Federal election thread -- August 4, 2015

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

God, Pondering. Watching you clinging to such paltry scraps of nonsense to justify your ridiculous support for the Liberal party is cringe-inducing. Your Justin-worship was never defensible, and it just keeps getting more and more indefensible all the time. If you don't stop bending over backwards to excuse everything they do, I'm afraid your spine is gonna snap.

Pondering wrote:

If anyone is ahead it is the NDP but having watched the leaders for so long, despite Trudeau's stance on C 51 and a few other missteps I think he is going to connect very well with Canadians.

It is so very Liberal of you to characterise voting in favour of turning the country into a police state as a "misstep". Sure, he stripped away your rights and freedoms. That might have been a "gaffe". A "stumble". But no worries! He's still gonna "connect"! It's all about personality. Nobody cares about their privacy and due process. You are a sad spectacle.

Quote:

All they will need is the platform to come flocking back. In my opinion people want to support Trudeau but they couldn't say why due to the lack of policy. That started turning people to the NDP. All Trudeau has to do is prove that he is ready and present a strong platform.

Yeah, two problems with that. First, he's not ready and never will be. So he won't be able to prove that he is.

And second, people already supported him. Yes you're right they wanted to be on team Justin, and they were for a long time, but they gradually found him wanting and drifted away. It was inevitable, since he actually isn't qualified to do this. He's already lost them once. It will take something much bigger than a platform to reverse that decision. Turning around to go back takes a lot more motivation than picking a direction in the first place. that's basic psychology. So we know that the decision to leave the Liberals and go to the NDP wasn't made quickly or easily, and won't likely be reversed easily either.

Quote:

This is the kind of thing the NDP does, and it is nasty. I don't think underhanded attacks like this will sway voters who are deciding between the Liberals and the NDP. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/01/ndp-liberals-violence-against-wo...

On Tuesday, the NDP released a statement titled “Liberals oppose plan to combat violence against women.” In turn, star Liberal candidate Michèle Audette accused the NDP of making political hay with the sensitive issue.

Incumbent NDP candidate Nicki Ashton called Trudeau’s remarks “disturbing” and an “attack on the NDP’s commitment to end violence against women.”

“The Liberals are opposing the NDP’s concrete plan to help the most vulnerable women in our country, so they don’t have to ask the largest corporation to pay their fair share,” she said.

“That’s wrong.”

Where do you think the NDP's accusation will fall on the baloney meter?

Well, it's 0% for me. There's nothing underhanded about this. It's barely even an attack. All they're doing is highlighting the difference between them and the Liberals. Y'know, exactly what a campaign is supposed to do.

The Liberals were saying the NDP didn't care about women's issues because they turned down the debate. The NDP said, "Here's the real concrete thing we're going to do for women, will the Liberals make the same commitment?", the Liberals talked around it but wouldn't commit, referring to the debate again, and the NDP essentially said "See! All talk no action". There's nothing underhanded about that at all. They are absolutley right to point out that the Liberals always congratulate themselves for talking about problems, but never come through with solutions. I also think the NDP should have done the women's debate, but a debate is still just a debate. It does not compare to dollars on the ground where they are needed. All you get with the Liberals is the talking.

Quote:

When Canadians get to know Mulcair and Trudeau better, I think they will choose Trudeau. 

Except Canadians already know Justin. They knew him before he became leader. He is very well-known. What you are going out of your way to avoid admitting is that they've liked him less as they've gotten to know him more. He voted to take away their rights, and you can't accept that this is a big problem for people and that it reflects poorly on his character, even though Justin's popularity plummetted right after that happened. It's patently obvious, yet all you do is deny, deny, deny. Sorry, Pondering. They chose Justin once already, and he let them down big time. There's no going back.

Yeah, she makes these endless predictions about how the Liberals are going to turn it around. Totally without any value. The most partisan person on this site predicts their team is going to win. Stop the presses.

Thanks.  It has already been a game changer.  I really think it will revive Trudeau and the Liberals in Ontario and urban centres.  It gives people skeptical of Trudeau a reason to board the wagon, reluctantly.  (But hey who knows, I'm wrong a lot.) :)

Now, I think the NDP promising balanced budgets is 100 percent dumb - it runs contrary to voters' perception of the NDP and, plus, nobody who cares about balanced federal budgets isn't a diehard Conservative anyway.  

But balanced budget promises from the NDP are nothing new, provincially or federally.  It is well-trodden territory.  I don't remember a tonne of screaming at Layton for it, nor at Alexa, nor at Hampton or Horwarth (until this last provincial election.)

What's different is that four days after the promise, which went over with not much of a reaction anywhere really, we got Statscan tellings us about a recession.  Bad analysis, bad timing, and some bad luck on the part of the NDP.  If they had waited, they could have avoided this trap.

The idea that the Liberals or NDP will obliterate the other and ride a wave to beating Harper is non-sensical, unrealistic, and the fantasy of partisans.

The thing that is missing in the media, and in most discussions online, is this - if the goal of non-Harperites is to truly get rid of Harper, well then *someone* has to win over some (big- and small-c) conservative voters somewhere at some point.

So I absolutely understand and sortakinda appreciate why the NDP are trying to appeal to Conservative voters and why, given the state of Conservatives, and the economy, and the Liberals, and the Liberal leader, and the significant NDP-Con vote swings that happen in rural Ontario and The West, that the NDP might be best-placed to appeal to conservative voters right now.  This was just the wrong way to go.

I certainly don't blame NDPers, however, for being unhappy about their party's budgetary positioning in this election - I can only wonder how mad some of their candidates must be! - although to be fair, I think that Mulcair's suprisingly good job at rationalizing it is the only thing keeping it from sinking the NDP fast.  But I think the economic debate will be the beginning of the end for NDP this election. Trudeau finally has something to say.  Mulcair will be on defensive with Harper.  Ouch.

nope haven't viewed it got a youtube link?

Good God, that elevator ad is horrible. And just when Trudeau seemed to have found his footing.

oh good grief.

A. When people hear politicians muse about cuts - especially left-leaning politicians who are not seen as hatchet men - its a positive because they imagine cuts to waste and upper level bureaucracy and stuff that is superfluous.

B. The NDP has already said what it wants to "cut" - it will cut out massive subsidies for the oil industry, cut the income splitting program, cut massive over-spending on government advertising, cut the senate...and that's just for starters!  

Stockholm wrote:

A. When people hear politicians muse about cuts - especially left-leaning politicians who are not seen as hatchet men - its a positive because they imagine cuts to waste and upper level bureaucracy and stuff that is superfluous.

B. The NDP has already said what it wants to "cut" - it will cut out massive subsidies for the oil industry, cut the income splitting program, cut massive over-spending on government advertising, cut the senate...and that's just for starters!  

He's promised to balance his first budget very emphatically as a top priority. I don't think he will be able to get rid of the senate that quickly.

But in embracing balanced budgets, Mulcair has also endorsed all the right-wing rhetoric and lies that come with it. On the campaign trail, Mulcair has said in response to Trudeau’s promise of infrastructure spending, “I am tired of watching governments put that debt on the backs of future generations.” Later, he said “Mr. Trudeau seems to have the same approach as Mr. Harper – they both want to live for today and let tomorrow take care of itself … There’s a reason why we want to be good public administrators with balanced budgets, because if we’re not, then we’re not going to be able to have the types of programs that we all believe in going into the future.”

After my jaw dropped, I rolled my eyes.

In choosing those exact words, Mr. Mulcair has revealed himself to be a neocon wolf in NDP clothing. But he has also revealed himself to be a provincialist politician, with zero knowledge of the role of a federal government, and even less knowledge of economics.

To be honest, I am quite tired of Jonny-cum-lately politicians making these grand and sweeping statements on economics, as if they actually understood what was going on. I am also quite tired of the ‘backs of future generations’ argument, when the reality is quite different.

How do we saddle these future generations of ours? When we spend on education, health care, electrical grids, internet and wifi systems, better roads, better bridges and dams, renewable energy and more, we are leaving them a better infrastructure and a stronger economy. This is not saddling them with anything, quite the contrary, we are ensuring a better future for them. The idea that they will be saddled with debt and will face higher taxes is the core of neocon thinking, a scare tactic aimed at whipping us into docility. If anything, a stronger economy will generate more revenues for the government and that will certainly alleviate the so-called burden of dent.

The problem for our future generations of course is not deficits, but rather a bad infrastructure. Is Mr. Mulcair willing to let our infrastructure crumble? Does he want his grandchildren to inherit a country whose infrastructure is so rotten that it will take 10 times the spending to even bring it back to what it was in the past? That indeed would be saddling them with an even bigger debt!

In a way, Mr. Mulcair wants to shed his party’s image as free-spenders. But instead of taking the position that we must invest in our future, he has chosen the cowardly hide behind the unimaginative coattails of Mr. Harper and the neocons.

http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2015/08/29/mulcair-is-wrong-on-the-d...

 

 

Exactly, the whole "raison d'etre" of the Liberal party has been to be a political home for upscale people who are kinda-sorta socially liberal but who want low corporate taxes and fiscally conservative pro-business government. That is what the Liberal Party has always stood for

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

If people who vote Liberal see cuts as an irredeemable negative, why would they still be voting Liberal? Obviously the Liberal voters don't mind cuts in theory (even if they might object to particular ones) or they would have stopped voting for the party before Martin became leader.

Not that the NDP are planning any service cuts, of course. I'm just pointing out that your charcterisation of Liberal voters doesn't match up with reality.

For the same reasons that 50 percent of so of voters think the NDP and Liberals are the same and should merge.  Most don't know the history.  Many that do don't care or see it as irrelevant.  It is about perception, not fact.  Why did all those NDPers write to Horwath asking her to disavow her really not particularly different than usual platform?  It's not about what really happens, it's about how you view yourself during the process - who you stand with and what you think you stand for.  The outcomes, past or present, are irrelevant to most voters.  They tune out even before casting their vote.

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Hah!  I love that you didn't link to the most recent post, which hurts your argument.  You are a complete sham.  

And you need to grow-up but we all have our crosses to bear. I googled "Mulcair deficit future" and that is what I got, I didn't read any other part of the blog. I don't support the block in a general sense. What I quoted pertained to what I wanted to say so I quoted it. Maybe it's just me but that seems like an entirely normal thing to do. 

Ciabatta2 wrote:

 "The New Democrat promises are messier, if you will, but the commitments add up to equal or better than the Liberal promises, at least over a 4 year timeline.Looking here, you can see the Liberal numbers get smaller near the end of the first mandate, and then bigger as we go into the future."

Yeah well someone has to pay for it so we will see how the platforms are costed and Mulcair made balancing the budget not only a commitment, he also condemned anyone who doesn't. If I take him at his word, then he will cut rather than run a deficit.  

Ciabatta2 wrote:

"The Liberals have also promised alternative financing of infrastructure, which means more P3s and user pay models, such as the 407 toll highway in Ontario. It’s hard to make the case that these are progressive policy choices." 

Maybe that is because it isn't a progressive policy choice so I am not sure why anyone would make the effort. 

Ciabatta2 wrote:

"While I stand by my belief that deficit spending is sometimes a good idea and better for long term growth, I also stand for more context in policy analysis than just ‘balanced budgets equal austerity’. That kind of analysis is as shallow and incorrect as ‘deficit spending will turn us into Greece’." 

No kidding, but the reality is campaigns are fought on multiple levels of communication. There is the sound bite which can only be one sentence, preferably one phrase. Then there is the one paragraph pitch (per line item), beyond that there are the more extensive arguments that few people get involved in or pay any attention to. 

You can rail at the injustice of it all or disparage people who are not into politics but the bottom line is that it is the responsibility of those want support to find a way to get it, not the responsibility of people to be convinced. 

 

Quote:

That kind of analysis is as shallow and incorrect as ‘deficit spending will turn us into Greece’."

Well, if deficit spending is going to turn us into Greece, and an "austerity budget" is going to turn us into Greece then I guess my only question is "does anyone have a good Baklava recipe?"

Aristotleded24 wrote:

In response to Mulcair’s plan to ensure no woman in need is ever turned away from a shelter, Justin Trudeau’s deputy leader Ralph Goodale criticized the $40M commitment by saying “he simply cannot keep those promises.”

Yes, you missed it, that falls under the promised infrastructure spending on social housing and shelters and it will be paid for through deficit spending. 

Pondering wrote:

I should think most people are fine with cuts in general, that is, not ideologically against them. We are speaking of more cuts after 2 decades of cuts, and whether or not it is sound under current economic conditions. 

It isn't sound at all, which is why the NDP isn't going to do it.

But what about the 2 decades of cuts that did actually happen (rather than what you imagine the NDP would do in your little dreamquests)? Y'know the ones that the Cons and Libs made together and patted each other on the back for? Were they sound? Were they prudent? If not, why should we reward either of those parties with another crack at government?

Our current economic conditions are in large part the result of the cuts that Martin, Chretien, and Harper made, and now you want to hand the keys back to them. Thank god most Canadians aren't as dumb as you are.

 

stupid double post grrrr

mark_alfred wrote:

I missed it too when I searched their historic investment document.  No mention of "shelter", "hostel", "safe", "women" .... the closest I could find is a vague reference to "social infrastructure", which focuses on "We will prioritize investment in affordable housing and seniors facilities, early learning and child care, and cultural or recreational infrastructure."  Nothing there on services for abused women, though.  Perhaps the Liberals will announce something.  But, if they were, you would have thought that Goodale or Trudeau would have mentioned it when asked, rather than simply deriding the NDP's commitment by saying "they cannot keep those promises." 

You have a point. While they don't need to list every item that falls under that category it is facile to refer to it as included wihout being more specific. However, the argument being presented is that it is an empty promise, not one the NDP can fulfil, so immaterial (also a weak argument).

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

In response to Mulcair’s plan to ensure no woman in need is ever turned away from a shelter, Justin Trudeau’s deputy leader Ralph Goodale criticized the $40M commitment by saying “he simply cannot keep those promises.”

Yes, you missed it, that falls under the promised infrastructure spending on social housing and shelters and it will be paid for through deficit spending. 

I missed it too when I searched their historic investment document.  No mention of "shelter", "hostel", "safe", "women" .... the closest I could find is a vague reference to "social infrastructure", which focuses on "We will prioritize investment in affordable housing and seniors facilities, early learning and child care, and cultural or recreational infrastructure."  Nothing there on services for abused women, though.  Perhaps the Liberals will announce something.  But, if they were, you would have thought that Goodale or Trudeau would have mentioned it when asked, rather than simply deriding the NDP's commitment by saying "they cannot keep those promises."

Even a simple "violence against women is an important issue and we are working with experts to formulate a better plan that we will reveal later on in the campaign (or words to that effect)" would have sufficed. Some of it is party spin on the part of the NDP, but it's amazing that the Liberals allowed themselves to be framed as not caring about violence against women. Who is in charge here?

I actually think the ongoing attack of Trudeau against the NDP's proposals will be beneficial to the NDP.  I mean, Trudeau voices this attack about the NDP having too many promises everywhere (the elevator ad, their recently released infrastructure proposal, each interview he gives).  It all serves to create huge curiousity in the NDP's upcoming platform.  Think about that!  When has the public ever cared about an NDP platform?  But now, largely thanks to Trudeau himself, everyone wants to see it.  The media are drooling to see it, along with the politicos and a lot of the public.  So, the NDP can now build it up, releasing policy announcements each day, while promising to release the platform just before the economic debate.  It makes the NDP the main focus, putting Trudeau and his deficit gambit as background noise.  Then, if Mulcair excels in the economic debate (and he's now the underdog, so it will be easier) the NDP goes on to win (I hope).

I read that Erin Selby has announced she is running for the NDP nomination in St Boniface.
She has twice won a provincial seat that had previously been solid Conservative. Although the party has done badly in the federal seat of St Boniface it has dominated the area provincially. Someone on Babble or elsewhere recently said he had been polled using Selby' s name so I assume there are promising numbers andshe is not simply on a suicide mission.
Can some of our Manitoba correspondents opine on her chances? I know she rebelled against Sellinger and I wonder if that inoculates her against his unpopularity.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Even a simple "violence against women is an important issue and we are working with experts to formulate a better plan that we will reveal later on in the campaign (or words to that effect)" would have sufficed. Some of it is party spin on the part of the NDP, but it's amazing that the Liberals allowed themselves to be framed as not caring about violence against women. Who is in charge here?

Accepting the women's issues debate and promoting an inquiry into missing and murdered women illustrates that. 

Thomson was asked if some stuff had to go, and he confirmed it's inevitable that government will have priorities.  The NDP have already identified that the Conservative Income splitting program will have to go.  Anyway, I had no problem with Thomson's answer.  The NDP, in my opinion, are a more reliable choice for delivering services to us than are the Liberals or Conservatives.

I dunno.  The NDP are the only party that is seriously talking about raising government revenues via higher corporate taxes and other tax reform.  The other two aren't.  Also the NDP are the only party seriously entertaining reducing subsidies to big oil.  So, I actualy have further questions about what Trudeau plans to cut to balance the 2019 budget.  His so-called stimulus is a piss-in-the-lake compared to the the Economic Action Plan of 2009, so an argument that it will stimulate the economy and lead to massive new government revenues seems unlikely to me.  Further, he'll be having to dig out of the deeper hole he's made for himself.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see the costing of all the parties' promises, assuming each party actually releases costing of their promises.  And regardless of costing, the services that the NDP are promising seem more complete than what the other two are promising.

josh wrote:

Unions divided on strategic voting.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/ofl-urges-blanket-labour-support...

In a response to some C.U.P.W. friends of mine who live in Orleans, outside of Ottawa, who wondered about voting Liberal this time to possibly defeat the Conservative since 2006, Galipeau, I said 'what good does it to vote Liberal if the Liberal who might win is on the right-wing of the Liberal Party (retired Gen. Andrew Leslie) and would no doubt (in my mind) vote to keep the Conservatives in power in a minority situation just like the Liberals did between 2008 and 2011?' 

There would be no difference in my opinion, so I encouraged them to continue to vote NDP.

Had the Liberal candidate been more on the left-wing side of the party, I might have given a different response.

 

NorthReport wrote:

If a right-wing politician shows up campaigning at your door you might want to consider hiding your coffee mugs or any other container that holds liquids. That's the only conclusion one can draw based on a CBC story tonite And this creep wants to be an MP. WTF!

And there's another Conservative:

https://rjjago.wordpress.com/2015/09/04/conservative-candidate-tim-dutau...

Wankergate? Lesson: don't shake hands with Conservative candidates, you don't know where they've been!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIaDP0a-ygY

Thomas Mulcair courts union vote at Labour Day parade

NDP leader says Canada’s labour movement and his party have always been natural allies with common goals.

http://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/09/07/jerry-bance-no-l...