any other MP. 

That isn't the norm. Usually someone steps aside in a safe seat which the leader wins in a byelection.

quizzical

Pondering wrote:
Trudeau has bet on playing his cards close to the chest all the way to the end it seems. Mulcair bet on early releases which so far have benefited him but could also backfire as now the Liberals can use that information in making their own plans.

playing his cards close to his chest? you just admitted he had NO cards.

Justin's waiting for the NDP to release their researched platform shows the Liberals don't have any cards in play at all. they're relying on the NDP to tell them which way is progressive then they copy it. LOL tff

this means they've no intention of doing what they promised as they've no idea how to do it.  i never knew  cheaters in school went on to become Liberals.

 

 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

Pondering wrote:
Trudeau has bet on playing his cards close to the chest all the way to the end it seems. Mulcair bet on early releases which so far have benefited him but could also backfire as now the Liberals can use that information in making their own plans.

playing his cards close to his chest? you just admitted he had NO cards.

Justin's waiting for the NDP to release their researched platform shows the Liberals don't have any cards in play at all. they're relying on the NDP to tell them which way is progressive then they copy it. LOL tff

this means they've no intention of doing what they promised as they've no idea how to do it.  i never knew  cheaters in school went on to become Liberals.

Seriously? You don't think the NDP are still planning? Planning ends on the day of the election. That doesn't mean parties don't have any plans at all until election day.

It's not cheating. The NDP is choosing the dates of their releases strategically too. They haven't made all their announcements.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Do any of you live in this riding? Why are you posting shit that is not relevant to Papineau?

Sean in Ottawa

montrealer58 wrote:

Do any of you live in this riding? Why are you posting shit that is not relevant to Papineau?

The poll appears to be bogus and therefore it has no more to do with Papineau than what is being discussed here.

At least there is some discussion about the elephant in the room.

knownothing knownothing's picture

You're right Sean. The Mainstreet poll does look bogus to me.

Sean in Ottawa

knownothing wrote:

You're right Sean. The Mainstreet poll does look bogus to me.

I meant the CROP poll.

But don't get me wrong -- I think a Mainstreet Poll is bogus by definition.

Likely they are really tied...

Northern PoV

Think of Canada like a big cruise ship.
After some long and pleasant voyages - where new shipmates could contemplate working their way up the decks in a fair system - nasty Captain Blue took over and rigged everything so the top decks get more and more and the bottom decks get less and less of everything (except tax audits). New shipmates are only temporary now and you only get to ascend decks via complete obedience to Captain Blue.

Suddenly the bottom decks have a chance to put their choice (of one of the top deck guys) in charge via a quaint ritual. There are two serious contenders. Red and Orange. (Oh, pure Green shouts from an obscure corner of the top deck but mostly gets hushed up.) 

The lower decks can't agree on which champion to choose. They both have so many bad... and good points. Each side sure the other is as WRONG as they are RIGHT. 

The ritual, consulting the Oracle called “election”, is very delicate and easily manipulated by Captain Blue and the powers that brought him to rule. Some kind of rational unity is required by the opposition if the current Captain is to be successfully deposed. 

Captain Blue hides in some "tied-polls" and chuckles already dreaming of the real changes he can start making once this damn ritual is over.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

I'm sorry, but I fail to see what insight this parable displays that is not present in the actual events. Please enlighten me.

quizzical

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
knownothing wrote:
You're right Sean. The Mainstreet poll does look bogus to me.

I meant the CROP poll.

But don't get me wrong -- I think a Mainstreet Poll is bogus by definition.

Likely they are really tied...

so where's this proof or are you gonna get sued by crop for defamation?

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
knownothing wrote:
You're right Sean. The Mainstreet poll does look bogus to me.

I meant the CROP poll.

But don't get me wrong -- I think a Mainstreet Poll is bogus by definition.

Likely they are really tied...

so where's this proof or are you gonna get sued by crop for defamation?

Of course not. I am only acnowledging the volume of criticism that I cannot answer.

The demographics appear to be off -- especally as they ahve considerably more responses from people who voted NDP in the last election than Liberals -- in a riding the Liebrals won. Think about that -- right there you have cause for concern.

And I am not suggesting deliberate gaming as many others are.

The publicity on this poll has been brutal for the NDP. The poll was not above reproach and it should have been.

 

quizzical

i don't get your nuance here.

 

either crop gamed it or not if they biased the polling to ndp voters.

Charles

I noted earlier, the "volume of criticism" is because the Liberals gamed the system, got their corporate media friends to echo their talking points and BOOM - a credible polling firm has data that is reliable as any out there (and echos a trend seen in the Mainstreet poll, just to a greater extent) - is suddenly the story instead of the fact that the joke of a Liberal leader is clearly in serious trouble in his own seat. The Mainstreet poll was done in one day (this is not a credible polling pattern) and shows the Tories at twice the vote they got last time despite their otherwise drop in the region (why would this be?) and yet that's supposed to be the more credible data??

 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

quizzical wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
knownothing wrote:
You're right Sean. The Mainstreet poll does look bogus to me.

I meant the CROP poll.

But don't get me wrong -- I think a Mainstreet Poll is bogus by definition.

Likely they are really tied...

so where's this proof or are you gonna get sued by crop for defamation?

Of course not. I am only acnowledging the volume of criticism that I cannot answer.

The demographics appear to be off -- especally as they ahve considerably more responses from people who voted NDP in the last election than Liberals -- in a riding the Liebrals won. Think about that -- right there you have cause for concern.

And I am not suggesting deliberate gaming as many others are.

The publicity on this poll has been brutal for the NDP. The poll was not above reproach and it should have been.

 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

i don't get your nuance here.

 

either crop gamed it or not if they biased the polling to ndp voters.

Not really. You can get a poll back that is suspect without it being gamed. What you do with it is a choice. Should ahve been bulletproof. It wasn't.

Ciabatta2

quizzical wrote:

over spending on what? tokens for the supporters gained through privatization? it's been my lived experience under the BC Liberals and the AB PC's they never over spend on projects building or sustaining the social economy.

i hate the term 'social programs'. the reality is for an economy to be healthy the social well being of peoples has to be healthy. the 2 are intertwinned. it's social economy which needs to be maintained or the monetary economy will fail as well.

Check out the financial histories of deficits that came before those two administrations.  They may not have been spending on yoru priorities, but they ran years of deficits that led to calls for severe cuts.

Re: social programs, focus on the outcomes.  When we've achieved what we want, then we can spar over nomenclature.

DaveW

So, without getting into all the charges and counter-charges over polling numbers, which by definition cannot be resolved until Oct. 19th:

1. in 2011 there was a three-way race in Papineau

2. one of those 3 parties has collapsed

3. its votes (10,000+) will  go somewhere.

Do the math: are ex-Bloc voters more likely to vote Justin, to abstain, to go elsewhere, or ....

to vote for the anti-Harper centre-left NDP led by soft nationalist Mulcair, who are currently sitting on a massive lead across Quebec and Montreal?

I know what I conclude about that.

This Huff piece covered most of the angles:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/20/papineau-trudeau_n_8167140.html

Pages