• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Election 2011

E.R. Campbell said:
There is one poll I like to track. It is not scientific but I'm guessing that it's useful.

At this moment (you may see different numbers when you view it) over 1,000 people have responded, over 700 of them from Ontario and nearly 900 are in the 55 to 74 age group.

This poll matters, I think because that age group has, pretty much the highest and most reliably high voter turn out. Seniors and “near seniors” vote in disproportionately high numbers.

The current (1068 votes) results are:

Conservatives: 38.3%

Liberals: 26.9%

NDP: 7.6%

Now there are too few Québec votes (only 1/10th of a reasonable sample, but, for BC and Ontario, I'm guessing the sample is fairly representative of how nearly ½ of voters will vote. In other words, the grownups, the ones who do vote are for Harper and against Layton.


Here are the latest results from CARP:

1341 votes of which 73.3% are from ON and 79,9% are between the ages of 55 and 74 (most likely to vote of any age groups)

Voting intentions:

Cons ........... 45.6%
Greens ........  3.7%
Libs ............. 30.9%
NDP .............  9.2%
Undecided ... 30.2%

Preferred election outcome:

Conservative majority .......................... 45.3 %
Conservative minority ..........................  5.5 %
Liberal majority .................................... 21.1 %
Liberal minority ....................................  9.2 %
Coalition between Liberals and NDP ...  13.4 %


So over 50% of senior and "near seniors" prefer a Conservative government of some sort while only 43.7 prefer any sort of government involving Liberals.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
At the risk of repeating myself (even more) here is what I said about this six months ago:

Quote from: E.R. Campbell on 2010-08-26, 09:25:13
Although I regard Tom Kent as one of the principle architects of the decline (and at least stumble of not, yet, fall) of Canada (see: Kingston Conference, 1960) I agree with what he says in this piece, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/paying-for-politics-and-putting-power-where-it-should-be/article1685363/
First: I agree with Kent that a 2011 election is more likely than one in 2010.

Second: I am not unalterably opposed to ALL public financing of political parties but the formula for whatever funding is to be provided should be much, much less generous than today. (Today parties get $1.75 per vote; I think $0.05 per vote, multiplied by the number of provinces and territories in which the party gets, say, 7.5% of the vote, which would produce a maximum of $0.65 per vote, would be more than generous and would, as any public financing scheme should, actively penalize e.g. the Bloc Québecois for being a provincial party in a national legislature.) ($0.65 per vote would have netted the Liberals about $2.3 Million; $0.05 would have netted the BQ nearly $69,000 rather than the $2.4 Million they actually got.)

Third: I think $2,500.00± is a fair personal donation limit – offset by a sliding scale of tax deductibility: something generous like 85% of the first $750.00, 70% of the next $750 and 50% of the remaining $1,000.00 - aiming to reward the small donor. I would favour an absolute prohibition on any donations of money or services from any other entity like a corporation, firm, union, church or any other group; individual donations by individual Canadian citizens only should be the rule.

Finally: Prime Minister Harper should make election financing reform a major platform plank; it will appeal to many (most?) Canadians and it is the right thing to do.
I stick by that; some public financing is permissible, if only to keep big business and big labour away from politics.


Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is an informative article on the topic of election financing:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/analysis-fears-about-scrapping-per-vote-subsidies-wildly-off-target/article1968366/
Analysis: Fears about scrapping per-vote subsidies wildly off target

PATRICK BRETHOUR
Vancouver— Globe and Mail Update

Published Saturday, Apr. 02, 2011

A quick quiz on the economics of political donations: Does having $44 in your pocket make you rich?

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is once again proposing to scrap the per-vote subsidies that federal parties have gorged on since 2004, once again raising the predictable cries that such a move would hand control of politics to the wealthy.

Without such subsidies, party financing will fall into the grasp of the rich, the only group able to afford the extravagance of donations. Or so the theory goes.

Those concerns are wildly off target. Data compiled by the website Punditsguide.ca show that funds raised by the parties largely come from small donors, in amounts that would make few Canadian households cringe.

Take the Conservative Party in 2009, which raised $17.7-million from 101,385 people, for an average donation of $174.60. That’s hardly a sum to raise eyebrows, but of course the actual outlay is smaller; just $44 once the tax credits are taken into account. Most Canadians would be able, if not necessarily willing, to pay that amount.

The story is pretty much the same with the other parties: the NDP, with an average donation of $169.11; the Bloc Quebecois, average $102.63; Green Party, $123.21; and the Liberals, with an average of $239.23, the highest of the major federal parties. But even that relatively hefty donation would only set a citizen back $59, after the tax refund.

One other thing about those average donation figures – none are anywhere near the $1,100 ceiling placed on federal donations, meaning small donors dominate.

The same picture emerges when looking at the distribution of donations by size. For the Conservatives, about 10 per cent of the funds raised came from those giving between $1,000 and the maximum of $1,100; conversely, two-thirds came from those giving $400 or less. The NDP were similar, with 7 per cent coming from the highest donated amount, and 70 per cent coming from donations $400 and under. The Liberals – who have fulminated against the perils of the rich controlling the political process – were actually the party most dependent on big donations, with 35 per cent of their cash coming from donors giving between $1,000 and $1,100, while sub-$400 donors accounted for just 38 per cent of the funds the party raised.

In fact, the Liberals outperformed among big donors, raising $3.2-million to the Conservatives’ $1.7-million. The Tories made up that ground, and more, with small donors.

Assuming that Mr. Harper isn’t in the mood to give the Liberals undue electoral advantage, that last statistic should give great reassurance to those worried that the end of per-voter subsidies will open the door to major increases in individual contributions, or even the elimination of caps altogether.

Given current donation patterns, the higher the limit is, the better the Liberal Party will fare. The clear Conservative edge in raising funds from small donors would shrink accordingly. So, Mr. Harper can be counted on to avoid introducing big money into Canadian politics – if only because it preserves the big fundraising advantage of the Conservative Party.

Parties at the public trough

Published Sunday, Jan. 23, 2011

The per-vote subsidy is only part of the equation

number-cruncher-su_1145165a.jpg

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/parties-at-the-public-trough/article1880300/?from=1968366

I remain convinced that Canada should abolish or, at least, greatly reduce, the per vote subsidy and reduce the electoral expense reimbursement while increasing[/u] the political donation tax credit to encourage more and more Canadians to become more and more (say $500.00+/$10 per week) involved in politics.

 
Youth Employment Training  Program (funding from Dept of Training colleges  and EI)
I would like to see YTEP restarted and used as an employment strategy for youth.  I thought it was a great idea then when I worked within it and more so now. Stress trades like Field engineer, supply, MSE Op, Field artillery and medic. 
Also some sea trades like Bosn, cook (seeing Hells Kitchen is so popular) and steward.
Sure beats community college like Iggy is flogging, more money to pay Profs and YTEP is a Yr while college is 3 or so.
 
mad dog 2020 said:
Youth Employment Training  Program (funding from Dept of Training colleges  and EI)
I would like to see YTEP restarted and used as an employment strategy for youth.  I thought it was a great idea then when I worked within it and more so now. Stress trades like Field engineer, supply, MSE Op, Field artillery and medic. 
Also some sea trades like Bosn, cook (seeing Hells Kitchen is so popular) and steward.
Sure beats community college like Iggy is flogging, more money to pay Profs and YTEP is a Yr while college is 3 or so.

And where exactly will the leadership come from?  Op Attention has a heavy leadership bill and the last thing we need is another bill.  You think those trades are stressed now?

Moreover,  we are not here to assist in reducing "youth unemployment".  We are here to win the nation's wars.
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyrigt Act from the i]Ottawa Citizen[/i], is an election article with a double military slant:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Retired+officers+unleash+battle+strategies+Carleton+Mississippi+Mills/4550260/story.html
Retired officers unleash battle strategies on Carleton-Mississippi Mills riding

BY ANDREW DUFFY, OTTAWA CITIZEN
APRIL 3, 2011

4550261.bin

During her 26-year military career, Lt.-Col. Karen McCrimmon, the Liberal candidate in Carleton-Mississippi Mills, was the first woman in Canada to qualify as an air navigator and the first to command an air force squadron.

OTTAWA — It’s army versus air force in Carleton-Mississippi Mills where two retired military commanders are about to wage politics.

Decorated air force pioneer Lt.-Col. Karen McCrimmon will attempt to seize the riding for the Liberals from army Brig.-Gen. Gordon O’Connor, the former defence minister who now serves as chief whip in the Conservative government.

Such a high-ranking contest is unusual. Only 11 MPs in the last Parliament boasted military service — the lowest number in Canadian history — and of those, only six were officers.

O’Connor, a tank commander, has the advantage of an entrenched position in Carleton-Mississippi Mills. He has won the riding by more than 20,000 votes in each of the past two elections.

“I don’t try to defend it: I go out and try to earn every vote,” says the 71-year-old O’Connor. “I assume nothing.”

McCrimmon, 53, is not one deterred by a challenge. As a teenager, she joined cadets on a dare. She enlisted in the air force despite her mother’s remonstrations. During her 26-year military career, McCrimmon was the first woman in Canada to qualify as an air navigator and the first to command an air force squadron. She served in Afghanistan, the Balkans and the first Gulf War.

In Carleton-Mississippi Mills, McCrimmon is waging an asymmetrical campaign. She’s appealing to NDP, Green Party and former Progressive Conservative voters to unite behind her against Stephen Harper’s government.

“Liberals put the needs of people first,” says McCrimmon, “but they’re also trying to be fiscally responsible at the same time.”

The central defence issue in this election is the F-35 fighter aircraft purchase, and like their political parties, the candidates hold strong and conflicting views about its merits.

The Liberals have vowed to scrap the sole-sourced deal and hold a competition to select a new fighter. The Conservatives contend the F-35s are needed to defend Canada’s Arctic sovereignty and to ensure this country continues to play a role in international missions.

The 65 fighters are projected to cost between $16 billion and $21 billion, making them the most expensive single military purchase in Canadian history.

McCrimmon says it makes no sense to buy the fighters without a competition to ensure the best plane at the best price.

She says the F-35, which remains in development, has not been cold-weather tested, cannot land safely on some small northern runways and cannot be refuelled in the air with Canada’s existing tanker aircraft. Unlike the CF-18, it uses a single engine, she says, which makes it less-than-ideal for use in the Arctic.

“A procurement process is a risk management tool,” she argues. “They should do the process, find out what the weaknesses are, and address them.”

O’Connor defends the Lockheed Martin planes. The aerospace firm, he says, won an intense, four-year competition to design the new fighter for the U.S. military, a process that has informed the Conservative government’s decision.

“The aircraft is in the final stages of its development: it’s a world leader,” he says.

There are different versions of the F-35, O’Connor notes, and Canada will be able to select the one that best suits its needs. What’s more, he says, the purchase, when amortized over the life of the aircraft, will not cost appreciably more than what Canada now spends each year on its aging fleet of CF-18s.

While it promises to be spirited, the campaign in Carleton-Mississippi Mills will also be respectful.

McCrimmon’s military record, O’Connor says, shows she’s a “brave individual.” He calls the election political, not personal. For her part, McCrimmon has vowed to challenge O’Connor’s policy positions, but not his integrity: “The man wore a uniform. Regardless of our political differences, he still served his country. End of story.”

The biographies of both candidates offer compelling narratives.

McCrimmon was born in Weston, Ont., where her father worked at A.V. Roe Canada. A metallurgist technician, he helped build the CF-105 Arrow, an advanced interceptor aircraft that was ultimately scrapped by John Diefenbaker’s Progressive Conservative government.

Out of work, McCrimmon’s father moved his young family to Timmins where he took a job as an airport baggage handler. He worked his way up to airport manager, first in Timmins, and then in Windsor.

Karen McCrimmon studied Russian at the University of Windsor with an eye to a career in the diplomatic corps. When she graduated, the foreign service wasn’t hiring, so she turned to the military, which in 1979 had opened its colleges to women.

“When I heard that women could fly, I thought, ‘I’m going to try this,’” she says. “I’d been around airplanes all my life. I loved airplanes.”

McCrimmon graduated in 1981 as the country’s first female air navigator and went on to log more than 5,000 hours of flying time. In 1998, she took command of 429 Transport Squadron in Trenton. Its members were teased mercilessly about reporting to a woman, but McCrimmon quickly earned their respect.

“It’s just about earning trust. That’s what leadership is: it’s a two-way street, it’s a relationship.”

Among her decorations is the Order of Military Merit, one of the highest peacetime military awards a Canadian soldier can receive.

In 2006, she retired from the military when her children were in high school and her mother was terminally ill. “There were other priorities to be dealt with: it was time,” says McCrimmon, who is married to an Air Canada pilot.

Gordon O’Connor is also a distinguished veteran — and the first general to serve as defence minister since Liberal Charles “Bud” Drury in the early 1970s.

Born in Toronto, O’Connor earned degrees in math, physics and philosophy from Concordia and York Universities. He dreamed of being a great scientist — “Einstein was a hero” — but settled on the family business, the military, after graduation. His father had been a sergeant in the air force.

O’Connor joined the army’s armoured branch in 1962. He was posted four times to Camp Gagetown, twice to staff colleges in England and twice to Lahr, Germany, where he served as a tank squadron commander, and in the late 1970s, as regiment commander.

“Those were the days of the ‘hot’ cold war,” he says. “We never knew when we were going to collide with the Warsaw Pact ... We had a number of alerts there where we thought we were going to war.”

O’Connor, who retired from the military in 1994, says he has decided to seek re-election because he enjoys the work of an MP.

McCrimmon says she wants to change the country’s political culture: “I want to show people that politics can be done differently: more civil, more responsive, more reflective of the needs of the community.”

Curiously, the Ottawa-area riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell also features two candidates with significant military credentials. Conservative incumbent Pierre Lemieux and Green party challenger Sylvie Lemieux (no relation) attained the rank of lieutenant-colonel during 20-year careers as engineers in the Canadian Forces.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen



I expect Gord O’Connor
oconnor-g-cls-cp-1797763.jpg
to win this one; ThreeHundredEight.com show the vote projection is, as of 1 Apr 11:

Conservatives … 60.6%
Greens …………….  8.8%
Liberals ………….  22.0%
NDP …………………  8.6%
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qP6Y5woqhuc/TZXFlX7HueI/AAAAAAAAEg0/XxAWaHaOCwI/s1600/11-04-01+Ridings.PNG 1 Apr 11 projection


 
From the same Ottawa Citizen article quoted just above:

Curiously, the Ottawa-area riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell also features two candidates with significant military credentials. Conservative incumbent Pierre Lemieux and Green party challenger Sylvie Lemieux (no relation) attained the rank of lieutenant-colonel during 20-year careers as engineers in the Canadian Forces.


Here they are, with links to their web sites:

electionpic.jpg
                               
Sylvie%20Lemieux%20Headshot%20Corrected_1.jpg

Pierre Lemieux - Conservative                      Sylvie Lemieux - Green
Source: http://www.pierrelemieux.ca/          Source: http://www.sylvielemieux.ca/


According to ThreeHundredEight.com Conservative candidate Pierre Lemieux has a commanding (51.9% to 4.5%) lead over Green Candidate Sylvie Lemieux.
 
I guess this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the National Post, counts as real news:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/04/03/liberals-release-election-platform/
Liberals release election platform

0403ignatieff.jpg


Geoff Robins/AFP/Getty Images
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff.



Postmedia News  Apr 3, 2011

By Althia Raj and Mike De Souza

OTTAWA — The federal Liberals will slash spending, increase taxes for the rich, encourage homeowners to make green renovations and allow citizens to vote online according to details of their election platform released Sunday.

Liberals say they’ll tackle the deficit the same way they did in the 1990s — by bringing the deficit target to one per cent of GDP within two years.

They say they’ll save $3-billion in one year — rising to $5-billion in year 2 — by increasing the corporate tax rate by 1.5%, to a level of 18%.

The Liberals also pledged to eliminate a tax break on stock options for the very rich that, they say, will bring in $300-million to the treasury. Canadians who earn more than $100,000 in annual stock options will have to pay income tax on their earnings.

The party also believes it will save $500-million in two years by slashing government advertising, limiting the size of the cabinet and the prime minister’s office and cutting the amount of money spent on consultants.

The party’s platform, entitled Your Family. Your future. Your Canada, focuses on five broad themes: the economy, families, the environment, democracy and international affairs.

With the money saved the party will spend billions on social programs.

Among their new proposals is a green renovation tax credit worth $2,025 for expenses of up to $13,500 on new windows, doors and roofing.

A new youth hiring incentive would allow small- and medium-sized businesses to not pay employment insurance premiums for any youth hired.

The party would end the accelerated capital cost allowance for oilsands development and reinvest the $265-million into technologies to reduce the oilsands impact on the environment.

The Liberals also pledged to create a cap-and-trade system, such as the one that already exists in Europe.

The party would boost spending on aboriginal education, language training and pledged $40 million for a veterans learning benefit.

The Liberals would also: restore the court challenges program; spend $100-million for a freshwater strategy; and reallocate $1-billion in funding, after the Afghan mission, to increase development aid and Canada’s participation in UN missions.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is also pledging to reform question period in the House of Commons, with one day dedicated to questions the prime minister would answer. The party will also create a ‘people’s question period’ in which cabinet ministers and the prime minister would answer questions from Canadians online.

The Liberals also say they will direct Elections Canada to develop Internet voting options to encourage more people to vote.

The Liberals have already announced: a $700-million boost to the Guaranteed Income Supplement; $1 billion for post-secondary education; $1-billion to help family caregivers; and $500 million for early childhood learning.

Meanwhile, the federal Conservatives didn’t need to actually see the Liberal platform to offer their reaction.

In fact, a pair of Tory spokesmen were able to print out their analysis of the latest edition of the “Red Book” before the Liberal document was even released

“We must remain focused on what really matters to Canadians — creating jobs and completing the economic recovery,” said Conservative spokesman Fred Delorey, in a statement distributed by Tories prior to release of Liberal platform

The neatly printed news release was distributed by two of Delorey’s colleagues from the Conservative war room who dropped by the Delta City Centre in Ottawa on Sunday about two hours before Ignatieff unveiled his platform.

“Unfortunately, Michael Ignatieff’s election platform will raise taxes, kill jobs and put our economic recovery in jeopardy,” said Delorey. “Canadians just can’t afford Michael Ignatieff’s high-tax agenda.”

Two weeks ago, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty accused the Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois of deciding to oppose his budget before they had read it.
But the Conservative statement bases some of its reaction on “a number of costly promises” made by Ignatieff as Liberal leader.

The Tories say those promises would apparently include billions of dollars for a high-speed train from Windsor, Ont., to Quebec City, a new commitment on pharmacare, funding for pro-sports buildings across the country and a new billion-dollar bridge in Montreal.

The Tory release also concludes that the Liberal platform is designed to “raise taxes” and “kill jobs.”

As an independent validator of their claims, the Tories highlight recent comments by Jack Mintz, “a world-renowned fiscal and tax policy specialist.”

“By raising the (corporate tax) rate, we’ll lose $50-billion in capital spending over the long run and we will also lose 200,000 jobs,” Mr. Mintz is quoted as saying from a broadcast of the Rutherford Show on April 1. “It’s just such a bad policy to advocate.”

Mr. Mintz, the Palmer chair in public policy at the University of Calgary, is a member of the board of directors at Imperial Oil.


My initial reaction:


• Save $3-billion in one year — rising to $5-billion in year 2 — by increasing the corporate tax rate by 1.5%, to a level of 18%. Bad, indeed a stupid idea! Economic irresponsibility and policy vandalism.

• Eliminate a tax break on stock options for the very rich that, they say, will bring in $300-million to the treasury. Canadians who earn more than $100,000 in annual stock options will have to pay income tax on their earnings. Bad idea – discourages the very investments that create jobs. More economic irresponsibility aimed at pandering to economically illiterate (but always greedy) Canadians – i.e. the vast majority of our fellow citizens.

• Save $500-million in two years by slashing government advertising Good idea.

• Limiting the size of the cabinet and the prime minister’s office Not a bad idea but, almost certainly, will never, ever happen in any Liberal or Conservative government. It is an unbelievable promise.

• Cutting the amount of money spent on consultants. Good idea. Alternatively – keep hiring consultants but always offset them with fired civil servants.

• Green renovation tax credit worth $2,025 for expenses of up to $13,500 on new windows, doors and roofing. Good idea.

• A new youth hiring incentive would allow small- and medium-sized businesses to not pay employment insurance premiums for any youth hired. Fair idea, but why just youth. A good idea would involve cutting the employers’ shares of EI for all employees – new and old, young and old.

• End the accelerated capital cost allowance for oilsands development and reinvest the $265-million into technologies to reduce the oilsands impact on the environment. Stupid idea, aimed at killing the goose, etc.

• Create a cap-and-trade system, such as the one that already exists in Europe. Bad idea. Cap and trade doesn’t work. A carbon tax would be a good idea.

• Boost spending on aboriginal education, language training and pledged $40 million for a veterans learning benefit. Would be a good idea if it was accompanied by a whole hockey sock full of measures necessary to make more aboriginal funding productive – which almost none of it is now.

• Restore the court challenges program. Bad idea. The programme was never a really good idea but whatever ‘good” was there has been exhausted.

• Spend $100-million for a freshwater strategy A brain  fart – aimed at appeasing Maude Barlow.

• Reallocate $1-billion in funding, after the Afghan mission, to increase development aid and Canada’s participation in UN missions. Bad idea – sending good money after bad.

• Reform question period in the House of Commons, with one day dedicated to questions the prime minister would answer. Very good idea.

• Create a ‘people’s question period’ in which cabinet ministers and the prime minister would answer questions from Canadians online. Maybe a useful idea … maybe not.

• Develop Internet voting options to encourage more people to vote. An idea worth studying.

The Liberals have already announced –

• $700-million boost to the Guaranteed Income Supplement; Good politics, probably not economically necessary.

• $1 billion for post-secondary education; Good idea, should be $1 Billion per year, for ten years, to start.

• $1-billion to help family caregivers; and Good idea.

• $500 million for early childhood learning. Intruding, unnecessarily, into provincial jurisdiction.
 
Nik on the Numbers
came by Email today.

The Harper Tories continue to enjoy an 11 point advantage over the Ignatieff Grits. Although the overall Tory numbers remain stable, some regional shifts have occurred. The Tories have picked up support in the province of Quebec over the last few nights of tracking but have declined in support in battleground Ontario. From a high of 47.2% in Ontario a few days ago, they are now at 40.8% as of last evening with the Liberals at 37.6% support in Ontario. Looking at the three day rolling average trend for the regional subsample in Ontario - it is a statistical tie.

Policy as a vote factor has slid for the third day in succession to 48.0% but is still clearly the number one vote driver at this point in the campaign.

Visit the Nanos website at 4pm daily to get the latest nightly tracking update on the top national issue of concern and the Nanos Leadership Index comprised of daily trust vision and competence scores of the leaders.

The detailed tables and methodology are posted on our website where you can also register to receive automatic polling updates.


  Methodology
A national random telephone survey is conducted nightly by Nanos Research throughout the campaign. Each evening a new group of 400 eligible voters are interviewed. The daily tracking figures are based on a three-day rolling sample comprised of 1,200 interviews. To update the tracking a new day of interviewing is added and the oldest day dropped. The margin of error for a survey of 1,200 respondents is ±2.8%, 19 times out of 20.


  National Ballot Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed voters only - First Preference)

The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the three day rolling average of the Nanos Nightly Tracking ending on April 1st (n=1,200; committed voters only n=983).

Canada (n=986 committed voters)
Conservative 40.7% (-0.6)
Liberal 29.4% (-0.9)
NDP 16.9% (+0.9)
Bloc Quebecois 8.0% (-0.5)
Green 4.0% (+0.3)
Undecided 17.8% (-0.3)

Vote Driver Question: Which of the following factors are most important to you today in influencing your vote [Rotate]? (n=1,200)

The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the three day rolling average of the Nanos Nightly Tracking ending on April 1st (n=1,200).

Traditionally Vote for Party 9.3% (+0.6)
Party Leader 23.2% (+1.0)
Party Policies 48.0% (-4.0)
Local Candidate 15.0% (+1.9)
Unsure 4.5% (+0.6)
 
Worthless without a concise breakdown of how we get from here to there on the deficit target; the rest is just a shopping list of new spending - a reason to not vote Liberal - and some overoptimistic revenue projections ("experts" agree the value of rolling back a 1.5% chunk of the corporate tax rate is not worth $3B or more a year).

Figures I found for 2010 GDP are $1335B.  1% is $13.35B  2010-11 deficit forecast is now sitting at ($40B).  Conservative projection for 2011-12 is just under ($30B).  This means figuring out a way to carve off $17B from the deficit rather than $10B or so for 2012-13 to hit a deficit target of 1% of GDP within two years.  Absent a balance sheet which can clearly lay down the assumed revenues and assumed spending cuts against the forecasted spending, the Liberal platform is bullsh!t with respect to the only important question facing us: can they reduce the deficit faster than the Conservatives?
 
An interesting platform that will resonate with voters.  I hope the Conservatives raise their sights from the purely tactical hand to hand combat that they are so good at to actually clearly outline their platform.

Some reasoned analysis from them vice a simple BAD EVIL AMERICAN TAX AND SPEND shouting slogan before even reading the platform might be useful as well.

They are badly underestimating Mr Ignatieff right now, and need to raise their game.  This one appears to be the Conservative's to lose, again.
 
The Liberal Party platform can be found (pdf form) here.

Particular items of interest to the military community:

• Page 12 – Cancel the mismanaged, $30 billion deal for F-35 stealth fighter jets. When it is necessary to buy new fighters, we’ll spend billions less than the Harper government would have.

But the higher priorities will be investments in middle-class families, and building a stronger economy for the future.


• Page 27 – A Liberal government will implement a new Veterans’ Learning Benefit that provides full support for the costs of up to four years of college, university or technical education for Canadian Forces veterans after completion of service.

Following the Second World War, both Canada and the United States offered veterans full support for their post-secondary education. Although the GI Bill continues in the United States today, no similar program remains in Canada. It’s time we did more.

In addition to honouring veterans, post-service education support would contribute to other important objectives. It would provide a significant boost for recruitment at a time when the Forces face difficulty in meeting enrollment needs in many specific occupational categories, particularly high-skill and technical areas. In addition, education support would smooth the reintegration of Canadian Forces personnel into society and the workforce. That makes sense for both the individuals involved, and the knowledge and skills-dependent Canadian economy.

Based on current projections of attrition rates and the Forces’ needs, and assuming a high takeup rate, this represents an estimated investment of up to $120 million in veterans’ learning over the first two years of a Liberal government.


• Page 82 – The Modern Canadian Military

The Canadian Forces do extraordinary work around the world, as well as defending our security and sovereignty at home, undertaking search and rescue operations, and responding to civilian emergencies. The Forces ably serve Canada in our major alliances, NATO and NORAD, safeguarding peace and security and fighting terrorism. After years serving bravely and effectively in Afghanistan, Canada`s military is an experienced, battle-hardened force, respected internationally.

That force will be indispensible to a renewed concept of Canada’s role in the world.

A Return to Peace Operations

In 2009, the United Nations deployed more peacekeepers than ever before – five times the number of ten years ago – with almost 100,000 military and police personnel in 15 UN missions around the globe. Yet, while the number and the need for UN peacekeepers has never been greater, Canada’s contribution has never been smaller. While we were once the world’s single greatest contributor of UN peacekeepers, in 2009 we were 56th.

Traditional peacekeeping has changed significantly since Canada vacated the field. Increasingly, deployments are undertaken to more complex and often dangerous situations, better described as peace-making missions. These increasingly involve combat. Based on the hard-earned experience in Afghanistan, a Liberal government will develop a new leadership role for Canada in today’s  peace operations. It will include training, commanding and deploying personnel where it’s clear that a mission is consistent with Canada’s interests, values and capabilities. And while at present only  a small fraction of Canada’s defence budget is dedicated to the incremental cost of United Nations operations, Liberals will ensure that the Canadian Forces have the resources they need to engage in additional Peace Operations.

Responsibility to Protect

Under the umbrella of Peace, Order and Good Government, the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) will provide a rigorous framework for renewed Canadian leadership in preventing and addressing conflictand mass-scale human rights abuse. Michael Ignatieff played a key role in developing R2P, as part of the Canadian-initiated, and UN-endorsed, International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty.

The doctrine emphasizes that sovereign states have a n obligation to protect their citizens from harm, and when they do not, the international community must make every possible diplomatic effort to persuade them to do so. When a sovereign state will not or cannot protect its people, R2P requires intervention of the international community, including military intervention as a last resort, in UN-mandated operations to stop large-scale loss of innocent lives, such as in genocide or ethnic cleansing.

R2P was formally adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 2005, with strong Canadian leadership. Since then, the Harper government has hardly mentioned it. Canada could have advocated R2P – from a seat on the UN Security Council – to help advance a coherent international response to the violence in Libya, for example. A Liberal government will work with the international community to solidify the doctrine’s acceptance and implementation. This does not mean Canada will be obliged to intervene in conflicts wherever they occur. It means that Canada will renew its leadership in conflict prevention, and that when the world must act to stop large-scale slaughter of innocent people, Canada will be able to contribute with military capacity experienced in the complexities of modern conflict.

The Future of Our Engagement in Afghanistan

Canada’s role with NATO in Afghanistan supports security and development in a troubled land previously governed by a repressive Taliban regime, which provided safe haven to Al-Qaeda to plot the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. More than 150 Canadian men and women have lost their lives, and many more face disabilities. The mission has been an honourable one in our national interest. Afghanistan must not revert to being a safe haven for terrorists.

The combat mission is ending in 2011. However, the basic objective will not be completed. The Afghan people will still not be fully able to govern themselves and maintain their own security.

That is why the Liberal Party supports the 2011-2014 training mission, and continued development work. The purpose is to help the Afghan people build a better future for themselves.

The post-combat presence for Canada must also include a substantive role in the diplomatic process and any political talks on Afghanistan’s future. A Liberal government will appoint a Special Envoy to the peace process for the region.

Respect for Canada’s Veterans

Canadian veterans deserve the best possible care and support, and an administrative structure mandated and organized to meet their needs in accordance with the lifelong social contract between the veteran and the nation. The New Veterans Charter has provided our veterans with many valuable tools to reintegrate into civilian life, but it’s not perfect. Veterans groups, advisory groups, Senate and House committees and individual injured veterans and their families, from the regulars and the reserves, have identified ways to the make the Charter more fair, responsive, family-focused, and veteran-friendly. A Liberal government will work with these groups to implement significant improvements, including re-visiting whether the disability award should continue to be a lump-sum payment.

A Liberal government will also implement a new Veterans’ Learning Benefit, supporting the costs of higher education after completion of service.

Strengthening Bilingual Learning in the Canadian Forces

Bilingualism is among the many attributes that enable the Canadian Forces to both serve and reflect our country with pride and professionalism. The same is true of their emphasis on knowledge and learning. A renewed commitment to bilingual learning is now required. College Militaire Royal de St-Jean (CMRSJ) has played an important role through various phases of its history. A Liberal government will invest in CMRSJ to restore it to full university status.

This will add needed capacity for educating the next generation of officers within the military system, complementing RMC Kingston, which is operating at full capacity. CMRSJ will build on its traditional strength in the liberal arts, which become more important in military education as modern conflict grows more complex, and more entangled with socio-political dynamics playing out beneath the level of traditional state-to-state clashes. Most importantly, the francophone milieu of CMRSJ will help attract motivated young francophones to the Canadian Forces, and offer Anglophone officer-students enhanced opportunities to master their second official language while advancing their studies in the RMC system.

Military Procurement

A Liberal government will have a very different vision of Canada’s role in the world. Naturally, the entire procurement programme in the Department of National Defence will have to be reviewed in the context of that changing role. A well-resourced military will be essential under a Liberal government. Procurement decisions will flow from mission needs in a straightforward and transparent manner. They also need to secure the best value for money and industrial benefits.

A Liberal government will immediately cancel the mismanaged $30 billion sole-source deal for  F-35 stealth fighter jets, and save billions of dollars. In the largest procurement in Canadian history, the Harper government never explained why that plane is essential at this time. It still cannot say what the actual price will be, and secured no guarantee for industrial benefits. Other countries, including the United States, are scaling back orders for an aircraft still under development, but the Conservatives charged ahead, despite the facts. There is a more responsible way to proceed.

After cancelling the Harper deal, a Liberal government will put further steps on hold during a review of all military procurement in light of the new international policy described in this Global Networks Strategy. This review will include Canada’s search and rescue requirements as well as the needs of our air, naval and land forces. When Canada purchases new fighter planes, we will have a transparent, competitive process to procure equipment that best meets our needs, achieves best value for money, secures maximum industrial benefits, and fits a realistic budget.
 
PPCLI Guy said:
An interesting platform that will resonate with voters.  I hope the Conservatives raise their sights from the purely tactical hand to hand combat that they are so good at to actually clearly outline their platform.

Some reasoned analysis from them vice a simple BAD EVIL AMERICAN TAX AND SPEND shouting slogan before even reading the platform might be useful as well.

They are badly underestimating Mr Ignatieff right now, and need to raise their game.  This one appears to be the Conservative's to lose, again.


I agree. But almost anything would be superior to the Foreign Policy and Defence Policy drivel (and I'm being charitable there) found in the Liberal platform.
 
"After cancelling the Harper deal, a Liberal government will put further steps on hold during a review of all military procurement in light of the new international policy described in this Global Networks Strategy. This review will include Canada’s search and rescue requirements as well as the needs of our air, naval and land forces."

Simplified English translation . . .  "Bend over, lube up and get ready because we plan to screw you like we have done before"
 
Haletown said:
Simplified English translation . . .  "Bend over, lube up and get ready because we plan to screw you like we have done before"

Can I assume that we will have to pay for the lube out of our own pockets?
 
Nostix said:
Can I assume that we will have to pay for the lube out of our own pockets?

If we can afford to after the pay cuts.
 
...Strengthening Bilingual Learning in the Canadian Forces

Bilingualism is among the many attributes that enable the Canadian Forces to both serve and reflect our country with pride and professionalism. The same is true of their emphasis on knowledge and learning. A renewed commitment to bilingual learning is now required. College Militaire Royal de St-Jean (CMRSJ) has played an important role through various phases of its history. A Liberal government will invest in CMRSJ to restore it to full university status.

This will add needed capacity for educating the next generation of officers within the military system, complementing RMC Kingston, which is operating at full capacity. CMRSJ will build on its traditional strength in the liberal arts, which become more important in military education as modern conflict grows more complex, and more entangled with socio-political dynamics playing out beneath the level of traditional state-to-state clashes. Most importantly, the francophone milieu of CMRSJ will help attract motivated young francophones to the Canadian Forces, and offer Anglophone officer-students enhanced opportunities to master their second official language while advancing their studies in the RMC system....

Ummm, would that be the same CMR St-Jean sur Richelieu that the Liberal Government under Chretien closed in 1995? (Along with Royal Roads Military College in British Columbia).  RMC already runs a completely bilingual program and without expanding the Canadian Forces any larger than it currently is, the additional officer production, be it francophone or bilingual at CMR St-Jean, is simply not required.  This would demonstrably decrease the efficiency (read increased cost with no proportional benefit) of the CF's officer education process.  ::)

This is but one aspect of the Liberals' "briefs well to voters, but doesn't translate to fiscally responsible action" plan.

Concur that the Cons need to run the Liberal plans full circle to validate or discredit the proposals.

Regards
G2G

p.s.  Didn't the Conservative budget reestablish the rebates for energy saving improvements to citizens' homes?  How is the Liberal element new?  ???  Perhaps it should be named for what it is, "A plan to do what the Conservatives said they would do in the budget, a budget that we found totally unacceptable...er, mostly unacceptable...er...pretty unacceptable, except for these parts which we kind of think weren't bad ideas, so we'll put them into out budget when we win a landslide majority..."
 
Ideally, we could leverage this into closing RMC (Kingston) and moving to a smaller footprint in St Jean, decreasing the throughput of officers and rebalancing the military to being less top-heavy.

Though I suspect instead we'd end up with even more officers with nothing to do... and have to build an expansion on to Startop.
 
The main problem facing the Conservatives is that their approach so far has been "Stay the course with us; work the plan", and as of today the Liberals have unveiled "Look! Shiny new spending! And a smaller deficit too!".
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is a pretty fair analysis of the Liberal platform:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/with-new-platform-ignatieff-seeks-return-to-land-of-trudeau/article1969240/
With new platform, Ignatieff seeks return to land of Trudeau

JOHN IBBITSON
OTTAWA— From Monday's Globe and Mail

Published Sunday, Apr. 03, 2011

In 94 pages, Michael Ignatieff has unveiled a new Liberal Red Book that asks Canadians to fundamentally reject not only Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, but everything they’ve stood for. Over the remaining four weeks of this election campaign, the Liberal Leader will stake his political future on trying to convince you.

Whether he succeeds depends on whether you believe that Canada should return to its Trudeauesque past of increased social spending paid for by higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy, or continue the Conservative emphasis on keeping taxes low while balancing the books.

The choice couldn’t be simpler, or more stark.

The Liberal platform seeks to restore and expand the social safety net by investing more than $5.5-billion annually in education, child care, home care, the environment and other priorities, to be paid for by hiking corporate taxes and taxing a portion of income from wealthy Canadians who purchase stock options at below market value.

In an important revelation, the Liberals now intend not only to scrap the F-35 fighter program, but to defer replacing the aging fleet of CF-18s until “it is necessary.”

And while the Liberals promise to sharply reduce the federal deficit, they have no immediate plans to eliminate it.

This represents the antithesis of Conservative priorities of balancing the books and continuing to lower business taxes while preserving military procurement as a core spending priority.

The competing Liberal and Conservative visions hinge on fundamentally conflicting assumptions: The Liberal platform assumes that Canada has confidently recovered from the past recession, making it a safe risk to ask business to pay more to help working and middle-class families.

The Conservatives envision an economy emerging uncertainly from the Great Downturn in a world that is still filled with turmoil and risk, making sound books the first concern.

Liberals like to say that in election campaigns, hope trumps fear. Unless, Conservatives respond, the hope is false and the fears are real.

A Liberal government would also restore the past by returning to the days of national shared-cost social programs, such as the proposed federal-provincial child-care strategy. It wants to reform the Canada Pension Plan, which also requires provincial consent.

It even wants to get into the school yard, through a joint fed-prov strategy to increase the amount of exercise students receive.

In a proposal that would bring a smile to Trudeau’s ghost, the Liberals’ industrial strategy targets winners and losers, through federal incentives in green energy, biosciences and digital technology, while also toughening the criteria for foreign direct investment in Canada.

While the Conservatives have also, over the years, offered fiscal incentives to boost some parts of the economy, Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty never envisioned anything as ambitious – or intrusive, depending on your point of view – as this.

Some contrasts are ones of degree rather than kind. The proposed Conservative budget offered $400-million for one year to promote energy-efficient home renovations. The Red Book would make that program permanent. The Conservatives offered $300-million a year for low-income seniors through the Guaranteed Income Supplement. The Liberals are offering $700- million.

But while the two parties’ policies sometimes overlap – they’re both very keen to help volunteer firefighters – the underlying philosophies couldn’t be farther apart.

Look at it like this: The Liberal platform proposes spending $80-million over four years to encourage farmers’ markets that sell locally grown food.

What do you think of that?


It will come as no surprise to anyone who knows me or follows my scribbling here on Army.ca that I think a ” return to land of Trudeau” would be a total, unmitigated disaster for Canada and Canadians. I guess I won’t be voting Liberal.

But, this Liberal platform is not only a repudiation of Stephen Harper, it does away with the budgetary responsibility of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, too – and in that, in being irresponsible with the fiscal health of Canada and with Canadians’ hard earned money, it is pure Trudeau.
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, are some suggestions about what the party leaders might want to do in week 2 of the campaign:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/what-leaders-must-do-to-win-week-two/article1969357/?utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_source=Globe%20Politics&utm_type=text&utm_content=What%20leaders%20must%20do%20to%20win%20Week%20Two&utm_campaign=85528558
What leaders must do to win Week Two

From Monday's Globe and Mail
Posted on Sunday, April 3, 2011

CONSERVATIVES

The challenge facing Stephen Harper as he tries for a majority government is to strengthen his lead and prevent left-of-centre votes from flocking to rival Michael Ignatieff as part of a strategic effort to stop a Conservative majority.

Mr. Harper begins Monday, April 4, in the Niagara riding of Welland, where the Tories are hoping to knock off NDP incumbent Malcolm Allen and add one more seat towards the 11 additional ones they need for control of the Commons

Mr. Allen is one of the New Democrat MPs who initially backed scrapping the long-gun registry but then changed his mind before a Commons vote that preserved it. The New Democrat only won his seat in 2008 by a few hundred votes and the Conservatives, who came second last time, are hoping to make him pay for switching sides by harnessing rural anger.

The Conservative Leader then heads to Guelph, Ont., where the Tories are trying to unseat Liberal Frank Valeriote, who won his seat in the last ballot by fewer than 1,800 votes with a Tory candidate coming second.

- Steven Chase


LIBERALS

The Ignatieff campaign made a deliberate decision to hit major media markets – Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver – in the first week of the campaign. They wanted to show strength through crowds and introduce leader Michael Ignatieff to Canadians. He is the only one of the five leaders who has not run a national campaign.

So this week Mr. Ignatieff is in the Atlantic – Halifax and then Newfoundland and Labrador Monday, which is shaping up as a fierce battleground.

Conservative Leader Mr. Harper announced loan guarantees for the Lower Churchill hydro project when he was campaigning in the province last week. It was a kiss-and-make-up gesture after losing seats in the 2008 election because of an anything-but-Conservative campaign launched by former premier Danny Williams.

Mr. Ignatieff wants to hold on to his six seats in that province. So what he says about the Lower Churchill will be crucial.

– Jane Taber


NDP

The challenge faced by Jack Layton's New Democrats is to convince left-leaning voters that the NDP candidates can beat Conservatives. Mr. Layton needs to prevent a migration of votes from his party to the Liberals, and to the Bloc in Quebec, as Canadians who fear a Conservative majority start to think strategically.

The NDP Leader will hold a rally on Monday night in the riding of Elgin-Middlesex-London, where his former candidate, Ryan Dolby, quit last week to support the Liberals - and said as he left that he felt the move was the only was to defeat the riding's Conservative incumbent. Mr. Layton and his supporters will cheer on their new candidate, Fred Sinclair, who was nominated the day after Mr. Dolby's defection.

In doing so, Mr. Layton will be sending the message that this campaign has not become a two-party race.

- Gloria Galloway


BLOC QUÉBÉCOIS

The Bloc Québécois will be trying to take back three seats from the Conservative Party – and protect its current rural ridings - as Leader Gilles Duceppe travels to eastern and northern Quebec this week.

The Bloc campaign will follow the St. Lawrence River, where it will try to reclaim a seat that was lost in a by-election last year, all the way to Gaspésie, and then up to the Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean, where two Conservative ministers are well-entrenched.

The Bloc will be calling for more federal help for industries such as forestry and fisheries as a way to fight against the rural exodus. In addition, Mr. Duceppe will continue to attack the Conservatives on national issues, such as a loan guarantee for a hydro-electrical development in Newfoundland that is being widely denounced in Quebec.

Overall, the Bloc is trying to convince Quebeckers in faraway regions that they are better off with a vocal MP in opposition than with a Conservative MP who toes the government line.

- Daniel Leblanc


I think the Liberals probably did well amongst middle-class voters last week. I suspect that their platform, which I think is poor, even destructive, will be popular. Therefore, I think the Conservative and NDP need to attack it from the right (it will destroy the economy) and the left (it doesn’t do enough) and offer alternatives.
 
Back
Top