Federal election thread -- August 4, 2015

Ciabatta2 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

chimurenga wrote:

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

 

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

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

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

chimurenga wrote:

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

 

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

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

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

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

Pondering wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

chimurenga wrote:

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

chimurenga wrote:

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Stockholm wrote:

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

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

[/quote]

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

Nah, she was always a Liberal. Hence Smitherman as her right hand person.

terrytowel wrote:

KarlL wrote:

Hazel McCallion, perhaps a tiny bit in Mississauga.

I have to disagree. Hazel weilds huge influence over Mississauga. I've said this since day one, the Liberal will sweep all the seats in Mississauga. When Hazel speaks, Mississauga listens.

I agree with you to this extent.  If the Liberals continue at this level of support, they will sweep Mississauga.  

For the Liberals at least, this election is The Tale of Three Cities (and their suburbs).  Absent a collapse of the Cons in small town Ontario, the only path through for Trudeau is to do very well in ALL THREE of Toronto/905, Vancouver and the lower mainland and the island of Montreal. 

Unlike the NDP in the regions of Quebec and the off-island suburbs of Montreal, and the Conservatives in small town Western Canada and Ontario, the Liberals have no large block of ridings on which they can count, so it is a case of win all three cities and their environs or lose.

Ciabatta2 wrote:

Nah, she was always a Liberal. Hence Smitherman as her right hand person.

Not quite true. Hall ran for the Ontario NDP in the 1987 election and was an NDP member up until she became mayor of the old City of Toronto in 1994. When she won in 1994 she was the de facto NDP candidate for mayor since June Rowlands was the rightwing Liberal incumbent. Smitherman was her "handler" in that election and he was a Liberal. When Hall ran for mayor in 1997 she did what Miller and Chow have done and decided to give the appearance of being a non-partisan progressive and had a campaign team full of NDPers and Liberals...in 2003 she and Miller both did this but Hall's supporters were a bit more Liberal-heavy and Miller's were a bit more NDP heavy - but Hall never actually joined either party and palyed both sides...then she was appointed Ontario Human Rights Commissioner and had to be totally non-partisan. Its only now that she is a private citizen and I assume she feels gratitude to the Liberals for all the patronage she bestowed upon her. But no one cares. She is a totally forgotten figure in Toronto. Barbara who???

Stockholm wrote:

Its only now that she is a private citizen and I assume she feels gratitude to the Liberals for all the patronage she bestowed upon her. But no one cares. She is a totally forgotten figure in Toronto. Barbara who???

I'm not so sure. She was the first Mayor in Toronto to march in the Gay Pride Parade. That has made her a beloved figure in the LGBT community. Campaiging in ridings like Universtiy-Rosedale, Spadina-Fort York, and Toronto Centre, the LGBT community in those riding remember her standing up for gay equality. Couple that with her work in Human Rights Commission and that makes her beloved to many residents of Toronto.

Stockholm wrote:

Barbara Hall's name recognition is close to zero - she is a has-been. Go on a scavenger hunt and see if you can find a single solitary voters in Toronto who is suddenly going to vote Liberal because Barbara Hall appeared at an event. 

I'm sure Barbara really appreciates the nice compliments from you Stockholm.

adma wrote:

But that's still a fairly limited prism--aside from Cawthra Square Park being renamed for her, she's been far enough gone from elected politics to the point where she cuts a hazy figure these days.

If she were campaigning with a more "current" and "charismatic" figurehead like Kyle Rae (another-NDPer-morphed-maybe-Liberalward), things might be different.

Oh didn't I mention, she and George Smithermann are campaiging together.

Oh, who the frick cares?!? Barbara Hall still posts herself on wiki as being NDP. Has anyone besides TerryTowell witnessed Barbara Hall campaigning for the Liberal party? And remember, TerryTowell is the only Canadian known who believes that Hazel McCallion can unify an entire city to vote en masse for the Liberals simply by her publicly endorsing that party. Please, let us all put this discussion to rest.

Misfit wrote:

And remember, TerryTowell is the only Canadian known who believes that Hazel McCallion can unify an entire city to vote en masse for the Liberals simply by her publicly endorsing that party. Please, let us all put this discussion to rest.

In 2010 Hazel robo called residents in Carolyn Parrish ward and asked them NOT to vote for Parrish, but vote for Ron Starr. He won by a landslide, giving Parrish her first defeat ever.

In 2014 Hazel told Mississauga to vote Liberal in the Provncial election. Every Mississauga seat went Liberal.

In 2015 Hazel told Mississauga to vote Bonnie Crombie for mayor. After months or Bonnie and Steve Mahoney being tied in the polls, overnight Bonnie led the polls in double digits and won in a landslide.

There is NO dispute. When Hazel talks, Mississauga listens. & right now polls show the Liberals will SWEEP Mississauga. This is AFTER Hazel told Mississauga to vote Liberal in the federal election.

Here is Hazel spreading her message outside of Mississauga

And in other STUNNING, SHOCKING news Mike Layton and Joe Cressy and Pam McConnell support Olivia Chow, Jennifer Hollett and Linda McQuaig. All of Toronto is quaking over this SHOCK. Imagine that - New Democrats support New Democrats and Liberals support Liberals. Who would have thought such a thing possible!

Here we go again with "terrytowel" projecting his pathological personal hatred of Olivia Chow onto other people. Is this "Chow derangement syndrome"?

I suggest you try doing a 1984-style TWO MINUTE HATE routine where you look at a picture of Chow and shriek every epithet and obscenity you can think of - just get it out of your system and maybe it'll make you a nicer person!