Federal Election: started March 21, 2015

NorthReport wrote:

Annulation d'une activité de Blaney où une arme était à gagner

http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canadienne/201504/...

This is so stupid from the Conservatives that I cannot help but wonder if the source of this article published on April 2nd is an April Fools joke.

This is hardly the type of initiative that could bring them back in contention in Québec.

And 30 minutes later, now its Christian Paradis announcing that he too will be checking out of the SS Harper. 

Give the rats some space on the way to the lifeboats ....

sherpa-finn wrote:

And 30 minutes later, now its Christian Paradis announcing that he too will be checking out of the SS Harper. 

Give the rats some space on the way to the lifeboats ....

That riding will almost assuredly stay Con.

Although it's tempting to do so, we shouldn't assume this means the Conservatives are in big trouble.

However, it may be a sign of other issues concerning Harper's leadership (reports say that John Baird was getting tired of Harper's arrogance).

Paradis was not getting along well with Harper according to David Akin, and he had been demoted and surpassed by Steven Blaney.  But he probably still would have been re-elected in Mégantic-L'Érable.

As for Glover, she was more vulnerable.  With the Liberals in 2nd in Manitoba because of the NDP decline, a riding like Saint Boniface is more competitive again, and LPC is running a strong candidate with Dan Vandal.  David Akin & Eric Grénier have both predicted it will go Liberal.

So while Conservative support has recovered Nationally because of the terrorism bump, it has still remained well below the 39.8% the CPC got in May 2011.

Four years ago, Harper's Conservatives captured 166 seats -- sufficient then for an 11-seat advantage over the combined sum of all other parties, but four shy of the total now required for a majority in the expanded House of Commons.

Simply, the Tories in October must pick up a handful of additional seats merely to retain their majority.

Of the 30 new seats, 22 of them would have been won by the Conservatives

NorthReport wrote:

Having to drag Paul Martin out to talk about the budget kinda smacks of Liberal desperation doncha think! Hasn't Trudeau got any current MPs that can make economic comments?

Current MPs would be revealing Liberal policy which isn't going to happen before the platform is released. Paul Martin wasn't sent by the Liberal party. He accepted an invitation to speak and does so in his own right as a former PM and well-respected FM. 

Anyone hear about this?

http://www.canadianveteransadvocacy.com/blog/?p=1267

Harper may start drafting Canadian youth if re-elected

**STORY WAS REMOVED FROM CBC, ANYONE SEE THIS ON CBC??**

Did John Baird resign over proposed conscription bill?

CBC News Posted: Mar 31, 2015 1:34 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 31, 2015 3:16 PM ET

 

When former foreign affairs minister John Baird announced in February he would be resigning from cabinet, there was one secret he was keeping: his falling out with the Prime Minister over Harper’s plan to introduce a conscription bill shortly after the federal election.

 

In a February interview with CBC’s chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge, Baird said he didn’t want to become one of the “lifers” in federal politics. He had made the decision to leave politics to pursue career opportunities in the private sector.

Too weird. So does this one:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-kills-and-bbqs-easter-bunny-1.3016085

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

A win by Harper is defined as more seats than the Liberals and NDP combined. This is the case due to his actions. He has put those two parties with a gun to their heads forcing them to govern if they are able to becuase their supporters hate Harper so much that they would destroy their own parties rather than accept a deal that would keep Harper in power if it can be avoided.

If Harper had resigned Trudeau could have allowed the next conservative leader a chance but if it is Harper, Trudeau would be inclined personally to defeat him even if his policies might not be different. Trudeau's supporters and even MPs would split badly if the Liberals picked Harper over the hated NDP. The NDP would not want to support a Trudeau government if the NDP came in third but they would be forced to just as the Liberals would be forced to accepting Mulcair as PM should the NDP get more seats than they and the combination exceed 170. there will not be enough time for the Conservatives to wipe the stain of Harper in the period between the election and the crafting of a government.

I think this is a dangerously naieve assumption. Remember that when the Liberals were in minority in 2004, they turned to the Conservatives for support. They also pulled out of the 2008 coalition agreement which would have replaced the Conservatives, and Trudeau has not only supported the Conservatives on several key issues, but has explicitly ruled out working with the NDP. There is a significant portion of the Liberal power elite that does not want to work with the NDP, and keeping Harper in power is an acceptable price to pay for these people. Also the Liberals lack the courage of their convictions. Even if the Liberals did prop up the Conservatives, I see no reason to believe this would be an unstable arrangement, particularly because the Liberals would certainly take a big hit in public opinion polling, and for that reason would be very reluctant to bring down the Conservatives until polling was more favourable, which of course it wouldn't be.

The only way to defeat Harper, I believe, would be to ensure that the Conservatives and the Liberals do not have a majority of seats between them after the next election.

sherpa-finn wrote:

Too weird. So does this one:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-kills-and-bbqs-easter-bunny-1.3016085

So the time stamp at the end means you can make up any number of urls? I didnt know that...

The rumor over this has gone through quite a few sites tho...

http://montrealsimon.blogspot.ca/2015/04/is-stephen-harper-planning-to-c...

There's a strange and disturbing story circulating quietly on the internet. It was forwarded to me by someone I trust.

And it seems to show that the CBC wrote a story claiming that Stephen Harper was thinking about conscripting young Canadians if he is re-elected.

Only to quickly delete it a few hours later.

Because here are some paragraphs from that story:

Harper may start drafting Canadian youth if re-elected Did John Baird resign over proposed conscription bill? 

CBC News Posted: Mar 31, 2015 1:34 PM ET Last Updated: Mar 31, 2015 3:16 PM ET 

When former foreign affairs minister John Baird announced in February he would be resigning from cabinet, there was one secret he was keeping: his falling out with the Prime Minister over Harper's plan to introduce a conscription bill shortly after the federal election. 

In a February interview with CBC's chief correspondent Peter Mansbridge, Baird said he didn't want to become one of the "lifers" in federal politics. He had made the decision to leave politics to pursue career opportunities in the private sector.

But according to two reliable sources — both close friends of Baird — it was during a special closed-door meeting with Baird, Harper and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in January 2014 — on the third day of Harper's four-day trip to Israel — that Harper discussed the possibility of a conscription bill for 18-year-old men and women, based on the Israeli model.

According to an official in the Department of National Defence, interviewed on condition of anonymity, the normal length of compulsory service for Canadians would only be one year for men and women. Should a conscript wish to serve a second or third year, or make the military a career, he or she could apply after completing the initial year of training.

An automatic postponement — not exemption — would be granted for any teen who had not graduated from secondary/high school.

Pierre: if you are on Twitter, you can trace this "story" / scam on Justin Ling's feed. 

Of course, it would be interesting to find out who initiated the scam press release ....  

Debater wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I do expect the Cons to sit in first place and a more even split between the NDP and the Liberals with them getting a total over 170 seats.

I would be delighted if the Liberals kept Harper in power in this circumstance as it would be the end of their party probably in less than a year but I do not hold out ope of that. Either way Harper is gone in less than a year or this year. The Liberals either work with the NDP or go over a cliff.

The only bad scenario would be either a Liberal or Conservative majority and there is little risk of either right now.

1.  The Liberals were written off after the 2011 Election (as the NDP once was), so I think we should refrain from making predictions like "it would be the end of their party probably in less than a year".  This is total supposition and is at odds with historical trends.

2.  Why would you be "delighted" if there was no more Liberal Party?  As has been explained many times, until the day when the NDP can win over centrist voters (blue liberals/red tories), the Liberals perform a valuable role that the NDP cannot.  The Conservatives know that the Liberals are a bigger threat than the NDP.  When the Liberal Party does badly, it helps the Conservatives.  As Gerry Nicholls says, Harper believes that if it's just the Conservatives vs. the NDP, the Conservatives will win nearly every time.

3.  There certainly isn't going to be a Liberal Majority.  I've never believed there would be.  But once again I would be cautious about ruling out the possibility of a Conservative Majority.  We saw what happened 4 years ago when people thought that couldn't happen.

4.  Once again, people cannot assume that Harper will be "gone in less than a year or this year".  Harper will go when he is ready - not before.  As the Paul Wells book The Longer I'm Prime Minister shows, Harper's goal is to stay in power for as long as possible.  He wants to establish conservatism as the natural governing ideology in this country.  It's risky for people to assume that he will leave if he wins a Minority.

The point I am making is that the NDP on its own would be a greater threat than either the NDP or the Liberals are now when both exist.

The Liberals would not survive keeping Harper in power. The would split as there are MPs that simply would not stand for it. That would be the last straw -- but by all means go for it.This is why I have said I suspect the Liberal party if it had to make a choice would work with the NDP rather than commit political suicide.

I don't think that a Harper Trudeau coalition would last long and that coalition woudl damage both parties and give the NDP a major advance on the election.

So yes, I woudl write off Trudeau if he acted to keep Harper in power if it were clear he had the choice.

And yes I think the Liberal party is more of a negative than a good for Canada and I would be delighted if it were to blow apart. The result would be a polarized battle between the Conservatives and the NDP -- one I think the NDP would win.

Debater wrote:

3. "Trudeau has not only supported the Conservatives on several key issues, but has explicitly ruled out working with the NDP."

You are yet again leaving out a major storyline of the past several years -- Tom Mulcair & the NDP (except for Nathan Cullen & his supporters) explictly ruled out working with the Liberals during the NDP Leadership race.  Why was this absent from your analysis?  Tom Mulcair has now backtracked from that and appears to be raising some sort of cooperation proposal with the Liberals, but why have you skipped over his own history on this subject and his own political opportunism?

I don't want to speak for Aristotle, but I assume he "skipped over" it because it's made-up bullshit. The better question is why you would be peddling such obvious falsehoods.

Mulcair explicitly ruled out any pre-election agreement (such as proposed by his leadership rival Cullen), which is undemocratic and extremely ill-advised. He never ruled out a post-election coalition, nor has any NDP spokesperson. The NDP has always said they will make any parliament work. This has never changed. There is no backtrack or flip-flop or whatever other misleading terms you need to use to create a inaccurate depiction of this.

You do realise that the fact you have to rely on such easily-debunked nonsense only shows the lack of substance in your arguments? And the desperation of your position?

Sad, really. It would even be tragic if I gave a shit about your awful corrupt party of elitist scumbags. But as it is, it's just pathetic.

Sorry I disagree with the direction both of you are taking.

In the heat of the leadership race Mulcair ruled out any deal with the Liberals -- definitely including post election because the example he gave was the coalition with Dion which was a post election parliamentary arrangement. I felt at the time that it was a mistake and Mulcair has had to walk it back. I think it is understandable why he would have said it -- to shoot down the pre-election ideas Cullen raised, but it was too categorical.

I think Mulcair should have been clearer that what he said was in the heat of the campaign but that he knows his party's supporters as well as those of the Liberals demand that the parties work together to remove Harper. He has been hearing this from his own supporters and has listened. Perhaps Mulcair did not mean to be as categorical as he came across. Perhaps he was thinking of specific types of arrangements. But he does know how it was understood at the time and did not correct it. Denial that Mulcair said he would not work with the Liberals is not productive. What he said was understandable but so too is his walking back from it.

All that said Liberals making a big deal of this should be aware that the scandal is sourced in the absolute and well founded mistrust the NDP has of the Liberal party’s word. It hardly is a badge of honour for them. Liberals should focus on getting their leader to see the light rather than criticizing the conversion of the NDP leader and the awkwardness of Mulcair’s handling of it.

Both leaders are being less than honest about this but the Liberal leader by continuing to deny that he would work with the NDP as we get within a few months of an election that most observers predict will be a minority, with a majority between the NDP and Liberal parties, is being the most dishonest. The Liberal position on this is not good ground to mount an assault on the NDP.

Jacob, I am sorry to say but really I think you owe Debater an apology becuase his statment is not a falsehood and is not BS. Biased perhaps, not positive for his own party perhaps, but not a lie.

Here's one of those articles you mentioned, Debater.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/02/27/mulcair_softens_stance_on_...

Quote:

Reminded of his categorical rejection of a coalition two years ago, Mulcair said: “Yes, exactly.

“So, nothing’s changed. They’re two different questions. What will we do after an election when an NDP government is formed? We’re going to work with others. And what will we do to get there? We’re going to run (a full slate of) 338 candidates.”

If, as Mulcair now insists, his 2012 comments were intended to reject only electoral co-operation during an election, it’s not clear why at the time he referenced the 2008 coalition agreement as proof that the Liberals can’t be trusted.

Actually, it's perfectly clear that he was referencing it precisely to demonstrate that the Liberals can't be trusted. Even though he was speaking of a different situation, this was something that just happened where the Liberals backed out of a deal. People were saying, "Let's do a deal to oust Harper", and Mulcair was saying, "We just had a deal, and look what happened then." This is not to say it was the same deal, but it was a good reason why the deal that Cullen and others were suggesting was a bad idea.

Well, I remember the leadership race quite well and followed it closely, especially the controversy over Cullen's plan, which I was dead set against, so this in particular was an issue of interest to me. I remember Mulcair's comments and objections to them, but it was always clear to me what he meant. Clear as day. If people took them the wrong way they can only blame themselves.

The discussion was about pre-election co-operation and Mulcair said absolutely not. This was not a deviation from established NDP policy but a continuation of it. Cullen's plan was the deviation. Whereas ruling out any kind of post-election coalition once parliament had been formed would have been a stark deviation from established policy under Layton. If he had actually meant to suggest such a thing in a leadership race he would not have thrown it out so casually. He would have been clear that he was going in a new direction from the course that Layton pursued.

The only reason there is any confusion over this point is because people like Debater have a vested interest in sowing said confusion. Sadly, the media has a lot of people like Debater in it.