Federal election thread -- August 4, 2015

722 posts / 0 new
Last post
David Young

alan smithee wrote:

I have to agree with Pondering (OMG!)

The new NDP ad using children is much too easy to attack and may not come across positively to the public.

It's a bad ad.

I disagree!

I think the ad communicates perfectly the childish situation that the Conservatives got themselves into, and is far more effective at showing it than any Conservative attack ad they've tried on the NDP.

 

terrytowel

Meanwhile Justin Trudeau will be appearing on Entertainment Tonight Canada to pitch himself to voters

Tom Mulcair should demand equal time on Entertainment Tonight Canada

 

Brachina

 More evidence that the job Justin really wants is Ben Mulroney's.

 

 Anyways Justin has bigger worries, he has the worst advertizing in the campaign. He's ads keep reminding people of Harper's attack ads, he's just not ready, even his attempt to refute that it triggers memories of the original attack ad, which basically means he's spending possibly millions of dollars reinforcing Harper's attacks, which in turn do more to help the NDP then the CPC, so its like they're both spending money on the NDPs campaign.

terrytowel

Brachina wrote:

 More evidence that the job Justin really wants is Ben Mulroney's.

What is wrong with being on Entertainment Tonight?

Pondering

David Young wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

I have to agree with Pondering (OMG!)

The new NDP ad using children is much too easy to attack and may not come across positively to the public.

It's a bad ad.

I disagree!

I think the ad communicates perfectly the childish situation that the Conservatives got themselves into, and is far more effective at showing it than any Conservative attack ad they've tried on the NDP.

There is nothing childish about the manner in which the PMO and the Senate Conservatives conspired.

Brachina

 Trudeau needs to project seriousness right now, and reinforces the idea he's a celebrity, not a leader. Mulcair could get away with it, he's proven his depth, Trudeau's is still in Question.

quizzical

Brachina wrote:
 More evidence that the job Justin really wants is Ben Mulroney's

 

this too ff!!!! made my day

terrytowel

Brachina wrote:

 Trudeau needs to project seriousness right now, and reinforces the idea he's a celebrity, not a leader. Mulcair could get away with it, he's proven his depth, Trudeau's is still in Question.

So it would be okay for Mulcair to be on Entertainment Tonight, but not Trudeau?

quizzical

no... imv ET is like reading the National Enquirer.

terrytowel

quizzical wrote:

no... imv ET is like reading the National Enquirer.

Some in the media have argued that The National Enquirer deserved Pulitzer Prize consideration for its investigative work into politician John Edwards' affair with Rielle Hunter.

7 stories The National Enquirer actually got right

http://theweek.com/articles/563890/7-stories-national-enquirer-actually-...

quizzical

i don't give a shit about some politicians extra marital affair. i had to bing who he was. and what media? tabloid "journalists". journalists these days aren't even credible in their own right.

 wow 7 stories out of millions ffs

terrytowel

quizzical wrote:

i don't give a shit about some politicians extra marital affair. i had to bing who he was. and what media? tabloid "journalists". journalists these days aren't even credible in their own right.

 wow 7 stories out of millions ffs

Not for nothing but they did bust Rush Limbaugh and his abusing drugs

David Young

I am just old enough to remember Richard Nixon's resignation after the Watergate scandal in 1975/76.  I can remember many journalists saying that the issue wasn't the Watergate Hotel break-in itself, but the cover-up that did Nixon in.

Am I alone in thinking that the longer the Mike Duffy trial goes on, it's going to be a similar situation?

 

quizzical

whose Rush Limbaugh? and why do people care if he was abusing drugs?

Brachina

 Stalking a politicians personal romantic life in the hopes of trolling up a scandal isn't worth of awards, only disgust and sadness at the unprofessionalism. I can see maybe if they're guilty of hypocracy, such as an homophobia advocate, whose actually gay, but even then it gives me the willies. 

Unionist

quizzical wrote:

whose Rush Limbaugh? and why do people care if he was abusing drugs?

This is he.

As for why people care... good question.

 

quizzical

he's some  US media goof i see, thanks unionist. i appreciate  but was waiting for tt, i just couldn't be bothered looking him up  after the Edwards dude.

but this is wtf? "Columbus saved the Indians from themselves"? he must be Republican. our Harper loving evangelical Mayor here tried to say something like it to me. it didn't go over well.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Maude Barlow ‏@MaudeBarlow 3h3 hours agoTrudeau says no 'formal coalition' with NDP if no party forms a majority | http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/election/trudeau-says-no-formal-co... ... Shame on him! 

This could be very significant! Could it be a signall to "progressives" to vote NDP? Maybe! Wow!

quizzical

why are there police investigations into ON  government?

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Maude Barlow ‏@MaudeBarlow 3h3 hours agoTrudeau says no 'formal coalition' with NDP if no party forms a majority | http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/election/trudeau-says-no-formal-co... ... Shame on him! 

This could be very significant! Could it be a signall to "progressives" to vote NDP? Maybe! Wow!

That isn't all he said:

"The Liberal party is, of course, as it always has been, open to working with other parties elected in the House of Commons to pass the right legislation to help Canadians."

Campaigning on his plan to ease the government burden on middle-class paycheques , Trudeau dismissed the idea of governing in partnership with Tom Mulcair, saying the New Democrat leader has no plans for the economy.

"I don't believe in backroom deals or arrangements amongst leaders," Trudeau said at a campaign stop in suburban Ajax, Ont.

"I believe that Canadians should have the full range of choices so that they can pick the team with the better plan."

scott16

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Maude Barlow ‏@MaudeBarlow 3h3 hours agoTrudeau says no 'formal coalition' with NDP if no party forms a majority | http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/election/trudeau-says-no-formal-co... ... Shame on him! 

This could be very significant! Could it be a signall to "progressives" to vote NDP? Maybe! Wow!

That isn't all he said:

"The Liberal party is, of course, as it always has been, open to working with other parties elected in the House of Commons to pass the right legislation to help Canadians."

Campaigning on his plan to ease the government burden on middle-class paycheques , Trudeau dismissed the idea of governing in partnership with Tom Mulcair, saying the New Democrat leader has no plans for the economy.

"I don't believe in backroom deals or arrangements amongst leaders," Trudeau said at a campaign stop in suburban Ajax, Ont.

"I believe that Canadians should have the full range of choices so that they can pick the team with the better plan."

Did he misunderstand the question? Or did he decide to answer a different question?

Rokossovsky

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Maude Barlow ‏@MaudeBarlow 3h3 hours agoTrudeau says no 'formal coalition' with NDP if no party forms a majority | http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/election/trudeau-says-no-formal-co... ... Shame on him! 

This could be very significant! Could it be a signall to "progressives" to vote NDP? Maybe! Wow!

That isn't all he said:

"The Liberal party is, of course, as it always has been, open to working with other parties elected in the House of Commons to pass the right legislation to help Canadians."

Campaigning on his plan to ease the government burden on middle-class paycheques , Trudeau dismissed the idea of governing in partnership with Tom Mulcair, saying the New Democrat leader has no plans for the economy.

"I don't believe in backroom deals or arrangements amongst leaders," Trudeau said at a campaign stop in suburban Ajax, Ont.

"I believe that Canadians should have the full range of choices so that they can pick the team with the better plan."

It is in fact what it means, however, since Trudeau must defeat CPC at the throne speech in order to allow Mulcair to govern in a minority situation, and the open endness of "always being open to working with 'other parties'", indicates that he cares not which party is in government, while the rest of the statement is quite hostile to the NDP, but not the CPC.

Quite telling, in fact.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Rokossovsky wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Maude Barlow ‏@MaudeBarlow 3h3 hours agoTrudeau says no 'formal coalition' with NDP if no party forms a majority | http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/election/trudeau-says-no-formal-co... ... Shame on him! 

This could be very significant! Could it be a signall to "progressives" to vote NDP? Maybe! Wow!

That isn't all he said:

"The Liberal party is, of course, as it always has been, open to working with other parties elected in the House of Commons to pass the right legislation to help Canadians."

Campaigning on his plan to ease the government burden on middle-class paycheques , Trudeau dismissed the idea of governing in partnership with Tom Mulcair, saying the New Democrat leader has no plans for the economy.

"I don't believe in backroom deals or arrangements amongst leaders," Trudeau said at a campaign stop in suburban Ajax, Ont.

"I believe that Canadians should have the full range of choices so that they can pick the team with the better plan."

It is in fact what it means, however, since Trudeau must defeat CPC at the throne speech in order to allow Mulcair to govern in a minority situation, and the open endness of "always being open to working with 'other parties'", indicates that he cares not which party is in government, while the rest of the statement is quite hostile to the NDP, but not the CPC.

Quite telling, in fact.

Nope, this clearly is not a good development for Trudeau. It is clear that Barlow is calling him out. And there is no doubt "progressives" are going to be listening very closely to her, versus the faux "progressives" (translated LPC shills) on this board who repeat ad infinitum, the same tired old memes, because, THEY HAVE NOTHING ELSE!

Pondering

Rokossovsky wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Maude Barlow ‏@MaudeBarlow 3h3 hours agoTrudeau says no 'formal coalition' with NDP if no party forms a majority | http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/election/trudeau-says-no-formal-co... ... Shame on him! 

This could be very significant! Could it be a signall to "progressives" to vote NDP? Maybe! Wow!

That isn't all he said:

"The Liberal party is, of course, as it always has been, open to working with other parties elected in the House of Commons to pass the right legislation to help Canadians."

Campaigning on his plan to ease the government burden on middle-class paycheques , Trudeau dismissed the idea of governing in partnership with Tom Mulcair, saying the New Democrat leader has no plans for the economy.

"I don't believe in backroom deals or arrangements amongst leaders," Trudeau said at a campaign stop in suburban Ajax, Ont.

"I believe that Canadians should have the full range of choices so that they can pick the team with the better plan."

It is in fact what it means, however, since Trudeau must defeat CPC at the throne speech in order to allow Mulcair to govern in a minority situation, and the open endness of "always being open to working with 'other parties'", indicates that he cares not which party is in government, while the rest of the statement is quite hostile to the NDP, but not the CPC.

Quite telling, in fact.

Yes, quite telling, only Mulcair has been pushing for a coalition. I recall Jack Layton saying he would work with any party. Trudeau will either be giving a throne speech or listening to one. That will be the appropriate time to decide what to do, including working with the NDP.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:
Nope, this clearly is not a good development for Trudeau. It is clear that Barlow is calling him out. And there is no doubt "progressives" are going to be listening very closely to her, versus the faux "progressives" (translated LPC shills) on this board who repeat ad infinitum, the same tired old memes, because, THEY HAVE NOTHING ELSE!

Not that many Canadians consider themselves "progressives". That is why the NDP has moved to the centre.

Post-debate Trudeau has moved up a bit and apparently the Conservatives fell to third. I think it's all within the margin of error so it will be interesting to see this week's poll numbers. It may have more to do with the Duffy trial than the debate. Red tories may have moved to the Liberals as a result of a combination of the two factors.

Trudeau is planning on winning the election. You may have written him off along with T&T but I think by mid-September he will be rising because he is ready and that will show. He is good at generating crowds and media attention. He has only just begun to roll out policy. The Conservatives will challenge the financial viability of his platform but he has very heavy hitters on his economics team from a broad range of disciplines. They have been working on a plan for two years.

I am tentatively predicting the Conservatives will drop to third place leaving the Liberals and NDP vying for first and second.

My prediction is based not just on the dropping numbers and the Duffy trial but also on Harper's debate performance. The fight seems to have gone out of him and all he has on offer is more of the same. His team such as it was has been decimated.

We are in for a very interesting fall.

Rokossovsky

Pondering wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Maude Barlow ‏@MaudeBarlow 3h3 hours agoTrudeau says no 'formal coalition' with NDP if no party forms a majority | http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/election/trudeau-says-no-formal-co... ... Shame on him! 

This could be very significant! Could it be a signall to "progressives" to vote NDP? Maybe! Wow!

That isn't all he said:

"The Liberal party is, of course, as it always has been, open to working with other parties elected in the House of Commons to pass the right legislation to help Canadians."

Campaigning on his plan to ease the government burden on middle-class paycheques , Trudeau dismissed the idea of governing in partnership with Tom Mulcair, saying the New Democrat leader has no plans for the economy.

"I don't believe in backroom deals or arrangements amongst leaders," Trudeau said at a campaign stop in suburban Ajax, Ont.

"I believe that Canadians should have the full range of choices so that they can pick the team with the better plan."

It is in fact what it means, however, since Trudeau must defeat CPC at the throne speech in order to allow Mulcair to govern in a minority situation, and the open endness of "always being open to working with 'other parties'", indicates that he cares not which party is in government, while the rest of the statement is quite hostile to the NDP, but not the CPC.

Quite telling, in fact.

Yes, quite telling, only Mulcair has been pushing for a coalition. I recall Jack Layton saying he would work with any party. Trudeau will either be giving a throne speech or listening to one. That will be the appropriate time to decide what to do, including working with the NDP.

What a bunch of twaddle. Jack Layton never put preconditions on "working with other parties", such as saying "no coalition" or "any of those options" or not with that particular party.

Trudeau has made it clear, he did not say after the election will be an "appropriate time to decide what to do". He has already decided that he will not be working in any kind of formal arrangement with the NDP. That leaves the Conservatives, as "other parties" if Harper chooses to attempt to win confidence again at the throne speech.

Even the CBC is clear on this point:

Quote:
Trudeau flatly ruled out a Liberal-NDP coalition to prevent Harper's Conservatives from forming another government if no party has a majority after the Oct. 19 vote.

"...no coalition to prevent Harper's Conservatives from forming another government..."

In fact, Trudeau has said that he endorses a Harper led government, over and NDP led government. End of story.

You insist that people should throw their vote at the Liberals, even though a solid Liberal vote is Stephen Harper's best shot at staying in power, given the present polling.

nvcrash

As I have posted on other threads, all the Libs need is a second place seat count to secure the PM.

The Libs need the blue Libs and the red Cons as they have the ABC strategy pulling in the red Libs and the blue NDP and as such they only need to secure their right flank, by not saying they would support the NDP

In second place the Cons or the NDP would back the Libs to keep the NDP or Cons out of power, respectively.

 

terrytowel

Meanwhile there was no nomination meeting for Andrew Thomson to run Eglinton-Lawrence. That according to the Ottawa Citizen "The party offered him the candidacy in Eglinton-Lawrence. There was no nomination race."

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/ndp-star-explains-why-he-thinks-h...

So does that mean he was parachuted into the riding or acclaimed. If he was acclaimed then don't they have to at least have a nomination meeting?

Brachina

 Sooo glad Tom Mulcair never promised open nominations, or this would be akward.

terrytowel

Brachina wrote:

 Sooo glad Tom Mulcair never promised open nominations, or this would be akward.

As long time NDP party stalwart, 93 year-old Joy Taylor, has said about this type of parachuting

"it has got to stop . . . we don’t do this in my party. We would be no better than a third world country because we cheat on elections. I want to put a stop to it,” she said.

Listen to Joy everyone!

Pondering

Rokossovsky wrote:

In fact, Trudeau has said that he endorses a Harper led government, over and NDP led government. End of story.

You insist that people should throw their vote at the Liberals, even though a solid Liberal vote is Stephen Harper's best shot at staying in power, given the present polling.

No he hasn't. The media and the NDP are trying to force Trudeau to say that unless Harper wins a majority Trudeau will team up with Mulcair to overthrow Harper. That would be electoral suicide which is exactly what the NDP wants. You are just pissed Trudeau won't cut his own throat.

People should vote for whichever party they want to support for whatever reasons they want to support it. Some will vote for the party they support, some will vote for the PM they want, still others will vote for the local candidate and some will vote ABC.

A coalition government results in multiple parties holding cabinet positions, a virtual PR system if not an actual one. Should I assume if the NDP wins a minority government they will be giving some cabinet positions to the Liberals seeing as the NDP believes this is the best system for Canada? The NDP could lead by example.

josh

Pondering wrote:

A coalition government results in multiple parties holding cabinet positions, a virtual PR system if not an actual one. Should I assume if the NDP wins a minority government they will be giving some cabinet positions to the Liberals seeing as the NDP believes this is the best system for Canada? The NDP could lead by example.

Well, the Liberals would have to be agreeable to it. It might not be in their best political interests to do so.

socialdemocrati...

I am about as confident that the Liberals would side with the NDP as I am that the Liberals would side against the NDP. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Either way, they legitimize a party they've been trying to demonize.

What I think is much more likely is a crisis among the Liberal MPs, with at least a few willing to make the jump to the NDP to stop Harper. If the NDP could recruit Diane Freeman, Carolynn Iannoni, John Fenik, and Margaret Andrade DURING election season, you'll probably see at least a few Liberal MPs defect if the Liberal Party is stubborn enough to let Harper become PM again.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Why would the Liberals risk certain death by propping up Harper if the NDP were the minority?

Politically it makes no sense and I don't believe for a second that the Liberals would betray the majority of Canadians who do not support Harper in any shape or form.

It's more likely that the Liberals would work with the NDP in return for some policies and cabinet positions.

The idea that the Liberals would commit suicide and prop up the Conservatives is hyperbole and hyper-partisanship.

Policywonk
Policywonk

nvcrash wrote:

As I have posted on other threads, all the Libs need is a second place seat count to secure the PM.

The Libs need the blue Libs and the red Cons as they have the ABC strategy pulling in the red Libs and the blue NDP and as such they only need to secure their right flank, by not saying they would support the NDP

In second place the Cons or the NDP would back the Libs to keep the NDP or Cons out of power, respectively.

Assuming a minority situation. 

terrytowel

BREAKING Member of FORD NATION RIPS into Reporters at Harper Press conference (btw he is wearing a Ford Nation button)

Calls CTV Laurie Graham a "idiot' 'tax -cheater' and 'lying piece of shit'

See link below

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/Politics/ID/2673918134/

Rokossovsky

Pondering wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

In fact, Trudeau has said that he endorses a Harper led government, over and NDP led government. End of story.

You insist that people should throw their vote at the Liberals, even though a solid Liberal vote is Stephen Harper's best shot at staying in power, given the present polling.

No he hasn't. The media and the NDP are trying to force Trudeau to say that unless Harper wins a majority Trudeau will team up with Mulcair to overthrow Harper. That would be electoral suicide which is exactly what the NDP wants. You are just pissed Trudeau won't cut his own throat.

Why would that be electoral suicide? Are not Liberal policy proposals, past policy prescriptions, voting record and principled stands enough to convince people to vote for them, regardless of where the NDP stands on any issues?

Sounds like you are saying that without ABC voting, the Liberal tent would collapse and the NDP would be on to a clear majority.

Rokossovsky

alan smithee wrote:

Why would the Liberals risk certain death by propping up Harper if the NDP were the minority?

Politically it makes no sense and I don't believe for a second that the Liberals would betray the majority of Canadians who do not support Harper in any shape or form.

It's more likely that the Liberals would work with the NDP in return for some policies and cabinet positions.

The idea that the Liberals would commit suicide and prop up the Conservatives is hyperbole and hyper-partisanship.

What is not clearly understood about the internal functioning of the Liberal Party, is that for all this talk of their "progressive" credentials, the fact is that at least half of the party base, and their candidates are one step away from being CPC members themselves, hence the back and forth with people like Eve Adams -- I have had numerous discussions with grass roots Liberal supporters who favour "keeping Harper on a short leash" over supporting an NDP government.

It is a fact.

It's not like Bill Blair could be easily whipped into supporting an NDP government, and as we know, caucus revolt from the right of the Liberal Party was partly responsible for their shift against Dion in 2008. Wishful thinking aside, the issue of the Liberal approach to an alliance of some kind with the NDP, is largely predicated on real internal political dynamics of the LPC itself.

In a very close minority situation where NDP and CPC seat count were similar, the present LPC leadership would be hard pressed to prevent defections to the CPC, in the case where they even tried to whip a vote in favour of an NDP government.

There is a reason that they end up voting for bills like C-51, and that is because a large part of the heart of the Liberal party is pumping blue blood.

Don't count on the idea that supreme loyalty to the Liberal Party as an institution is going to take supremacy over heartfelt political beliefs or the personal political aspirations of individual MPs in the "Natural Party of Opportunity" -- in a close seat count, with Harper ahead, it may be simply be impossible for the LPC to offer anything but abstention on the Throne Speech, in order to insure immediate political survival in the face of a split-caucus, whatever the long term political implications are for the party.

Either way, the Liberals are going to be between a rock and a hard place on October 20th, if the polls continue as they are now, and there may be no good options for them and its possible that the best would be to do nothing at all except allowing Harper to rule by abstaining on the Throne Speech in order to hedge their bets against the future by maitaining internal party unity, even if Trudeau wanted it otherwise.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Rokossovsky wrote:

 

In fact, Trudeau has said that he endorses a Harper led government, over and NDP led government. End of story.

.

Show me where Trudeau said that.

He ruled out a coalition because it's campaign time and the Liberals still think there's a chance that they can win.

So of course that's the party line right now.

If the NDP wins a minority,the Liberals will support them. Probably on condition of policy and cabinet positions.

The Liberals would have to be smoking something MUCH more powerful than pot to prop up the Conservatives and send the electorate back to the polls.

It would destroy the party and they know it. Say what you will about them but they are certainly not that stupid.

Sean in Ottawa

alan smithee wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

In fact, Trudeau has said that he endorses a Harper led government, over and NDP led government. End of story.

Show me where Trudeau said that.

He ruled out a coalition because it's campaign time and the Liberals still think there's a chance that they can win.

So of course that's the party line right now.

If the NDP wins a minority,the Liberals will support them. Probably on condition of policy and cabinet positions.

The Liberals would have to be smoking something MUCH more powerful than pot to prop up the Conservatives and send the electorate back to the polls.

It would destroy the party and they know it. Say what you will about them but they are certainly not that stupid.

They may be.

I think Trudeau is assuming that the Liberals could support an NDP without a coalition or formal agreement. If the NDP is in first place that would be absoultely possible but if they are in second, the GG can demand a fomral arrangement as a condition of allowing a second or third place party to take government.

I have already stated my disagreement with NR that the NDP need a majority to govern, however, they might need a plurality if the Liberals keep the promise to not enter a formal arrangement. The Governor General could make that a condition and I frankly think he would not be wrong under some circumstances. Canadians deserve a formal arrangment over an unstable vote-by-vote government and they also deserve a government with more representation than a second party that is only slightly ahead of the third party taking power.

Faced with coalition or Harper governing the Liberals could let Harper govern if he had the most seats. To do so the Liberals would either have to vote with Harper or abstain at every vote. This will certainly be a disaster politically for them.

All this to be categorical over an issue Trudeau could have simply refused as a hypothetical.

Yes, if you put it that way, I am becoming convinced that the Liberals are that stupid.

I suspect the gutless Liebrals are getting ready to support whichever party has the most seats. If that is Harper they can kiss their asses goodbye in the following election but they might just do exactly that.

If the Liberal party has any brains at all -- if Harper gets the most seats the first order of business will be to dump their leader and get one with a lot better judgment. Otherwise we would be seeing the last acts of the Liberal party.

Ironically, the only options that are good for the Liberals are:

1) First place for the Liberals (looking less and less likely)

2) A majority by Harper (also not particularly likely)

3) NDP in first place (and then hope that Mulcair stumbles and fails so Liberals can recover)

A weak minority Conservative government would be toxic. The Conservatives, will absolutely relish the discomfort Trudeau will have created for himself. The Liberals being forced into either a coalition with the NDP against a repeated specific promise, or direct support for the Conservatives would make any loss of their majority by the Conservatives almost enjoyable.

It is not just their supporters Liberals would need to fear but their MPs, backers, and membership.

 

NorthReport

Norman Spector ‏@nspector4  5h5 hours ago

Norman Spector retweeted Mr. Sinister

Frankly, I've never seen a premier so blatantly put partisan interests ahead of the provincial interest

Norman Spector added,

Mr. Sinister @[email protected] No, no. Let her continue. Please.

 

Rokossovsky

alan smithee wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

 

In fact, Trudeau has said that he endorses a Harper led government, over and NDP led government. End of story.

.

Show me where Trudeau said that.

He ruled out a coalition because it's campaign time and the Liberals still think there's a chance that they can win.

So of course that's the party line right now.

If the NDP wins a minority,the Liberals will support them. Probably on condition of policy and cabinet positions.

The Liberals would have to be smoking something MUCH more powerful than pot to prop up the Conservatives and send the electorate back to the polls.

It would destroy the party and they know it. Say what you will about them but they are certainly not that stupid.

It would destroy the party to back the NDP, especially when half of the caucus is against it, which is why the deal fell through in 2008. They preferred "no decision" and continuance of Harper government.

Again, you keep tripping over some fantasy you have about what is in the best interests of the Liberal Party, as if electoral success of the party is the sole motivation of the LPC caucus, and not the individual aspirations of the MPs themselves. They are Liberals for a reason, and many are not just going to fall into line backing the leader based on some ephemeral objective of what is best for the Liberal party.

Many will simply prefer Harper to the NDP, if they are holding the balance of power.

Again, the situation post election where the Liberals are third and neither the CPC or the NDP have a majority, is one where practically any move will be bad for the Liberal Party, supporting the NDP risks slow marginalization and absorbtion into the other parties as happened to the Liberal Democrats in the last election after their "coalition" with the Conservatives, while supporting the CPC is just as perilous, since it invites voter backlash.

However, they may choose to do as little as possible in either direction, thus allowing the Conservatives to continue governance -- precisely the scenario that played out in 2008.

And in fact Trudeau's refusal to endorse some form of NDP/Liberal alliance, sets the political stage for precisely that to happen.

It is not just about "electoral" outcomes and the future of the party, it is about the political direction of the country, and with no good options in hand for the party, and a caucus where many prefer the "economic" line of the Conservatives, they may well choose "no decision", and backing neither, in fact means allowing the Conservatives to rule by default, since Stephen Harper gets "right of first refusal" on the throne speech.

So, Trudeau did not say outright that he "endorses" the Conservatives over the NDP, but he has made it clear he is not backing the NDP, even if that means allowing Conservatives rule.

Read this quote for content:

Quote:
Trudeau flatly ruled out a Liberal-NDP coalition to prevent Harper's Conservatives from forming another government if no party has a majority after the Oct. 19 vote.

In a minority situation where neither the Conservatives or NDP have a majority, that means he allows the Conservatives to rule. Trudeau is confirming that Conservative rule is preferable to NDP rule, and that is as good as an endorsement.

What leaders say in the election campaign matters.

Sean in Ottawa

Rokossovsky wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

 

In fact, Trudeau has said that he endorses a Harper led government, over and NDP led government. End of story.

.

Show me where Trudeau said that.

He ruled out a coalition because it's campaign time and the Liberals still think there's a chance that they can win.

So of course that's the party line right now.

If the NDP wins a minority,the Liberals will support them. Probably on condition of policy and cabinet positions.

The Liberals would have to be smoking something MUCH more powerful than pot to prop up the Conservatives and send the electorate back to the polls.

It would destroy the party and they know it. Say what you will about them but they are certainly not that stupid.

It would destroy the party to back the NDP, especially when half of the caucus is against it, which is why the deal fell through in 2008. They preferred "no decision" and continuance of Harper government.

Again, you keep tripping over some fantasy you have about what is in the best interests of the Liberal Party, as if electoral success of the party is the sole motivation of the LPC caucus, and not the individual aspirations of the MPs themselves. They are Liberals for a reason, and many are not just going to fall into line backing the leader based on some ephemeral objective of what is best for the Liberal party.

Many will simply prefer Harper to the NDP, if they are holding the balance of power.

Again, the situation post election where the Liberals are third and neither the CPC or the NDP have a majority, is one where practically any move will be bad for the Liberal Party, supporting the NDP risks slow marginalization and absorbtion into the other parties as happened to the Liberal Democrats in the last election after their "coalition" with the Conservatives, while supporting the CPC is just as perilous, since it invites voter backlash.

However, they may choose to do as little as possible in either direction, thus allowing the Conservatives to continue governance -- precisely the scenario that played out in 2008.

And in fact Trudeau's refusal to endorse some form of NDP/Liberal alliance, sets the political stage for precisely that to happen.

It is not just about "electoral" outcomes and the future of the party, it is about the political direction of the country, and with no good options in hand for the party, and a caucus where many prefer the "economic" line of the Conservatives, they may well choose "no decision", and backing neither, in fact means allowing the Conservatives to rule by default, since Stephen Harper gets "right of first refusal" on the throne speech.

So, Trudeau did not say outright that he "endorses" the Conservatives over the NDP, but he has made it clear he is not backing the NDP, even if that means allowing Conservatives rule.

Read this quote for content:

Quote:
Trudeau flatly ruled out a Liberal-NDP coalition to prevent Harper's Conservatives from forming another government if no party has a majority after the Oct. 19 vote.

In a minority situation where neither the Conservatives or NDP have a majority, that means he allows the Conservatives to rule. Trudeau is confirming that Conservative rule is preferable to NDP rule, and that is as good as an endorsement.

What leaders say in the election campaign matters.

You had me right till the end before you hit the contradiction.

If Liberals want to do the least possible -- then they will tolerate either the NDP or the Conservatives by simply not voting down whichever party rules. This means if the Conservatives resign -- with Mulcair having more seats and Mulcair governs, then the Liberals will do nothing to bring him down. Assuming that that smaller parties do not have the balance of power, the Liberals effectively support the NDP. This would be the most comfortable position (while hoping for some big mistake from which they can stage a comeback).

For the Liberals to provide enough support to the Conservatives to let them govern across from a larger NDP opposition, the Liebrals would be in serious trouble. First abstention could not work -- they woudl be relied on to actively support a Harper government and block a Mulcair government. I doubt Liberals would do this easily.

It looks to me like the Liberals plan on either victory or being the waste-of-space party -- the one that simply lets the majority of the other parties decide.

There are no good options for them if they come in third but the only glimmer of hope for the Liberals is for the NDP to govern and be brought down at a moment of weakness. This is why they do not want a coalition. However, the risk is that they end up supporting a Harper government which will be more damaging to their popularity.

Again -- this is why Trudeau should have kept his mouth shut and examined the options after the vote.

In any case his supporters may be learning that if they want to defeat Harper they may well have to elect New Democrats since they cannot count on a Liberal vote coming against Harper -- if the Liberals are in third place.

 

Brachina

 Wynne has crossed the line from Premier mischief, to losing her mind, I mean we're hearing from her more then we do Trudeau, whose the leader of the LPC and whose the leader of Ontario again?

 It interestingly becoming certain that Trudeau will he tainted by Wynne's scandals.

Rokossovsky

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Rokossovsky wrote:

 

In fact, Trudeau has said that he endorses a Harper led government, over and NDP led government. End of story.

.

Show me where Trudeau said that.

He ruled out a coalition because it's campaign time and the Liberals still think there's a chance that they can win.

So of course that's the party line right now.

If the NDP wins a minority,the Liberals will support them. Probably on condition of policy and cabinet positions.

The Liberals would have to be smoking something MUCH more powerful than pot to prop up the Conservatives and send the electorate back to the polls.

It would destroy the party and they know it. Say what you will about them but they are certainly not that stupid.

It would destroy the party to back the NDP, especially when half of the caucus is against it, which is why the deal fell through in 2008. They preferred "no decision" and continuance of Harper government.

Again, you keep tripping over some fantasy you have about what is in the best interests of the Liberal Party, as if electoral success of the party is the sole motivation of the LPC caucus, and not the individual aspirations of the MPs themselves. They are Liberals for a reason, and many are not just going to fall into line backing the leader based on some ephemeral objective of what is best for the Liberal party.

Many will simply prefer Harper to the NDP, if they are holding the balance of power.

Again, the situation post election where the Liberals are third and neither the CPC or the NDP have a majority, is one where practically any move will be bad for the Liberal Party, supporting the NDP risks slow marginalization and absorption into the other parties as happened to the Liberal Democrats in the last election after their "coalition" with the Conservatives, while supporting the CPC is just as perilous, since it invites voter backlash.

However, they may choose to do as little as possible in either direction, thus allowing the Conservatives to continue governance -- precisely the scenario that played out in 2008.

And in fact Trudeau's refusal to endorse some form of NDP/Liberal alliance, sets the political stage for precisely that to happen.

It is not just about "electoral" outcomes and the future of the party, it is about the political direction of the country, and with no good options in hand for the party, and a caucus where many prefer the "economic" line of the Conservatives, they may well choose "no decision", and backing neither, in fact means allowing the Conservatives to rule by default, since Stephen Harper gets "right of first refusal" on the throne speech.

So, Trudeau did not say outright that he "endorses" the Conservatives over the NDP, but he has made it clear he is not backing the NDP, even if that means allowing Conservatives rule.

Read this quote for content:

Quote:
Trudeau flatly ruled out a Liberal-NDP coalition to prevent Harper's Conservatives from forming another government if no party has a majority after the Oct. 19 vote.

In a minority situation where neither the Conservatives or NDP have a majority, that means he allows the Conservatives to rule. Trudeau is confirming that Conservative rule is preferable to NDP rule, and that is as good as an endorsement.

What leaders say in the election campaign matters.

You had me right till the end before you hit the contradiction.

If Liberals want to do the least possible -- then they will tolerate either the NDP or the Conservatives by simply not voting down whichever party rules. This means if the Conservatives resign -- with Mulcair having more seats and Mulcair governs, then the Liberals will do nothing to bring him down. Assuming that that smaller parties do not have the balance of power, the Liberals effectively support the NDP. This would be the most comfortable position (while hoping for some big mistake from which they can stage a comeback).

 

No doubt, they might tacitly accept either, but your assertion is based on the premise that both the NDP and Conservatives start from an equitable position, and either, having the most seats has equal opportunity to govern. This is not the case, the Conservatives start from a position of being the incumbent until they resign or are defeated.

If the NDP had only a marginally larger plurality, it would not take too much to sway a few blue-Liberals into the CPC camp to reverse that equation. Hell, the LPC could even allow a "free vote" on the Throne Speech, allowing it to pass.

In the case where the NDP were a few seats back of the Conservatives, they could simply abstain, and Harper would remain.

There are countless permutations of the possible in a minority house, but the point is that it is not some abstract notion of "Stop Harper" that will rule the day after a largely unsucessful campaign run that see the Liberals still in third, but the specific personal ambitions and political agendas of the individual MPs in the Liberal caucus that will determine who governs, and Trudeau's failure to clearly articulate a desire to see Harper ousted by whatever means necessary, gives the Liberals the post-election political capital to overtly (or tacitly) take an ABNDP position.

It is only the NDP that Trudeau has singled out as an unacceptable partner.

If it is survival of the Liberal Party we are talking about then tacit support for Stephen Harper will win the day over immediate implosion, and dissolution through a caucus split.

Rokossovsky

Brachina wrote:

 Wynne has crossed the line from Premier mischief, to losing her mind, I mean we're hearing from her more then we do Trudeau, whose the leader of the LPC and whose the leader of Ontario again?

 It interestingly becoming certain that Trudeau will he tainted by Wynne's scandals.

Wynne is desperately trying to avoid an all out teachers strike in the offing in September.

mark_alfred

Rokossovsky wrote:

It is only the NDP that Trudeau has singled out as an unacceptable partner.

I think you're mistaken on this.  I do recall seeing a video of Trudeau being asked if he would enter into a coalition with the Conservatives, and he likewise said no.

Regardless, I do agree that his refusal to be open to doing everything possible to get rid of Harper if it's a minority should be enough for people to reject the Liberals.

Sean in Ottawa

Don't get me wrong the kind of tacit Liberal support of an NDP government we are speaking of is a Trojan Horse.

It would be better for the NDP to remain in opposition than to have this.

Mulcair himself would be justified in demanding a coalition as a precondition to taking power. To take power for the first time only to have it ripped away at the first negative poll is hardly attractive.

This is why the NDP as well is pushing for a coalition over this terrible option.

As I said it could backfire on the Liberals but it could go either way.

NorthReport

No kidding, but since when does a Liberal ever tell the truth, eh! Frown

 

Norman Spector ‏@nspector4  16h16 hours ago

I could swear I recall that he supported the back-room deal [supported by the Bloc]

Embedded image permalink

 

Pages