The Globe and Mail economic debate September 17

149 posts / 0 new
Last post
jjuares

Trudeau has now mentioned the growth rate 4 times

Pondering

Good fight!

josh

Puffs of smoke. You should know about that. Kind of a cheap shot.

Maxamed Cabdira...

The talking points are mind numbing 

Donald MacDonal... Donald MacDonald-Ross's picture

An hour in, no French yet, by the three on stage or May off stage (unless she has a separate French labguage Twitter feed eunning?)

ravenj

The Junior sure is whining.  Constantly talking over people make him seem weak.

jjuares

Maxamed Cabdirazak Roobeye wrote:

The talking points are mind numbing 


The questions are not designed to get past the talking points.

duncan cameron

Harper tries to equate improving pensions with tax increases.

duncan cameron

Moderator does not know how to stop leaders talking over each other.

duncan cameron

Trudeau tries to distinguish himself from Mulcair and Trudeau by saying he is against fear and division. He is about doing the right thing, not doing politics. Except that doing the right thing is what politics is about.

duncan cameron

Harper is not giving up and does keep using his talking points. 

josh

Trudeau makes a decent point about the income tax and then echoes Harper on corporate taxes.

jjuares

Trudeau just said that disposable income just reached 165%, I think he meant household debt.

duncan cameron

This segment allows Mulcair to expond on his basis message. Trudeau tries to say he will change the way others have governed in the past.

Maxamed Cabdira...

Harper's losing his voice

duncan cameron

Trudeau is asked what he wants to do and replies:  Growth through investment in communities.

duncan cameron

Structural change, how do you build a new economy asks the moderator of Trudeau? Answer be a partner. step up, invest.

Pondering

Oooooo, tough question for Harper!

Ciabatta2

All three are doing well, slight edge to Trudeau. Mulcair risks being lost in between them, Trudeau doing well contrasting against Harper. Harper really nailed Mulcair on the pan Canadian NDP record, accurate or not. If you are open to talking points you will like Trudeau. The downside for the Cons of reducing expectations is that all Trudeau has to do is be coherent. This moderator, though, makes Steve Paikin appealing.

duncan cameron

Harper talks about Pacific trade deal, says it will go ahead, cannot let auto sector miss this opportunity. Bad move, ready to sell out Ontario.

Ciabatta2

Mulcair? Answer the question? Don't go on about this fluffy crap. What a waste. Who votes on coming from a big family or sitting down with the provs?

Ciabatta2

Bam Trudeau killed the last line. Ouch

Maxamed Cabdira...

No mention of productivity, investments, or skills development in an economic debate. I found Harper and Mulcair made the most sense to me. Both mention that keeping the books balance secure our social programs, of course it is far more credible coming from Mulcair 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Stockholm wrote:

May is the leader of a party that got 3% (THREE) of the vote in the last election and elected a single MP. She already managed to finagle her way into the Maclean's debate and will be in one of the French debates and she got a full interview with Peter Mansbridge like the others...its enough already. When else has a leader of a such a microscopic party had even this much coverage. Come back with over ten percent of the national popular vote and official party status (12 seats+) and maybe in 2015 we can start including her.

 

Uh, Stock...this IS 2015.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Mulcair sounded much, much tougher and stronger tonight.  And this time, he actually sounded like an NDP leader.

(could have done without the Romanow tribute...not sure who that would even appeal to...but overall much much better).

Trudeau came off like a kid playing a party leader in a mock debate or a school play.

NDPP

What a crashing bore. Empty words from empty suits. I'm choosing none of the above.

Brachina

 Mulcair's only weakness was that he couldn't give details on his cap and trade plan, he made great arguements for having one, but skirted the details. He tore apart Trudeau double talking record in the second half. Didn't come off as sedated as last time, balanced in temperment between Harper and Trudeau. Made a good points on immiration, I loved that he brought up social housing, pulling seniors out of poverty, lowering the retirement age, the cost of education, that crazy high costs for homes is bad for young families in contrast to Harper's position. The bill C-36 moment felt tacked on, but its always nice to remind people of Trudeau's choice. 

 Trudeau biggest weakness' was talking points way too much, a bit on the overly hyper side, he thinks he deficits are the answer to ever fiscal question, he uses it as an excuse to ignore anything outside of it, Mulcair nailed him hard both on the Liberal record and his own record (this was damaging to Trudeau, big time) including promises balanced budgets one day and then deficits a not long after, voting one way and campaigning another, such as on 15$ an hour minium wage, ect... Score a couple of good shots on Harper.

 Harper was mostly on the defence and it was a weak defence, basically passing the buck to the internation crisises. Lied through his teeth about Mulcair and Trudeau saying they were going to let in hundreds of thousands in without background checks, neither have suggested anything like that, it was Harper's most dispicable moment of the night and the single most blatant lie (but not the only one). Harper did very bad tonight throughout, but Trudeau took the heaviest blows. Harper did get nailed good by Mulcair on the issue of corporate taxes, when Mulcair pointed out that dispite cuts to corporate taxes, hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector.

 

Brachina

 One thing Mulcair said that I really liked was something along the lines of knowedge growth equals economic growth or something like that, I felt he nailed it on the head.

Brachina

 Oh and using Hillar's comments on not using security issues as an excuse do nothing about refugees was inspired, no one is going to accuse Hillar of being a bleeding heart lefty.

Arby Arby's picture

Trudeau nailed Mulcair on the bulk water export fib. See here (http://huff.to/1F3HWwE) and here (http://bit.ly/1Qa020o). Trudeau was the only one, that I recall, who mentioned Harper's abandonment of the long form census. But he gets a fail on his response to Mulcair's poking him with his Party's plan to repeal the police state Bill C-51, whose constitutionality, as others noted, Trudeau didn't care about. It's a Bill that Harper wants us to pretend is totally innocuous. Harper wants us to be afraid when it will keep him in power and he wants us to not be afraid when he thinks that will keep him in power. I think Murray Dobbin summed it up nicely in his article titled "Harper is right: The election is about security versus risk." (http://bit.ly/1P0mx7p)

Harper brags about a knowledge economy, but I wonder how the 2000 educated, knowledgeable government scientists he fired feel about that comment. Indeed, As Donald Gutstein points out in "Harperism," Harper's all about 'sound science' as opposed to 'junk science'. Sound science is what hunters, some landowners, sport fishers and I don't know who else you want to throw into the list, see with their own eyes, directly, and report to government so that the government can say that it then knows what it needs to know in order to make policies pertaining to fished-in streams and lakes, wild areas where hunters are hunting, etc.. In other words, Buy off people to give your government the stamp of approval and call it wise management and sound science.

Mulcair lacks honesty. Like Harper, When you catch him, he just keeps on fibbing. Like Harper, 'his' fabric is cut from the same ideology as Margaret Thatcher, as this video reveals: (http://bit.ly/1K2Ji7A) Like Harper, Mulcair is fact-proof. He'd fit right into Harper's cabinet. Again with the wrong numbers about Keystone's projected jobs. He talks about some 40,000 jobs attached to construction of Keystone in the US that he would bring to Canada by refining oil here, if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, Turning on Harper and telling him that 'Those are your figures' is misleading. He could turn to Canadians and tell them, 'Oh yes. By the way. The State Department, and others, have estimated that the number of full time, permanent jobs that would be created by building the Keystone XL is about 50. There will be thousands of jobs for a year or two only.' (http://bit.ly/1KkgLwH) He did the same thing in the first English language leaders' debate.

The moderator, I have no doubt, knows about that State department figure and Obama's citation of it and the numerous news (alt and mainstream) reports about it and yet he didn't do his job and correct the false statement. Maybe he's audtioning for a moderator's job for the Republican candidates debates down south. The moderator also didn't point out the big flaw in Trudeau's otherwise laudible plan to do infrastructure spending, namely his intention to employ P3's. That's privatization by stealth. We need to go in the opposite direction, but expecting any of these 'leaders' to propose nationalizing banks and preventing health care and other things from being privatized would be too much. They are all neoliberal politicians within neoliberal Parties. Donald Gutstein calls them neo-liberal-ish. No. Just call them what they are. When you do deficit terrorism and blather on about balanced budgets, that makes you neoliberal, for that's what that talk signifies. Trudeau is phoney and can't convince me that his Party, which entrenched neoliberalism in Canada, has suddenly moved left. What do we call his idea of deficit spending that employs P3's? That's a proposal to invest in trouble for Canadians, as Duncan Cameron explains here: (http://bit.ly/1K2e28J)

"The ideology the think tanks promote is properly called neo-liberalism because, in contrast to libertarians who want a small, powerless state that leaves people alone, neo-liberals require a strong state that uses its power to create and enforce markets, and prop them up when they fail... It's fair to say that they believe in government, but not in democracy...

"...after the 1984 federal election, the Progressive Conservative Mulroney government adopted neo-liberalism as its guiding light... Neo-liberalism became entrenched under the Liberal governments of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, who accepted the ideology as their own policy orientation... By the time Harper took over the reins of government, neo-liberalism was normalized as the accepted way of running the country." -pgs 12 & 14 of "Harperism" by Donald Gutstein

Brachina

 Another good shot at Trudeau was on his own hypocracy over the rich using lower small business taxes via shell companies, when Mulcair pointed out that Trudeau did just that very thing on the money he made for speeches he made. I think Trudeau will have lost a lot amoung small business people and contractors. 

ygtbk

Brachina wrote:

 Another good shot at Trudeau was on his own hypocracy over the rich using lower small business taxes via shell companies, when Mulcair pointed out that Trudeau did just that very thing on the money he made for speeches he made. I think Trudeau will have lost a lot amoung small business people and contractors. 

That is actually an amusing point. Perhaps Justin does not understand his own personal taxes? Of course, the follow-on is "and he is qualified to set tax policy how?".

Pondering

Brachina wrote:

 Another good shot at Trudeau was on his own hypocracy over the rich using lower small business taxes via shell companies, when Mulcair pointed out that Trudeau did just that very thing on the money he made for speeches he made. I think Trudeau will have lost a lot amoung small business people and contractors. 

Except there is no hypocrisy involved. He never said that it was cheating or that there was anything morally wrong with it. He said it is a means through which small business tax cuts benefit the wealthy. I worked for a trucking company many years ago that was 50 separate companies occupying the same building and each trucker was also considered a separate company. The trucker leased the truck from the company and bought fuel from "another" company and had the truck maintained by "another" company that bought parts from "another" company and transported goods contracted from "another" company and all these companies and more occupied the same building. Just because a business is small doesn't make it a mom and pop shop.

 

Pondering

Arby wrote:
  We need to go in the opposite direction, but expecting any of these 'leaders' to propose nationalizing banks and preventing health care and other things from being privatized would be too much. They are all neoliberal politicians within neoliberal Parties.

Preach it!

Brachina

 Mulcair had the funniest quips at times made me laugh a few times, but still maintained his Prime Ministerial vibe. Mulcair made too many good points to list them all. 

 This would have been a better debate had Trudeau not attended, it was like two adults trying to debate around a hyperactive child. I pretty sure Trudeau would have been happier to have been debating himself, he hates letting anyone else speak, I don't mind some pushiness, but Trudeau seemed to resent the idea that others were allowed to speak.

Brachina

 You know that there is a big gap between people nationalizing things and being a neoliberal right?

mark_alfred

Three way tie.  Of the eight or so people across Canada who watched it, I'm sure no one changed their mind. 

Mulcair did do better than last time, which is good.  Otherwise, though, I'd say it was a tie between the three.

mmphosis

Does anyone know where/how I could watch this debate?

mark_alfred

mmphosis wrote:

Does anyone know where/how I could watch this debate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbnMz7tsXjo

mmphosis
Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Three way tie.  Of the eight or so people across Canada who watched it, I'm sure no one changed their mind. 

Mulcair did do better than last time, which is good.  Otherwise, though, I'd say it was a tie between the three.

Good assessment, I see it a little differently. I think Mulcair and Trudeau came closest to achieving what they wanted to achieve. Harper might have solidified his base but he needed to show some passion to win back some of the support he has lost and he failed to do that. It's true that we are subject to world events but he said nothing about what he would do for those who are suffering especially Alberta who has pawn shops full of luxury goods. Harper's message was well honed because he has been saying the same thing since he was first elected. It was like watching a rerun, my mind kept drifting. He was dull.

Mulcair and Trudeau both had slight "flubs" but I think both achieved their goals in terms of self-presentation. Mulcair, the steadfast hand on the rudder to steer us through rough seas without upsetting the boat to steer us into calmer waters. Serious, traditional, as non-radical as they get. I don't recall his mentioning ending of subsidies to oil companies although I remember a serious moment of "polluter pay" that was pitch perfect. He was more forceful without being overly hostile, for the most part very prime ministerial.

Trudeau proved what he had to prove, he had no trouble going toe to toe with Harper and Mulcair. He presented the Liberal economic pitch solidly, defended it well, and solidified his brand as passionate and optimistic and ready to shake things up.

I agree that these are still early days and not that many people will watch the debates except people who are into politics who have already made up their minds who are the same people who are commenting on most media sites. It's very difficult to predict how the undecided voter will respond to the pitches of the parties, most particularly the NDP and the Liberals.

jjuares

National Post is calling Mulcair the clear winner. This is usually what happens the media calls the winner and it influences the public.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
National Post is calling Mulcair the clear winner. This is usually what happens the media calls the winner and it influences the public.

One commentator is not "The National Post".

Kathie

I'm actually glad she wasn't there tonight. I found her overtalking and interuptions along with Juniors very annoying last time.

 

Brachina

 Can you imagine both Justin and May trying win the debate by talking over the Mulcair and Harper the whole time again, gag. Having Justin there was bad enough. I don't mind some, but Trudeau got carried away.

Brachina

 Anyone else watch the post debate debate and the media scrums after? A couple of people indicated they thought Mulcair won. I think so to, but we can never really know until we see how the electorate reacts.

 Btw, was that the single worst camera work during a debate you've ever seen, I mean the image get going fuzzy!

josh

Neo-liberalism was the big winner. One candidate called for no tax increases, one called for no personal income tax increases, and the other called for no net tax increases. The supposed most progressive candidate said that the best social policy is a united family, which is a classic right-wing line, while echoing the most right-wing candidate when it came to deficits. The debate coveted the ideological spectrum from A to B.

Ciabatta2

josh wrote:

 The debate coveted the ideological spectrum from A to B.

Best quote of the night by far

felixr

The next debate is in French so the focus will shift entirely to Mulcair and he will be attacked unceasingly. No other party has anything to gain by attacking eachother because the NDP takes up to 52% of the vote in some Québec polls. The Liberals are going to try and play a cynical game of trying to pin the NDP between them and the Bloc Québecois. They don't care if the BQ vote rises because if the NDP drops it helps them win seats in Montreal, and if the NDP drops, it helps the national NDP numbers to go down, which helps the Liberals to make the case in Québec and elsewhere that they are best positioned to defeat Harper which is the main motivation for Québec (and BC?) voters. As such, I expect that the biggest risk to Mulcair will be Duceppe aiding by Trudeau. Harper has almost nothing to gain, all he can do is appeal to fiscal conservatives in the Québec region and make it clear that the differences between him and Duceppe on "reasonable accomodation" type issues is not that great. Harper is so disliked in Québec the race there has almost been over since before it began for him.

Brachina

 Mulcair's platform so far and his approach during the debate really reminded me more of Tommy Douglas then Jack Layton, anyone else feel this way?

Pages