Trudeau campaign 2015 Part 3 - August 4th

What would Tommy Douglas say?

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/22/what-would-tommy-douglas-say-liberals-tar...

josh wrote:

What would Tommy Douglas say?

http://ipolitics.ca/2015/08/22/what-would-tommy-douglas-say-liberals-tar...

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/08/24/holding-montreal-island-se...

Chantel Hebert notes that the Liberals might be doing so poorly in Quebec they might even lose seats, instead of gaining.

So what do the Liberals promise?

over the weekend, the party made public a four-page letter to Premier Philippe Couillard designed to highlight Trudeau’s openness to the demand for a more collegial relationship with the federal government. 

It included a promise to allow provinces to opt out of federal programs with full compensation in areas of provincial jurisdiction and an acknowledgement of Quebec’s “unique” character and its government’s “specific responsibilities” in the areas of language and culture.

The Trudeau campaign in a nutshell: when on top, act like a conservative party. When on the bottom, act like a progressive party. When people lose trust in you, make desperate attacks.

Well, clearly she'll denounce the Liberal party and withdraw her support, right? I mean, asymmetrical federalism is one of the small irrelevant nitpicks that she keeps holding up as deal breakers for the NDP, so obviously she would have the same standards for the other parties, right? I mean, it's not as if she's a shameless partisan sycophant who is dripping with double standards in every word she writes. Right? Right?

Oh... right.

Trudeau's letter to Premier Couillard of Quebec stated,

Trudeau wrote:

Fiscal federalism

[..]

As for the provinces’ right to opt out with full compensation, I believe that is a principled and well-established practice within the Canadian federal framework. The 1999 Social Union Framework Agreement and the 2004 Health Accord confirm this.

Hébert basically felt that this letter is a sign that Trudeau's Libs are truly frightened of being wiped out in Quebec.

Hébert wrote:

All in all, Trudeau is committing to a more flexible approach to federalism and Quebec than that of his father.

Time will shortly tell whether those overtures amount to too little, too late.

The Liberals can hardly give up on Quebec without giving up on a victory in October. But unless the party’s numbers improve, holding the thin Montreal red line and saving Trudeau’s seat (and possibly his leadership) will take absolute precedence over bringing the Liberals back from the dead in the rest of the province.

I feel Trudeau made an error in the last debate.  He figured that going after Mulcair on the sovereignty issue would boost his Ontario numbers without overly hurting his Quebec numbers.  His Ontario numbers were boosted by a couple percent*, but it caused a larger gap btw them & the NDP in Quebec.  So they're now going to have to waste valuable time campaigning even more in fortress Montreal, where even Papineau could become a concern.  It's like Ignatieff all over again who alienated Quebec.

_____

* I suspect the gain in Ontario won't last.  Sovereignty isn't a huge concern.  Economy and a more positive change are.  False fear-mongering over sovereignty is just a negative distraction that, if Trudeau has any smarts, he'll avoid doing in the future.

After reading Hébert's article, I became curious about the Montreal ridings.  I checked out the Babble thread Montreal ridings and candidates 2015.  It's very interesting.  There's a lot of good information there.  The Babblers there are skeptical that Papineau could be lost, but they feel it's not impossible, since Anne Lagacé Dowson is a popular candidate.  If a few factors come into play, then Trudeau may have to spend a lot of time just campaigning to save his own seat.

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Oh Pondering....tick, tick, tick.....

Well excuse me for taking a break. I didn't realize the clock was ticking.

Well what do you know, the Peanut Gallery speaks!

No Pondering but I have for you, what's your mailing address. And you're deflecting; the issue is your attack on the NDP for having the same  position This simply shows you are two-faced, will say anything, and thinnk you are so much smarter then any of us that we won't noitce. That's why we don't respect you. Remember all your ranting about pensions, what, that doesn't matter now. You are such a gigantic hypocrite!

Pondering wrote:

That something is small and irrelevant to you doesn't mean it is to everyone. It's very disappointing to me that no matter which main party wins under them there would be no new programs like Canada-wide UIC or medicare both of which can be further undermined if the parties are being sincere. 

The only tin lining to this clould is that at least the Liberals aren't singling out Quebec.

Clever.  What you previously identified as a deal breaker is downgraded to a disappointment and turns into an argument that all the parties are the same, so may as well vote Liberal.  Of course, the parties are not the same.  Bill C-51, child care, corporate taxation, personal taxation, electoral reform, minimum wage, etc., have some differences.  The differences aren't gigantic, but there's some differences. 

But anyway, this thread isn't about policy, it's about the campaign.  And my take on Trudeau's letter to Quebec Premier Couillard, embracing asymmetrical federalism, is that they're worried about losing too many of their Quebec seats.  It reminds me of their decision to support Bill C-51, which they did because polls initially showed great favour to it.

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

No Pondering but I have for you, what's your mailing address. And you're deflecting; the issue is your attack on the NDP for having the same  position This simply shows you are two-faced, will say anything, and thinnk you are so much smarter then any of us that we won't noitce. That's why we don't respect you. Remember all your ranting about pensions, what, that doesn't matter now. You are such a gigantic hypocrite!

No, you just mis-classified me from the start. I am not a Liberal Supporter. I am voting for the party that offers me more of what I do want and less of what I don't want. I am more pissed off at the NDP than at the Liberals because the Liberals have always been a centrist party. Now I have two centrist parties to choose from. The NDP or the Liberals. Now that the Liberals have joined the NDP in not using federal funds to gain compliance from the provinces in federal programs that touch on provincial jurisdictions that is one less reason to vote Liberal, but it is not a reason to vote NDP as their position isn't any better for me as I live in Quebec.

I have two leaders to choose from. I don't hate Mulcair but I don't like his leadership of the NDP nor his priorities. I didn't like his using the women who were sexually harassed and abused as a tool to attack the Liberals and I don't like his using the women's issues debate as a political football. I don't like his raising the issue of the Sherbrooke Declaration to pander to separatists in Quebec and I don't want the Unity Act to be passed into law. I didn't appreciate Mulcair's hesitency in condemning the soccer hijab ban nor the Charter of Quebec Values. Trudeau is inexperienced but in my opinion he is more sincere and more open-minded which are qualities I appreciate.

Other people, including yourself, see those issues from a different perspective, which is fine. Your behavior is obnoxious but not unexpected.

Pondering you are simply not being truthful We all know that you have never voted anything other then Liberal. OK, so you don't have a party membership, so what? You still have always voted only Liberal. No one belives here that you have ever voted any other way. Why you keep insisting on the contary simply shows you don't respect any of us enough to be forth right. As to the issue about the female MPs, you have already been set staright on this over and over; its not my fault that you can't admit you are wrong and not being forthright. As to your other assertion, taht would have been true if Mulcair hadn't said he wouldn't debate without Harper. As to me being obnoxious, as Reagan said, "there you go again". You just once more show your outright contempt for me. OK. But it doesn't change the fact you haven't answered my question, What about your pension Pondering? Well? Well? The silence on that is DEAFENING. You are a gigantic hypocrite.

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

It reminds me of their decision to support Bill C-51, which they did because polls initially showed great favour to it.

Yes and they didn't want to give Harper the opportunity to use it to portray them as soft on terrorism. I liked how candid Trudeau was on his motivation for voting for it but with caveats. It's refreshing.

Trudeau voting for Bill C-51 was gutless, not refreshing.  It's an unnecesary violation of people's rights, IMO (but feel free to make the case as to why Bill C-51 is necessary, if you like). 

JDL Canada To Protest Fundraiser For Justin Trudeau

http://www.jdl-canada.com/2015/08/18/jdl-canada-to-protest-fundraiser-fo...

"On August 26th Barry Sherman will hold a major fundraising reception in his Toronto home for Justin Trudeau. It is absolutely wrong for a leading philanthropist in the Jewish community to support a man that would support the regime of Iran.

Many people have contacted the JDL and have asked for our engagement. The Jewish Defence League will therefore have a picket outside the fundraiser for Justin Trudeau..."

Another Zionist intervention in Canadian political affairs

Seems Trudeau is inspired by Paul Martin, given their last presser together.  Here's a reminder of what Paul Martin was about:  link

socialdemocraticmiddle wrote:

You can feel the disappointment and confusion among Liberal supporters. It's not nearly as bad as Bill C-51, and so it won't have anywhere close to the same impact. But I wouldn't doubt the Trudeau campaign making more frustrating policy announcements as the campaign gets more desperate.

 

Sure -- that said the optics of the NDP pulling out of a debate on women's concerns is a negative. I don't care if Harper is not going. Mulcair is getting some spectacularly bad advice on this. That debate should be attended by the NDP with or without Harper. No benefit not going and a lot of downside.

Justin Trudeau accuses Tom Mulcair of ‘austerity’ over balanced budget pledge

This is hilarious, what do the Liberals call the 1990s? Massive cuts in the face of massive surpluses

+ a permanent GST

+ massive corporate tax giveaways

Yes, Comrade Trudeau, the Liberals are the party of anti-austerity 

It's ironic that Martin, king of slash, burn, and offload, was beside Trudeau while Trudeau said this stuff.  New Democrat candidate Andrew Thomson stated,

Andrew Thomson wrote:

"Paul Martin didn't balance budgets, he offloaded the burden onto the provinces," said Thomson, who served under former premier Lorne Calvert. "He cut $25 billion over three years -- and much of the pain fell on lower-income Canadians."

Because the media wholely bought into ther bullshit notion that Martin balanced the budget, so they feel safe repeating it forever as a positive. It doesn't have to be real for a Liberal to brag about it. Really, it's better if it isn't. Reality has a way of involving facts and figures. Bragging about totally made-up stuff never has that problem.

AC, you need to seriously back off.

He'll only keep the good parts.

This campaign is going to be even uglier. One of Trudeau's star candidates it is alleged is going to run a campaign highlighting the fact that the NDP candidate is not a mother. Freeland's (liberal)campaign is denying it but the editor claims he double checked with the campaign himself.
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/the-gargoyle-freeland-campaign-sa...