Federal election thread -- August 4, 2015

722 posts / 0 new
Last post
Ciabatta2

I don't think it changes the Liberal narrative.  They can harp about how it is a false surplus, jerry-rigged by the Conservatives for en election, and the investments are still needed after all these years, blah blah blah etc.  (I think had the budget been in deficit it would have been harder for the Liberals, as they'd have to increase their borrowing.)  This way they can promise more stuff.

It sorta helps the NDP, but only if they take the same tack re: phoney surplus.  If the NDP tried to legitimize the suprlus then they have to take side with Harper and go at cross-purposes to their Conservative mismanagement messaging.  You can't label Harper as mismanager when in deficit but ok when in surplus.  It's bboth or none.

Brachina

Stockholm wrote:

The news of the surplus is also paradoxically god news for the NDP and bad news for the Liberals. When the headline is that Canada was already in surplus last year - Trudeau's ironclad promise to run deficits every year until 2019 sudden;y looks foolish...on the other hand if Canada is projected to have surpluses for the next few years, it makes it easier for the NDP to make the case for keeping the budget balanced and also pay for their promises.

 Agreed. This gives the NDP more fiscal room. It helps the Tories abit, but that doesn't mean as a much when the ballot box question appears to be who is better suited to replace Harper, that's been the one consistant thing throughout this election campaign.

Aristotleded24

Ciabatta2 wrote:
I don't think it changes the Liberal narrative.  They can harp about how it is a false surplus, jerry-rigged by the Conservatives for en election, and the investments are still needed after all these years, blah blah blah etc.  (I think had the budget been in deficit it would have been harder for the Liberals, as they'd have to increase their borrowing.)  This way they can promise more stuff.

The trifecta of Baird, Clement, and the late Flaherty played a main role in the Mike Harris Cabinet in making it look like the government had a surplus at the end when upon the government's defeat it was revealed to be a huge deficit. That trifecta also played a key role in the Harper government, and are likely on the same path, and I've suspected for some time that any Conservative surplus would be shown to have been phony after the government's defeat. The only federal politician I've ever heard call out the government on this is Nova Scotia Liberal MP Scott Brison.

Ciabatta2

Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at.

It seems Mulcair's view is that the surplus is legit:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/surprise-federal-surplus-bo...

And Trudeau's view is that the surplus was made on the backs of Canadians.

http://www.norfolknews.ca/news-story/5840993-quest-for-surplus-hurts-too...

I think Harper just dangled a stinky fish and Mulcair just bit at it. It is a trap.  But we'll see how voters react.

terrytowel

especially with the cuts they made at Immigration, which now have 10s of thousands of Refugees just hanging in limbo, waiting for their application to be approved.

mark_alfred

I feel many voters perceived Trudeau's announcement of deficit funded stimulus spending as a necessary evil to counteract a moribund economy (IE, people applied a similar rationale to the 2008 situation -- though really that's an inaccurate comparison to draw, I suspect).  That there's a small surplus puts an additional hurdle in front of Trudeau to justify his position, I feel.

For the NDP, it makes it harder to claim that Harper is not a good fiscal manager and that change is needed.  The claim can still be made, and the case for different priorities backed by a more interventionist government can also be made, I feel. 

I suspect most people anticipated that there would be a small surplus, given the parliamentary budget officer had predicted a small deficit of $1.5B (which is so small that it's not too difficult to turn this into a small surplus -- gov'ts often under-estimate performance to then be able to claim, Surprise! A surplus! Aren't we fabulous!)

Brachina

 Most people have already sat in judgement on Harper, there is only a small  minority left that have not made they're judgement on Harper and his economic management, and of those this news will move few. For those who don't like deficits its a day late and a dollar short, for others  they're more interested in jobs, so this went help Harper there.

 I suspect like Mark suggested that the biggest impact with be between the Liberals and NDP, the Tories mighy get a small short term boost, but long term it will benifit the NDP. It undermines as well all those who suggest the NDP's promise to balanced the budget without cuts to social spending is impossible. 

bekayne
bekayne

Embedded image

bekayne
josh

A surplus goes a long way to explain the underperforming economy. It's the opposite of a fiscal stimulus.

jjuares

josh wrote:

A surplus goes a long way to explain the underperforming economy. It's the opposite of a fiscal stimulus.


Probably not. The decline in oil prices explains a lot more.

quizzical

a phoney surplus pulled from all the dept's who've not spent it all?

chimurenga chimurenga's picture

The Liberals can't win Quebec, and they can't win enough seats in the rest of Canada for a realistic shot at winning the election. In fact, it's more likely that a strong showing by the Liberals will push the Conservatives to victory by eating into NDP gains. The NDP has support and potential across the country. So, if you want Anybody But the Conservatives, you're best bet is still to vote NDP.

 

As for surpluses... quizzical is right, a big part of this "surplus" is actually unspent money owed for programmes. In that respect, this "surplus" also acts like a programme cut. 

Pondering

chimurenga wrote:

The Liberals can't win Quebec, and they can't win enough seats in the rest of Canada for a realistic shot at winning the election. In fact, it's more likely that a strong showing by the Liberals will push the Conservatives to victory by eating into NDP gains. The NDP has support and potential across the country. So, if you want Anybody But the Conservatives, you're best bet is still to vote NDP.

 

As for surpluses... quizzical is right, a big part of this "surplus" is actually unspent money owed for programmes. In that respect, this "surplus" also acts like a programme cut. 

You're wrong about that. The Liberals have led in the polls in Quebec since Trudeau became leader. He lost it but it shows that he can win there. Quebec voters flipping so radically to the NDP in 2011 was not foreseen. If Quebecers see that Trudeau is in the lead to depose Harper they will go Liberal. 

Aristotleded24

Pondering wrote:
chimurenga wrote:

The Liberals can't win Quebec, and they can't win enough seats in the rest of Canada for a realistic shot at winning the election. In fact, it's more likely that a strong showing by the Liberals will push the Conservatives to victory by eating into NDP gains. The NDP has support and potential across the country. So, if you want Anybody But the Conservatives, you're best bet is still to vote NDP.

 

As for surpluses... quizzical is right, a big part of this "surplus" is actually unspent money owed for programmes. In that respect, this "surplus" also acts like a programme cut. 

You're wrong about that. The Liberals have led in the polls in Quebec since Trudeau became leader. He lost it but it shows that he can win there. Quebec voters flipping so radically to the NDP in 2011 was not foreseen. If Quebecers see that Trudeau is in the lead to depose Harper they will go Liberal.

Actually, even when the Liberals were leading nationally, the best they could do in Quebec was to be essentially tied with the NDP. This from the province that knows both main opposition leaders better than the rest of the country. What does that tell you?

Pondering

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
chimurenga wrote:

The Liberals can't win Quebec, and they can't win enough seats in the rest of Canada for a realistic shot at winning the election. In fact, it's more likely that a strong showing by the Liberals will push the Conservatives to victory by eating into NDP gains. The NDP has support and potential across the country. So, if you want Anybody But the Conservatives, you're best bet is still to vote NDP.

 

As for surpluses... quizzical is right, a big part of this "surplus" is actually unspent money owed for programmes. In that respect, this "surplus" also acts like a programme cut. 

You're wrong about that. The Liberals have led in the polls in Quebec since Trudeau became leader. He lost it but it shows that he can win there. Quebec voters flipping so radically to the NDP in 2011 was not foreseen. If Quebecers see that Trudeau is in the lead to depose Harper they will go Liberal.

Actually, even when the Liberals were leading nationally, the best they could do in Quebec was to be essentially tied with the NDP. This from the province that knows both main opposition leaders better than the rest of the country. What does that tell you?

It tells me that Trudeau will never get the separatist vote but that he can win enough seats in Quebec to win nationally.

chimurenga chimurenga's picture

Pondering wrote:

chimurenga wrote:

The Liberals can't win Quebec, and they can't win enough seats in the rest of Canada for a realistic shot at winning the election. In fact, it's more likely that a strong showing by the Liberals will push the Conservatives to victory by eating into NDP gains. The NDP has support and potential across the country. So, if you want Anybody But the Conservatives, you're best bet is still to vote NDP.

 

As for surpluses... quizzical is right, a big part of this "surplus" is actually unspent money owed for programmes. In that respect, this "surplus" also acts like a programme cut. 

You're wrong about that. The Liberals have led in the polls in Quebec since Trudeau became leader. He lost it but it shows that he can win there. Quebec voters flipping so radically to the NDP in 2011 was not foreseen. If Quebecers see that Trudeau is in the lead to depose Harper they will go Liberal. 

Pondering, Trudeau was leading in Quebec over a year ago, not recently, and he has not in the least shown that he can win here (where is this shown? what electoral victories has he had in Quebec? you mean his own riding?) -  current polls prove that. Have you looked at the Liberals' support among francophones? Very low. The NDP is so far ahead of the Liberals in this province, they have the advantage of incumbency, and their MPs are well-liked. If the Liberals hang on to their existing seats it will be a job well done. 

chimurenga chimurenga's picture

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:
chimurenga wrote:

The Liberals can't win Quebec, and they can't win enough seats in the rest of Canada for a realistic shot at winning the election. In fact, it's more likely that a strong showing by the Liberals will push the Conservatives to victory by eating into NDP gains. The NDP has support and potential across the country. So, if you want Anybody But the Conservatives, you're best bet is still to vote NDP.

 

As for surpluses... quizzical is right, a big part of this "surplus" is actually unspent money owed for programmes. In that respect, this "surplus" also acts like a programme cut. 

You're wrong about that. The Liberals have led in the polls in Quebec since Trudeau became leader. He lost it but it shows that he can win there. Quebec voters flipping so radically to the NDP in 2011 was not foreseen. If Quebecers see that Trudeau is in the lead to depose Harper they will go Liberal.

Actually, even when the Liberals were leading nationally, the best they could do in Quebec was to be essentially tied with the NDP. This from the province that knows both main opposition leaders better than the rest of the country. What does that tell you?

It tells me that Trudeau will never get the separatist vote but that he can win enough seats in Quebec to win nationally.

The Liberal vote is highly concentrated in Qc, even with a substantial increase in their support they could only win about five more seats than they already have, giving them 14 or 15 - that's not going to give them a federal victory.

Aristotleded24

chimurenga wrote:
Pondering wrote:

chimurenga wrote:

The Liberals can't win Quebec, and they can't win enough seats in the rest of Canada for a realistic shot at winning the election. In fact, it's more likely that a strong showing by the Liberals will push the Conservatives to victory by eating into NDP gains. The NDP has support and potential across the country. So, if you want Anybody But the Conservatives, you're best bet is still to vote NDP.

 

As for surpluses... quizzical is right, a big part of this "surplus" is actually unspent money owed for programmes. In that respect, this "surplus" also acts like a programme cut. 

You're wrong about that. The Liberals have led in the polls in Quebec since Trudeau became leader. He lost it but it shows that he can win there. Quebec voters flipping so radically to the NDP in 2011 was not foreseen. If Quebecers see that Trudeau is in the lead to depose Harper they will go Liberal. 

Pondering, Trudeau was leading in Quebec over a year ago, not recently, and he has not in the least shown that he can win here (where is this shown? what electoral victories has he had in Quebec? you mean his own riding?) -  current polls prove that. Have you looked at the Liberals' support among francophones? Very low. The NDP is so far ahead of the Liberals in this province, they have the advantage of incumbency, and their MPs are well-liked. If the Liberals hang on to their existing seats it will be a job well done.

In addition, the Liberals are at a structural disadvantage because much of their vote is piled up in Montreal and the Ottawa Valley and not very efficient overall. Even winning the popular vote the Liberals can still fail to come first in the seat count. Ask Jean Charest about that.

terrytowel

chimurenga wrote:

The Liberals can't win Quebec, and they can't win enough seats in the rest of Canada for a realistic shot at winning the election. In fact, it's more likely that a strong showing by the Liberals will push the Conservatives to victory by eating into NDP gains. The NDP has support and potential across the country. So, if you want Anybody But the Conservatives, you're best bet is still to vote NDP.

 

As for surpluses... quizzical is right, a big part of this "surplus" is actually unspent money owed for programmes. In that respect, this "surplus" also acts like a programme cut. 

I take it you haven't seen the latest polls from Ipsos-Reid on Quebec. They are narrowing the gap In Quebec, NDP (38%) margin over the Liberals (26%). But still the NDP has a double digit lead over the Liberals.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6987

sherpa-finn

Not so sure about any Liberal votes piled up here in the Outaoau - Outoau -  on the Qc side of the Ottawa Valley. If I was a betting man, I would put money on all the seats from Lachute to James Bay going orange.  

terrytowel

Just an FYI former mayors Hazel McCallion and Barbara Hall have joined Team Trudeau, and have been campaiging for the Liberals in battleground ridings in the GTA and Mississauga. Maybe that explains the spike in support for the Liberaks in Ontario.

chimurenga chimurenga's picture

terrytowel wrote:

chimurenga wrote:

The Liberals can't win Quebec, and they can't win enough seats in the rest of Canada for a realistic shot at winning the election. In fact, it's more likely that a strong showing by the Liberals will push the Conservatives to victory by eating into NDP gains. The NDP has support and potential across the country. So, if you want Anybody But the Conservatives, you're best bet is still to vote NDP.

 

As for surpluses... quizzical is right, a big part of this "surplus" is actually unspent money owed for programmes. In that respect, this "surplus" also acts like a programme cut. 

I take it you haven't seen the latest polls from Ipsos-Reid on Quebec. They are narrowing the gap In Quebec, NDP (38%) margin over the Liberals (26%). But still the NDP has a double digit lead over the Liberals.

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=6987

 

I have. And as you say, "but still the NDP has a double digit lead over the Liberals".

Stockholm

I can't remember who Barbara hall is or was. Someone remind me...or was she that colorless unpopular candidate for mayor in 2003 who got a whopping 9% of the vote coming in a distant third behind David miller and John Tory?

terrytowel

chimurenga wrote:

I have. And as you say, "but still the NDP has a double digit lead over the Liberals".

That is right, and not just any double dgit lead but a whopping 12 points ahead of the Liberals. Same poll has the Cons with rock bottom support of 18%

Stockholm wrote:
I can't remember who Barbara hall is or was. Someone remind me...or was she that colorless unpopular candidate for mayor in 2003 who got a whopping 9% of the vote coming in a distant third behind David miller and John Tory?

I'm surprised as the next person that she is stumping for the Liberals. Wasn't she a NDPer in her previous life? Maybe she turned to the Liberals after many NDP stalwarts decided to back David Miller in that mayor's race.

KarlL

Stockholm wrote:
I can't remember who Barbara hall is or was. Someone remind me...or was she that colorless unpopular candidate for mayor in 2003 who got a whopping 9% of the vote coming in a distant third behind David miller and John Tory?

I'm surprised as the next person that she is stumping for the Liberals. Wasn't she a NDPer in her previous life? Maybe she turned to the Liberals after many NDP stalwarts decided to back David Miller in that mayor's race.

I'd have to agree that Barbara Hall will have a whole lot less influence in this election (as in none) than Emmett Hall did in his 1988 intervention on medicare.  Hazel McCallion, perhaps a bit in Mississauga.

KarlL

KarlL wrote:

Stockholm wrote:
I can't remember who Barbara hall is or was. Someone remind me...or was she that colorless unpopular candidate for mayor in 2003 who got a whopping 9% of the vote coming in a distant third behind David miller and John Tory?

I'm surprised as the next person that she is stumping for the Liberals. Wasn't she a NDPer in her previous life? Maybe she turned to the Liberals after many NDP stalwarts decided to back David Miller in that mayor's race.

I'd have to agree that Barbara Hall will have a whole lot less influence in this election (as in none) than Emmett Hall did in his 1988 intervention on medicare.  Hazel McCallion, perhaps a tiny bit in Mississauga.