Trudeau campaign 2015 part 2

Pondering] <p>[quote=mark_alfred wrote:

  I'm under no illusion that she'll ever share my viewpoints on practically anything.  I feel she's too right wing for that.  But, regardless, I don't mind political discussions with Liberals or Conservatives.

I didn't realize national daycare, minimum income, and environmental protection were on the right side of the spectrum. Mulcair and the NDP are willing to deny me my rights as a Canadian citizen. It's a deal breaker.

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

It seemed like an appropriate moniker for this type of message board.

It would be, for another poster,

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Since Pondering seems to march in lockstep with Team Trudeau's spin machine, I just assumed she misspelled "Pandering".

Back to the schoolyard taunts I see. Thanks for letting me know I'm right. You think Trudeau is going to win too.

Whatever, "Pondering".

Arthur Cramer wrote:

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Trudeau comeback? Don't bet on it.

Justin Trudeau plays down polls and the 'politics of fear'

Justin Trudeau blames low polling on timing, cynicism

BBQ season may not improve Trudeau fortunes

Trudeau now entering a crucial stage

Justin Trudeau is no emperor, but his clothes are disappearing anyway

C-51 'right' for Canada, Trudeau insists

Trudeau defends his Anti-Terrorism Act stance

In trying to be all things to all people, the Liberals risk being nothing to anyone

Electora revamp or Grit desperation

Can a man who ignores his promise of open nominations credibly claim to be a great reformer?

Trudeau’s ‘Real Change’ reality check

Trudeau unfazed by Bloc Quebecois passing Liberals in polls

Trudeau misses the mark

 

The media is a cruel mistress. For the past 3+ years they've been obsessed with Trudeau and the polls, which has been frustrating for those of us who wanted a 3-way race about important issues. But now that the Liberals are in third place, they're still about Trudeau and the polls. And now that Trudeau is scrambling to clarify his policy positions, they STILL won't stop talking about Trudeau and the polls.

A week ago, Trudeau realized he had to do something, and kicked his damage control into high gear. And for the past week, everyone has been saying different versions of the same thing: Trudeau is dropping, Trudeau is in damage control, Trudeau is desperately trying to change the channel. Even when people have kind words about his newfound policies, it's part of the bigger story about a campaign scrambling to define itself.

If Trudeau is now seen as someone who will now say anything to turn his campaign around, what can he possibly say to turn his campaign around?

Oh you know, the usuall stuff. Mulcair is pandering to the Sepratists, Mulcair IS Harper, can't trust Socialist to govern fiscally responsibly, Canadians know us, they are comfortable with us, we brought the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (well, ok, can't use that one), THIS TIME WE REALLY MEAN IT!!! You know...the usual stuff!

Yep, right on cue "http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/06/24/sherbrooke-declaration-ndp-thoma.... Just as I said. The Liberals are DESPEARATE!

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

That's their only hope. The slew of sudden campaign promises, including of the "more details to come I promise", are all being recognized as desperate attempts at damage control. Everything they've tried has failed to change the subject. I wouldn't put it passed Trudeau's team to provoke a unity crisis just to get people to stop talking about Bill C-51. There were a lot of Liberals celebrating when Duceppe gave the Bloc a few quick headlines. Disgusting.

Exactly! Its ENTIRELY about Liberal Power and Privilege. Liberals care ONLY about other Liberals. Sorry to say this LPC shills, the NDP does have the moral highground; ALWAYS HAS, ALWAYS WILL! Your party is corrupt and deserves to be put in its rightful place, on the trash heap of history. There was never anything worthwhile about before, and nothing better now. Just opportuism, disgusing a lust for power for power's sake, ONLY!

takeitslowly wrote:

why is it so important for Trudeau to repeal part of bill c 51 ? he said a few months ago he support bill c 51 even if no amendments are passed and he said hes absolutely serene with voting for the bill...so it doesnt sound like its that important for him to repeal it.

It's only important untill after the election. Then just another forgotten Liberal promise.

mark_alfred wrote:

Hebert wrote:

But a more combative Bloc brings with it the necessity for the NDP to talk up positions such as the party’s contention that it would accept a simple majority vote for Quebec independence that are controversial in the rest of Canada.

Duceppe could end up doing more harm to the NDP outside Quebec than in his own province.

As bagkitty cleverly observed on a post of yours in the impending attacks on NDP thread,

And in the absence of any imminent national unity crisis, trying to manufacture one comes across as c̶y̶n̶i̶c̶a̶l̶ typical. Especially in the context of a Liberal campaign that's fallen off the rails.

So there it is, the future of the Liberal campaign.  They'll begin to falter even further in Quebec, and then get increasingly nasty in the rest of Canada to try and salvage the campaign from complete disaster.

[/quote]

If it is so insignificant, why did Mulcair raise the issue again?  Are Canadians not allowed to disagree with NDP policy on Quebec? It seems to me that you want NDP policy to benefit Mulcair in Quebec while not impacting him in the rest of Canada.

Quebec and Canada are not separate places. The political stances Mulcair takes on Quebec separation and on special status for Quebec are open to criticism throughout Canada.

Mulcair opened the door to this issue himself now you want it closed.

I think the last two people to abandon Justin will be Pondering and Margaraet Trudeau. Unless, as I have long suspected, Pondering is Margaret Trudeau. Then she will be the last person to abandon Justin.

There is absoutely no use arguing with Pondering about Justin. 

terrytowel wrote:

Again Pondering

I know it is TOUGH but you have to face facts

IT'S OVER!

Why can't you accept it like everyone else here on this forum?

Considering many posters have indicated that they don't agree with your perpetual "IT'S OVER" announcements which appear to be your sole contribution to political discussion I think I'll pass.

terrytowel wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Considering many posters have indicated that they don't agree with your perpetual "IT'S OVER" announcements which appear to be your sole contribution to political discussion I think I'll pass.

Other than you who else on this board doesn't agree that "IT'S OVER" for Justin Trudeau?

(crickets chriping)

Sean for one. Why don't you tell us what nationality your feet are?

Supporters publicly abandoning liberal party over Trudeau's support for Bill C-51

Liberals lose four candidates in a month

Trudeau had four months to oppose it, and arrogantly tried to act like it didn't matter. Once he saw how much it cost him, he started playing politics. He tried justifying it. He tried attacking the NDP on security. He tried changing the subject. He tried promising more details later, as if four months wasn't enough to figure shit out.

How long before the Liberals just start blasting the NDP with everything they have?

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Trudeau had four months to oppose it, and arrogantly tried to act like it didn't matter. Once he saw how much it cost him, he started playing politics. He tried justifying it. He tried attacking the NDP on security. He tried changing the subject. He tried promising more details later, as if four months wasn't enough to figure shit out.

How long before the Liberals just start blasting the NDP with everything they have?

That is one interpretation. I heard him objecting from the start. You think he should have voted against the bill if he had objections to it but he also felt that some aspects were important to pass. He didn't "try" promising more details later. He did it and they will be announced in due course. Your problem is he isn't giving you enough to attack him on. That's on purpose.

Pondering wrote:

Saying that Quebec is a nation within a united Canada is not special status.

Allowing Quebec to opt of of national programs with compensation while the other provinces are denied that choice is special status.

It's only Quebec* that has been deemed a nation within a united Canada, so it is a special status accorded only to it.  As for your second assertion, if you could be a little more specific, that would be helpful to me, because I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to.

___

*though Mulcair has spoken of dealing with First Nations on a nation to nation basis, which is very cool, in my opinion.

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Saying that Quebec is a nation within a united Canada is not special status.

Allowing Quebec to opt of of national programs with compensation while the other provinces are denied that choice is special status.

It's only Quebec* that has been deemed a nation within a united Canada, so it is a special status accorded only to it.  As for your second assertion, if you could be a little more specific, that would be helpful to me, because I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to.

But Mulcair, who was environment minister under a previous Quebec Liberal government, reminded reporters of his party's so-called Sherbrooke Declaration of 2005, a document that stated Quebec should be granted "specific powers and room for manoeuvring."

.....

Moreover, the declaration offers "asymmetrical federalism," meaning Quebec would be given the right to opt out of federal programs that touch on provincial jurisdiction. Quebec would also receive "full compensation."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-says-quebec-independence-ris...

I am not just a Quebecer I am also a Canadian. As far as I'm concerned "asymmetrical federalism," means I can be denied my rights as a Canadian. Because Quebec has it's own pension rules I lost money when my husband passed away. Had I lived in Ontario I would have been entitled to considerably more. I do not want to be left at the mercy of the PQ and the Quebec Liberals.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

Exactly. Trudeau's entire approach to Bill C-51 was because he wanted to avoid being attacked. He said so openly. But that's exactly how he lost credibility: by caring more about being attacked than taking the right stance. Or any stance at all.

Four betrayed candidates and countless destroyed membership cards later. Now he realizes that shying away from a political fight has, ironically, opened himself up to attacks on his integrity and trust. His strategists must be in his ear telling him to go for the low blow soon.

You are projecting. Mulcair's numbers in Quebec might even drop after his latest announcements. There is no need for Trudeau to go for "a low blow". He is leaving that up to the Conservatives and the NDP.

Pondering wrote:

I am not just a Quebecer I am also a Canadian. As far as I'm concerned "asymmetrical federalism," means I can be denied my rights as a Canadian. Because Quebec has it's own pension rules I lost money when my husband passed away. Had I lived in Ontario I would have been entitled to considerably more. I do not want to be left at the mercy of the PQ and the Quebec Liberals.

But again, Quebec opting out of the Canada Pension Plan and having its own pension plan means this is not new.  Was there an NDP government when Quebec opted out of the Canada Pension Plan?  No there wasn't.  So what are you arguing?  It won't be anything new.

Also, regarding the federally funded program of health care, there are some differences between the different provinces.  This is not unique.

The liberals are throwing everything out there to see which one sticks and the media gladly broadcasted them.

The media, who has never been comfortable with a new party coming into power, raised the issue. Gerald Butts only rubbed his hands with glee.

Pondering is giving us a preview of the final few months of the campaign. In a thread about the Trudeau campaign, with the Liberals losing candidates, members, and voters... change the thread topic to separatism.

You should be embarassed trying it here, Pondering.

Pondering can't even help but change the subject. It's part of the Liberal playbook now.

There's been years to talk about NDP policy. There's a time and a place. But this thread isn't about NDP policy. This thread is literally about the "Trudeau campaign", which is at its lowest point since he's become leader. The sleight of hand that you're trying to pull at this exact moment speaks volumes about how far that campaign has fallen.

Pondering wrote:

Mulcair just said this. It's not old news. It's current NDP policy.

And it's good policy too.  Trudeau's off base in his attitude.

Since the Liberals announced their democratic reform policies recently, based largely on their policy resolution #31, I'm curious if they'll also announce their policy resolution #153 in the future which says they'll create a national pharmacare program (or, more accurately, says they'll create "funding initiatives" for a national pharmacare program).  Within NDP policy, there is also a commitment to funding for provincial and territorial pharmacare programs.  I'm interested in whether either party will campaign on this in this election.

Since everyone else is taking the bait.

Arguing that "the NDP wants to make it easier to break up the country" holds as much water as saying "the NDP wants more abortions". It's not about what we want. It's about democratic rights. I believe that if a woman wants to make medical decisions about her own body, I have no right to stop her. I also believe that if Quebeckers want to leave, it's not my right to stop them. 

It's about basic respect. The respectful way to have a baby is to talk to your partner, know that it's their choice, but create the conditions (emotional and financial) that they would willingly want to have a baby with you. The opposite is horrific, IMO. Telling your partner that if she gets pregnant, you will use legal barriers to force her to have that baby, regardless of how she feels. And then when someone attacks you for being an inconsiderate misogynist, you call them a baby hater.

These "rights" are moot in the sense that me and my partner both want the same things. But what would my relationship be if I told my partner she had no right?

And it's moot in our federation. Separatist sentiment is at its lowest in a generation, BECAUSE there is a respectful partner at the table.

And just a reminder, this thread is not about separatism. 

The thread topic switched to separatism when the Trudeau campaign came to this ^^^

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

You really need to do a little reading before you advance such uninformed pronouncements.

First -- Opting out is a long standing principle and it is available to all provinces.

...All provinces have the right to opt out of measures in shared or provincial jurisdiction. This is a fundamental tenant of Canada's structure.

 

Maybe you need to expand your reading list too.

However, the Meech Lake Accord, drafted in 1987 after Quebec requested constitutional restrictions on the federal spending power, would have guaranteed the right of any province to opt out, with financial compensation, from any new shared-cost program in a field of provincial jurisdiction, provided it carried on a program compatible with federal objectives.

http://ualawccsprod.srv.ualberta.ca/ccs/index.php/i-o/528-opting-out

Nope, no province, including Quebec, has the right to opt out with financial compensation because the accord failed.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

  The right to opt out is written into the Pension Plan scheme of 1966. 

Yes, and I am against it. For Canada to fully be one country a Canadian should be able to travel the country with one medicare care and one government pension plan. Cross Canada programs federally funded is a form of equalization as poorer provinces are able to deliver the same social supports as the wealthier ones. It binds us together as a country.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

When it comes to anything to do with culture or education ALL provinces have long had the right to financial compensation when they opt out. Under Meech Lake and Charlottetown there was agreement to extend this to all other matters and while these were not ratified the government has functioned with this principle ever since.

Exactly, they were not ratified, it is not a right. That means each elected government has the right to set standards.

Continuing on medicare:

The Harper government has notified the National Health Council that it won’t be renewing the organization’s funding once the 10-year health accord Paul Martin struck with the provinces in 2004 runs out. The critics are raving. Saskatchewan’s former deputy health minister is displeased; Michael McBane of the Canadian Health Coalition calls the decision to wind down the National Health Council “a decision to wind down national medicare.”....

Certainly, the Health Council was hotly disputed in its day. It was a central recommendation of former Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow’s report to the Chrétien government on health-care reform. When the report came out, the three parties in Quebec’s National Assembly voted to reject its recommendations. The Bloc Québécois introduced a supply motion calling for unconditional transfers to the provinces; the Canadian Alliance, led by Stephen Harper, supported it....

A footnote: The NDP’s Libby Davies asked two questions about the National Health Council’s probable demise today in Question Period. She was standing next to Thomas Mulcair, who voted in 2002 with his Quebec National Assembly Colleagues against the notion of a health council. That’ll be fun for the NDP to explain, or it would if this story got bigger, as I frankly suspect it won’t.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-national-health-council-pilla...

The NDP's funding proposal for medicare is "no strings attached". 

When mulcair announced his daycare plan he included the pledge that Quebec could opt out with compensation. He didn't say Manitoba or any other province could, only Quebec.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

To somehow suggest that this opt out mechanism is only available to Quebec is ignorance of the highest order as it is the most basic of provisions relating to how the provinces and the federal government function. This is the very mechanism that allows the Federal government to create programs it will administer without needing the permission of the provinces. 

You are mistaken. It isn't automatically available to any province.

Well, Philippe Couillard said something a little bit more substantial than that. He had a series of things, looking at what he would call traditional demands, or requests. Those would include the ability to opt out of federal spending in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Go to the Sherbrooke Declaration: You don’t need constitutional change to have that sort of arrangement between Quebec and the federal government, so the things he’s set down could easily be answered. If you look at the Sherbrooke Declaration, it’s there—most of it.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-interview-thomas-mulcairs-pla...

It is not an existing right or Couillard wouldn't be asking for it and it is part of the Sherbooke Declaration so I would say it is specific to the NDP. It's totally valid for the NDP or any individual to take this political position but it is also valid to be critical of it.

If opting out is an existing right why would the Sherbrooke Declaration specify it?

http://www.pierreducasse.ca/IMG/pdf/Declaration_Sherbrooke_ENG_V2.pdf

"This asymmetry vis -a-vis Quebec can be applied in real terms through opting out with compensation. The right to opt out applies where the federal government, on its own or with the agreement of the provinces, intervenes in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. (in particular health and social services, education, family policy, housing, municipal infrastructure, etc.) In such case, no conditions or standards should be applied to Quebec without its consent,  obtained after consultation and negotiation."

Federal standards for medicare would not apply to Quebec if the NDP had it's way.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

So Quebec should have TWO daycare systems? Or we should blow money transforming the Quebec daycare system into different Federal system for no apparent reason? If a province has already implemented a system before the Feds have, it's pretty reasonable to let them opt out.

It is not necessary to create a separate system in order to hold Quebec to the same requirements as other provinces will be held to.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

It seems unnecessarily hostile to go to a province that has had a functional system for 20 years and tell them how to change it, let alone make them spend all kinds of money to furnish new requirements. What's the point? To make some kind of political statement?

This is why Liberals keep losing. There's a difference between being a federalist and being belligerent.

Then offer the same deal to the other provinces. There is no reason they can't do now what Quebec did then.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

You mean all the other provinces with a childcare system? OK. LET'S COUNT THEM.

They can still create systems without the NDP holding their hands. Ontario and Manitoba both have early childhood programs of some sort. If Quebec has already met all the requirements there is no need for them to "opt out".  If there are requirements the other provinces must meet that Quebec has not met there is no reason for Quebec to be exempted.

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

...there is no reason for Quebec to be exempted.

There are obvious ECONOMIC reasons that a province that already has a program should be exempted from having to completely redesign it. I shouldn't even have to tell you.. But even when I explained it to you, now your argument is to plug your ears and refuse to listen. 

I took your bait. I let you distract from the topic of the thread. If you want to continue this, start a new thread. You're done here.

Why would they have to completely redesign it? Mulcair said that design will be entirely up to the provinces. They can subsidize for-profit daycares and have a sliding scale for fees. That is why I am asking why Quebec has to be exempted.

You claim they would have redesign their system to comply with Mulcair's offer to the other provinces but you have no explanation as to why. That they already have a daycare system is an excuse not a reason.

One difference is Quebec's sliding scale rises to 20$ a day for families with an income over 150,000. The Liberal program isn't out yet so I can't say their plan will be any better but the NDP plan is very flawed. As a Quebec parent, when my daughter was young, I would have wanted the same benefits as any other Canadian Mom. I don't see why living in Quebec should reduce my rights as a Canadian regardless of our distinct society or need to protect the language or culture. I believe those things are easily accomplished within federalism and that Quebec is stronger with the ROC than it would be alone.

If anyone is done here it's you.