The Globe and Mail economic debate September 17

149 posts / 0 new
Last post
Brachina

 I think some on Rabble would happily call Tommy Douglas a neoliberal, if you keep abusing a word it stops having any meaning.

josh

Brachina wrote:

 I think some on Rabble would happily call Tommy Douglas a neoliberal, if you keep abusing a word it stops having any meaning.

If the shoe fits, it's not abuse.

Gary Shaul Gary Shaul's picture

In their own ways, policy specifics aside, each of the three leaders did a decent job of getting their messages across to solidify their bases. Hard to pick a clear winner or loser. That said, Trudeau sounded like a one-trick pony, Harper regularly resorted to lies, fear and racist dog-whistles (e.g. "old stock Canadians") while Mulcair had some good zingers but made an unconvincing argument (at least for me) that small-business tax cuts create jobs (while correctly skewering the Con/Lib tax cuts for the rich as failed policy). 

Brachina

The shoe doesn't fit, not like that would stop you from from shoving on everyone's foot. No Mulcair is not a neoliberal, he's increasing taxes in order to help the poor and families get ahead, a neoliberal cuts services in order to funnel the money to the rich and corporations.

finois finois's picture

felixr wrote:

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.

The main discussion about the French debates is the strategy playing out in Quebec. However, i think we should remember there are several other areas of canada that this debate will have an affect on..Northern Ontario as well as parts of Manitoba will be listening. i believe the recent polling uptick for the NDP in bilingual New Brunswick is driven by the francophone vote. Mulcair is becoming the preferred choice of francophones across Canada. The coalition of francophones, progressives, 1st Nations and the university educated could win this. The new CRA poll of NB puts it in play. Let's see if Tom's performances in the french speaking debates pays off outside Quebec too.

josh

Brachina wrote:

The shoe doesn't fit, not like that would stop you from from shoving on everyone's foot. No Mulcair is not a neoliberal, he's increasing taxes in order to help the poor and families get ahead, a neoliberal cuts services in order to funnel the money to the rich and corporations.

Not true at all.  Both Bill Clinton and Tony Blair raised taxes, and both are considered to be neo-liberals.

mmphosis
NDPP

Mulcair continues to trot out 'a $15 federal minimum wage' knowing full well that each time he does, many, many of those hearing it actually think it applies to a national minimum. I am repeatedly hearing that "The NDP supports a $15 dollar minimum wage", and am happy to disabuse those that make this mistake. The reaction is invariably hostile to this 'sleazy' little contrick.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

NDPP wrote:

Mulcair continues to trot out 'a $15 federal minimum wage' knowing full well that each time he does, many, many of those hearing it actually think it applies to a national minimum. I am repeatedly hearing that "The NDP supports a $15 dollar minimum wage", and am happy to disabuse those that make this mistake. The reaction is invariably hostile to this 'sleazy' little contrick.

Sounds like a very sophisticated, double blind study you're doing. No possibility of bias in that sample.

DLivings

Brachina wrote:

The shoe doesn't fit, not like that would stop you from from shoving on everyone's foot. No Mulcair is not a neoliberal, he's increasing taxes in order to help the poor and families get ahead, a neoliberal cuts services in order to funnel the money to the rich and corporations.

well said

DLivings

Brachina wrote:

 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?

Absolutely. Right down to what some of our babble bloggers are decrying as the neo-liberal balanced budget approach to making change. I have a hunch (you tell me if I'm wrong) that this is a regional divide of the ndp as much as an ideological divide... certainly one of the hallmarks of the longest serving ndp governments in Canada (Saskatchewan 1944-63, 1971-81, 1991-20??) is making change while balancing the budget. This is where universal medicare emerged in this country, there continues to be (even with Conservative Brad Wall) a strong set of crown corporations that play a part in the economy. From that (and my) perspective this is about making sustainable change. Undoubtedly there are times to borrow against the future, but in most cases this is simply a false, growth-oriented approach... which is a central part of our western economic model of course... no growth it's a problem. This shifting mindset, towards a sustainable rather than growth economy, is a direction I support for Canada.

The balanced books vs a deficit has become a rather trite debate. Btw, it took Douglas 17 years to usher in full blown medicare... starating in 1948 with a hospitals act (there are others that can tell the history better than I) and finally delivering the goods in the ealry 60's. A long time, yes, and while it needs some work, we still have it (even though the ccf/ndp lost the next Sask election.)

quizzical

NDPP wrote:
Mulcair continues to trot out 'a $15 federal minimum wage' knowing full well that each time he does, many, many of those hearing it actually think it applies to a national minimum. I am repeatedly hearing that "The NDP supports a $15 dollar minimum wage", and am happy to disabuse those that make this mistake. The reaction is invariably hostile to this 'sleazy' little contrick.

are you trying to say the NDP doesn't support a 15.00 min wage?

i see you want Harper to remain in power. good for you.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Brachina wrote:

 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?

I heard Tomy speak in his heyday and Mulcair is no Tommy Douglas. Not in his demeanor nor his passion nor his ideology. Him and Jack share way more in common as leaders and speakers.

Brachina

 Mulcair made it abundantly clear what his expectations and goals for the $15 minium wage, he hide nothing, he expects to effect 100,000 people and to encourage the provinces to do the same, he same it several times, someone fails to understand that its not Mulcair's  fault they that they're not paying attention, again he has been continously clear about this. 

 Btw that rightwing terror of neoliberalism want to start building universal pharmacare, but wait his plan invovles building it over time, so that means he hates the poor right? And kittens, he hates the poor and kittens, that neoliberal Tyrant.

 Btw what is with peoples obsession with Mulcair's beard? Wtf. Not on rabble, just in general.

DLivings

Brachina wrote:

 Mulcair made it abundantly clear what his expectations and goals for the $15 minium wage, he hide nothing, he expects to effect 100,000 people and to encourage the provinces to do the same, he same it several times, someone fails to understand that its not Mulcair's  fault they that they're not paying attention, again he has been continously clear about this. 

 Btw that rightwing terror of neoliberalism want to start building universal pharmacare, but wait his plan invovles building it over time, so that means he hates the poor right? And kittens, he hates the poor and kittens, that neoliberal Tyrant.

 Btw what is with peoples obsession with Mulcair's beard? Wtf. Not on rabble, just in general.

OMG... he hates the kittens!   

(sustainably...  over time)

Brachina

 I'm not talking idealogy and personality, I'm talking approach to institution building, long term thinking, and a desire for balanced budgets. Again look at Tommy Douglas's actual actions as Premier of Sask and Mulcair's plans and it becomes clear. Actions speak louder then words.

Brachina

DLivings wrote:

Brachina wrote:

 Mulcair made it abundantly clear what his expectations and goals for the $15 minium wage, he hide nothing, he expects to effect 100,000 people and to encourage the provinces to do the same, he same it several times, someone fails to understand that its not Mulcair's  fault they that they're not paying attention, again he has been continously clear about this. 

 Btw that rightwing terror of neoliberalism want to start building universal pharmacare, but wait his plan invovles building it over time, so that means he hates the poor right? And kittens, he hates the poor and kittens, that neoliberal Tyrant.

 Btw what is with peoples obsession with Mulcair's beard? Wtf. Not on rabble, just in general.

OMG... he hates the kittens!   

(sustainably...  over time)

 LmFaO. Well as long as he hates kittens sustainably, that what matters.

jjuares

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Brachina wrote:

 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?

I heard Tomy speak in his heyday and Mulcair is no Tommy Douglas. Not in his demeanor nor his passion nor his ideology. Him and Jack share way more in common as leaders and speakers.


Oh my goodness, everyone from Sask. is now going to weigh in on this, including me. Jack absolutely did not remind me of TC.

Pondering

Michael Moriarity wrote:

NDPP wrote:

Mulcair continues to trot out 'a $15 federal minimum wage' knowing full well that each time he does, many, many of those hearing it actually think it applies to a national minimum. I am repeatedly hearing that "The NDP supports a $15 dollar minimum wage", and am happy to disabuse those that make this mistake. The reaction is invariably hostile to this 'sleazy' little contrick.

Sounds like a very sophisticated, double blind study you're doing. No possibility of bias in that sample.

To many workers it does sound like a tease because at first they think it applies to them even if they realize in the next sentence that it doesn't. After all, provincial minimum wages apply to everyone so why wouldn't a federal minimum wage apply to everyone?

 

DLivings

So to us Sask types...    Tommy Douglas was a storyteller extraordinaire...   connected with people like he was talking over the kitchen table.  I agree this doesnt' fit Tommy (we don't even imagine Tommy) Mulcair.  To Brachina's point...   taking a sustainable systemic approach seems a characteristic of both Tommy's.  

Just an aside, when asked later in life what his greatest accompllishment was, Tommy Douglas didn't mention medicare, he replied, "rural electrification."  It took over a decade, was infrastructure building in a manner that didn't break the bank, and significantly impacted the quality of many who resided in rural areas.  And it was done with a public crown corporation, Sask Power, which is still around today providing service and keeping profits within the province.  Again, this sustainable, systemic thinking seems to fit both Tommy's.

 

DLivings

Pondering wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

NDPP wrote:

Mulcair continues to trot out 'a $15 federal minimum wage' knowing full well that each time he does, many, many of those hearing it actually think it applies to a national minimum. I am repeatedly hearing that "The NDP supports a $15 dollar minimum wage", and am happy to disabuse those that make this mistake. The reaction is invariably hostile to this 'sleazy' little contrick.

Sounds like a very sophisticated, double blind study you're doing. No possibility of bias in that sample.

To many workers it does sound like a tease because at first they think it applies to them even if they realize in the next sentence that it doesn't. After all, provincial minimum wages apply to everyone so why wouldn't a federal minimum wage apply to everyone?

 

I think you're saying it's like Justin Trudeau's infrastructure plan.  JT says, "We're going to invest in infrastructure"... then you find he's actually going to create a bank that municipalities and provinces can borrow from.  It's like we have an idea that infrastructure spending is a good thing...   so we'll help you to borrow to do it.

Pondering

DLivings wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

NDPP wrote:

Mulcair continues to trot out 'a $15 federal minimum wage' knowing full well that each time he does, many, many of those hearing it actually think it applies to a national minimum. I am repeatedly hearing that "The NDP supports a $15 dollar minimum wage", and am happy to disabuse those that make this mistake. The reaction is invariably hostile to this 'sleazy' little contrick.

Sounds like a very sophisticated, double blind study you're doing. No possibility of bias in that sample.

To many workers it does sound like a tease because at first they think it applies to them even if they realize in the next sentence that it doesn't. After all, provincial minimum wages apply to everyone so why wouldn't a federal minimum wage apply to everyone?

 

I think you're saying it's like Justin Trudeau's infrastructure plan.  JT says, "We're going to invest in infrastructure"... then you find he's actually going to create a bank that municipalities and provinces can borrow from.  It's like we have an idea that infrastructure spending is a good thing...   so we'll help you to borrow to do it.

He didn't say that was his sole contribution to infrastructure building so no it isn't the same thing.

DLivings

I guess it's like the $15 federal minimum wage isn't the sole investment the ndp is committing to in order to lift up and support Canadian families.

Pondering

DLivings wrote:

I guess it's like the $15 federal minimum wage isn't the sole investment the ndp is committing to in order to lift up and support Canadian families.

No, there is no comparison. The 15$ minimum wage is the only measure affecting minimum wage. The measure was not introduced as a subset of a larger program. It was announced as one of the 5 major platform planks introduced in the fall of 2014. The parallel between minimum wage and infrastructure investment makes no sense.

If Trudeau is wrong and voters do and did understand the federal minimum wage doesn't apply to all minimum wage workers then Trudeau will sound condescending and the NDP will benefit by it.

 

Ciabatta2

It is actually very comparable because in reality the infrastructure money will very likely require provincial and municipal matching contributions once implemented, and/or use of prviate alternate financing methods to match.  Trudeau's infrastructure and Mulcair's minimum wage, they're both very surface, phoney in-the-fine-print promises.

felixr

Mulcair reminds me of Honore Mercier

mark_alfred

I think a lot of the pundits feel Mulcair won, given Harper's kinda flat performance and given Trudeau's kinda over-the-top performance.  They feel it was close, but generally this seems to be what I've heard from pundits.   

That said, I think it's likely that regular not-overly-partisan types went for Trudeau.  The reason I feel this is that what Trudeau preached is easier to understand.  And immediate. And self-interested.  This often wins over a more responsible approach:

In trouble?  Borrow money now to make money later!  Now now now -- we'll give you a job now!  Long term stable goals?  No, we must borrow borrow borrow for good times today!  Long term climate change plans?  Long term child care plans?  Long term infrastructure plans?  Screw cap and trade and child care -- borrow now and dump it on the backs of our children!  Oh yeah!

So I suspect a lotta riff-raff liked Trudeau's stand.  Hopefully by election day people will wake up and go for the more responsible and more progressive option of the NDP.

Pondering

Ciabatta2 wrote:
It is actually very comparable because in reality the infrastructure money will very likely require provincial and municipal matching contributions once implemented, and/or use of prviate alternate financing methods to match.  Trudeau's infrastructure and Mulcair's minimum wage, they're both very surface, phoney in-the-fine-print promises.

Isn't that the norm for non-federal infrastructure programs and don't provinces already have existing infrastructure budgets? That is, it would not require any new money from provinces. The federal money would be in addition to what they already spend. Trudeau has already stated he will cancel the Champlain Bridge tolls. Normally cities and provinces get no help at all with sewers.

"Investments would focus on three areas: public transit, social infrastructure such as affordable housing and seniors centres and "green" projects like clean energy infrastructure."

These are all currently funded by the provincial and municipal governments.

Trudeau has criticized Mulcair's daycare plan on the basis that it will require billions of dollars of extra funding from the provinces. I don't think he would leave himself open to the same attack on infrastructure spending by requiring extra provincial spending.

Pondering

 

mark_alfred wrote:

I think a lot of the pundits feel Mulcair won, given Harper's kinda flat performance and given Trudeau's kinda over-the-top performance.  They feel it was close, but generally this seems to be what I've heard from pundits.   

That said, I think it's likely that regular not-overly-partisan types went for Trudeau.  The reason I feel this is that what Trudeau preached is easier to understand.  And immediate. And self-interested.  This often wins over a more responsible approach:

In trouble?  Borrow money now to make money later!  Now now now -- we'll give you a job now!  Long term stable goals?  No, we must borrow borrow borrow for good times today!  Long term climate change plans?  Long term child care plans?  Long term infrastructure plans?  Screw cap and trade and child care -- borrow now and dump it on the backs of our children!  Oh yeah!

So I suspect a lotta riff-raff liked Trudeau's stand.  Hopefully by election day people will wake up and go for the more responsible and more progressive option of the NDP.

You think Trudeau supporters are riff-raff that you expect to "wake up" on election day! Way to win friends and influence people.

Left, right and mainstream economists support borrowing for infrastructure spending. Your argument is fear-monguering right-wing propaganda.

DLivings

Pondering wrote:

Ciabatta2 wrote:
It is actually very comparable because in reality the infrastructure money will very likely require provincial and municipal matching contributions once implemented, and/or use of prviate alternate financing methods to match.  Trudeau's infrastructure and Mulcair's minimum wage, they're both very surface, phoney in-the-fine-print promises.

Isn't that the norm for non-federal infrastructure programs and don't provinces already have existing infrastructure budgets? That is, it would not require any new money from provinces. The federal money would be in addition to what they already spend. Trudeau has already stated he will cancel the Champlain Bridge tolls. Normally cities and provinces get no help at all with sewers.

"Investments would focus on three areas: public transit, social infrastructure such as affordable housing and seniors centres and "green" projects like clean energy infrastructure."

These are all currently funded by the provincial and municipal governments.

Trudeau has criticized Mulcair's daycare plan on the basis that it will require billions of dollars of extra funding from the provinces. I don't think he would leave himself open to the same attack on infrastructure spending by requiring extra provincial spending.

So much of the social and hard infrastructure costs have been off-loaded on the provinces over the last couple of decades.  That's why we have a physical infrastructure deficit.  And for the record, the decade of Liberal government prior to the Harper years actually cut health care transfers more than the Harper years.   So the provinces are shouldering more with fewer resources.

 

sherpa-finn

felixr wrote:

Mulcair reminds me of Honore Mercier

Funny that. Though Montreal commuters may not be so impressed by the family connection given that the Mercier Bridge seemed to be closed more often than it was open this summer.  (With more lane closures this weekend.)

KarlL

Admittedly boutique polling on who won the debate from CBC's VoteCompass:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/vote-compass-canada-election-2015-issues...

Pondering

DLivings wrote:
So much of the social and hard infrastructure costs have been off-loaded on the provinces over the last couple of decades.  That's why we have a physical infrastructure deficit.  And for the record, the decade of Liberal government prior to the Harper years actually cut health care transfers more than the Harper years.   So the provinces are shouldering more with fewer resources.

You are absolutely right. Canada (Chretien/Martin) were following the prevailing "wisdom" of the times and had the full support of the public. That was then, this is now. Times change and Liberals change with it.

Ciabatta2

Pondering wrote:

Isn't that the norm for non-federal infrastructure programs and don't provinces already have existing infrastructure budgets? That is, it would not require any new money from provinces. The federal money would be in addition to what they already spend. Trudeau has already stated he will cancel the Champlain Bridge tolls. Normally cities and provinces get no help at all with sewers.

"Investments would focus on three areas: public transit, social infrastructure such as affordable housing and seniors centres and "green" projects like clean energy infrastructure."

These are all currently funded by the provincial and municipal governments.

Trudeau has criticized Mulcair's daycare plan on the basis that it will require billions of dollars of extra funding from the provinces. I don't think he would leave himself open to the same attack on infrastructure spending by requiring extra provincial spending.

Exactly.  The projects he is targeted are currently funded by other governments.  The federal government is not going to step in and gift busytown a stormwater management upgrade as it sets precedents, doesn't diffuse accountability and doesn't make the dollars last over additinal announcements.  And they certainly aren't going to go in and fund stuff that is already funded.  The reality of infrastructure funding is that there are very few full cheques.  Trudeau's commitment, right now, doesn't imply it either way, but taside from anyone's partisan leanings for or against Trudeau, I think you will find should he win the election (and I think he will) the majority of his dollars (if spent) will require partners to pony up comparable funds of 20-40 percent.  Mulcair is being more clear about the provinces having to fund the daycare plan, but only because he has to.

Ciabatta2

We've have been told that was the wisdom of the times, but as someone who worked for that adminsitration I can tell you it certainly was not back then. Those two devastated our social services and our democracy.  You just have to hope to hell Justin doesn't pull that off like they did.

They cut worse, per capita, than Harris.  Was he prevailing wisdom too?

Just when you think you can have a real discussion with Pondering, out comes this crap. Oh my.

Pondering

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Isn't that the norm for non-federal infrastructure programs and don't provinces already have existing infrastructure budgets? That is, it would not require any new money from provinces. The federal money would be in addition to what they already spend. Trudeau has already stated he will cancel the Champlain Bridge tolls. Normally cities and provinces get no help at all with sewers.

"Investments would focus on three areas: public transit, social infrastructure such as affordable housing and seniors centres and "green" projects like clean energy infrastructure."

These are all currently funded by the provincial and municipal governments.

Trudeau has criticized Mulcair's daycare plan on the basis that it will require billions of dollars of extra funding from the provinces. I don't think he would leave himself open to the same attack on infrastructure spending by requiring extra provincial spending.

Exactly.  The projects he is targeted are currently funded by other governments.  The federal government is not going to step in and gift busytown a stormwater management upgrade as it sets precedents, doesn't diffuse accountability and doesn't make the dollars last over additinal announcements.  And they certainly aren't going to go in and fund stuff that is already funded.  The reality of infrastructure funding is that there are very few full cheques.  Trudeau's commitment, right now, doesn't imply it either way, but taside from anyone's partisan leanings for or against Trudeau, I think you will find should he win the election (and I think he will) the majority of his dollars (if spent) will require partners to pony up comparable funds of 20-40 percent.  Mulcair is being more clear about the provinces having to fund the daycare plan, but only because he has to.

I don't see why any part the provinces pony up can't come from their existing infrastructure budgets. Montreal water pipes are in terrible shape. We are losing somewhere around 30% or more of our treated water to leaking pipes. The city is working on replacing them but they can't do it fast enough alone. We have major pipe breaks every winter. Montreal A doubling of funds for that would be a huge boost. We are already spending the money. Cancelling the tolls on Champlain bridge that were to contribute to paying for the bridge isn't costing Quebec anything.

Calgary is already planning measures on flood mitigation and Trudeau had a meeting with Nenshi so flood mitigation is one of the projects Trudeau is offering federal money for.

Trudeau has criticized Mulcair's daycare plan because it requires the provinces to put in new money that they don't have. If he then announces a program that also requires new money from the provinces he would open himself up to the exact same criticism.

jerrym

The big loser in the debate was the moderator. I had no respect for him before the debate because I did not know him and now it has gone downhill. I don't believe in overmoderating but he virtually never stopped the talking over each other and sometimes asked someone to comment on another's statement and then went on immediately a few seconds later to the next topic when the juvenile schoolbell rang without allowing the person he just asked to comment to wrap up. 

Other than a few zingers spoken when people (mostly Trudeau) were talking over others, it was very difficult to follow much of the discussion because of all the background noise. 

I am praying to the Great Atheist for a better moderator next time. 

bagkitty bagkitty's picture

Perhaps it is just me, but who on earth was responsible for the lighting at the debate? Somehow I doubt they have any professional qualifications at all... maybe they did the lighting for some kid's Halloween party. The backdrop didn't help either... still not sure if was supposed to be the Parliament buildings or the old Toronto City Hall.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

I'd guess it was the Parliament buildings.  Not likely they'd do a visual tribute to Toronto in a debate broadcast from Calgary.

josh

Pondering wrote:

DLivings wrote:
So much of the social and hard infrastructure costs have been off-loaded on the provinces over the last couple of decades.  That's why we have a physical infrastructure deficit.  And for the record, the decade of Liberal government prior to the Harper years actually cut health care transfers more than the Harper years.   So the provinces are shouldering more with fewer resources.

You are absolutely right. Canada (Chretien/Martin) were following the prevailing "wisdom" of the times and had the full support of the public. That was then, this is now. Times change and Liberals change with it.

So the Liberals' principles change based on the wisdom of the times? Did the wisdom of the times change between 1993 and 1994 regarding NAFTA?

Ciabatta2

Pondering wrote:

I don't see why any part the provinces pony up can't come from their existing infrastructure budgets. Montreal water pipes are in terrible shape. We are losing somewhere around 30% or more of our treated water to leaking pipes. The city is working on replacing them but they can't do it fast enough alone. We have major pipe breaks every winter. Montreal A doubling of funds for that would be a huge boost. We are already spending the money. Cancelling the tolls on Champlain bridge that were to contribute to paying for the bridge isn't costing Quebec anything.

Trudeau has criticized Mulcair's daycare plan because it requires the provinces to put in new money that they don't have. If he then announces a program that also requires new money from the provinces he would open himself up to the exact same criticism.

Any *new* infrastructure will need *new* money.

The reason Trudeau hasn't specified is because no one has asked.

Pondering

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I don't see why any part the provinces pony up can't come from their existing infrastructure budgets. Montreal water pipes are in terrible shape. We are losing somewhere around 30% or more of our treated water to leaking pipes. The city is working on replacing them but they can't do it fast enough alone. We have major pipe breaks every winter. Montreal A doubling of funds for that would be a huge boost. We are already spending the money. Cancelling the tolls on Champlain bridge that were to contribute to paying for the bridge isn't costing Quebec anything.

Trudeau has criticized Mulcair's daycare plan because it requires the provinces to put in new money that they don't have. If he then announces a program that also requires new money from the provinces he would open himself up to the exact same criticism.

Any *new* infrastructure will need *new* money.

The reason Trudeau hasn't specified is because no one has asked.

The "new" money is the billions of federal dollars Trudeau has committed to infrastructure building.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

 

mark_alfred wrote:

I think a lot of the pundits feel Mulcair won, given Harper's kinda flat performance and given Trudeau's kinda over-the-top performance.  They feel it was close, but generally this seems to be what I've heard from pundits.   

That said, I think it's likely that regular not-overly-partisan types went for Trudeau.  The reason I feel this is that what Trudeau preached is easier to understand.  And immediate. And self-interested.  This often wins over a more responsible approach:

In trouble?  Borrow money now to make money later!  Now now now -- we'll give you a job now!  Long term stable goals?  No, we must borrow borrow borrow for good times today!  Long term climate change plans?  Long term child care plans?  Long term infrastructure plans?  Screw cap and trade and child care -- borrow now and dump it on the backs of our children!  Oh yeah!

So I suspect a lotta riff-raff liked Trudeau's stand.  Hopefully by election day people will wake up and go for the more responsible and more progressive option of the NDP.

You think Trudeau supporters are riff-raff that you expect to "wake up" on election day! Way to win friends and influence people.

Left, right and mainstream economists support borrowing for infrastructure spending. Your argument is fear-monguering right-wing propaganda.

No, Trudeau partisans will never wake up.  But regarding the debate, many pundits did give Mulcair an edge (Ivison, the Globe, Kinsella, etc.) but we do see that many non-partisans did go with the money now now now message of Trudeau rather than the long term (eight year) plan of $15 a day universal child care supported by an increase in corporate taxes put forth by the NDP.  I do hope people wake up and go with the progressive choice of the NDP.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:
No, Trudeau partisans will never wake up.  But regarding the debate, many pundits did give Mulcair an edge (Ivison, the Globe, Kinsella, etc.) but we do see that many non-partisans did go with the money now now now message of Trudeau rather than the long term (eight year) plan of $15 a day universal child care supported by an increase in corporate taxes put forth by the NDP.  I do hope people wake up and go with the progressive choice of the NDP.

From the Globe:

Analysis

Trudeau emerges as leader with new economic vision for Canada

David Parkinson - ECONOMICS REPORTER

The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Sep. 17, 2015 11:07PM EDT

Last updated Friday, Sep. 18, 2015 3:16PM EDT

While it was at times hard to find the economic meat in this muddled sandwich of political finger-pointing and out-shouting, the Liberal Leader gave by far the most convincing case yet for his road map for the Canadian economy of the future.

First, though, he and his two counterparts, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair, had to get their dreary, intelligence-insulting political games out of the way.

.......

Was he convincing? Not always. But he did better than his two opponents in explaining the rationale behind his policies. He presented himself as the only man of the three with something meaningful to offer. And he looked like he knew what he was talking about.

......

Nevertheless, the three distinguished themselves from each other on the economy Thursday. Mr. Mulcair came off as less scary on the economy than the NDP is often painted to be. Mr. Harper defined himself as the safe choice on the path that, while not so great, also hasn’t been so awful.

But whether you like it or not, only Mr. Trudeau offered voters a vision of something new.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-emerges-as-leader-w...

 

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

From the Globe:

Analysis

Trudeau emerges as leader with new economic vision for Canada

David Parkinson - ECONOMICS REPORTER

The Globe and Mail

The Globe is just averse to having a party like the NDP in that will move toward having corporations pay their fair share.  So of course their economic reporter will support either the Liberals or the Conservatives.  It's always been that way.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

From the Globe:

Analysis

Trudeau emerges as leader with new economic vision for Canada

David Parkinson - ECONOMICS REPORTER

The Globe and Mail

The Globe is just averse to having a party like the NDP in that will move toward having corporations pay their fair share.  So of course their economic reporter will support either the Liberals or the Conservatives.  It's always been that way.

Your comment:

No, Trudeau partisans will never wake up.  But regarding the debate, many pundits did give Mulcair an edge (Ivison, the Globe, Kinsella, etc.)

was erroneous.  You claimed the Globe gave Mulcair the edge so apparently there is no "of course" about it.

Kinsella would smear the Liberals, something he has been doing since they refused him as a candidate. He has even said that he is as inflamatory as possible to attract clicks. Ivison wants Harper to win and thinks that's more likely against the NDP. The Liberals are taking more votes away from Harper than the NDP can.

 

Pondering

http://globalnews.ca/news/2232600/liberals-pull-ahead-of-ndp-as-support-...

Who won the debate?

Steven Harper 28%

Thomas Mulcair 32%

Justin Trudeau 40%

 

jjuares

Oh no, with some polls out we are sure to get some more ponderous posts.

Pages