Election 2015

[McG]

At best, it would have reinforced any decision or indecision you had already reached.

I was amused by a few statements where Mr Mulcair presented himself as the rational middle ground between Mr Harper and Mrs May; I do not think it was deliberate but it it exaggerated previous suggestions that Mr Trudeau (who was placed to one side in the debate) is on the side watching this election as opposed to leading a viable campaign. 

 

[Infanteer]

It'll be interesting to see if this comes into play at the national level.  Alberta votes in the NDP.  NDP raises corporate taxes.  Companies now report losses.  Companies claim losses cost Canadian jobs.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/canadian-natural-posts-405-million-net-loss-after-alberta-tax-hike-1.2505394

 

[CougarKing]

Wow. To think Trudeau actually ended his closing remarks by saying "So that's why I want to be your Prime Minister!"

Yeah, like that won't play to voters as the baby-faced Trudeau saying "I'm entitled to this position because of my surname."  :facepalm:

And he was continually interrupting and not letting the other party leaders finish their sentences during their turns.

Maybe his debate coaches just told him to be more aggressive, but Trudeau's incessant "No that's not true Mr. Harper!" made him come across as a child stamping his foot that no one's listening to him.

 

[Altair]

As a biased liberal, I'll give my spin on trudeau's performance. 

For a rookie leader, think he did quite well. He couldn't afford to be marginalized and concede the ABC role to mulcair. I don't think he did enough to win this election but I sure think he didn't lose it tonight. He was aggressive, which should help counter some of those ads saying he's a lightweight airhead. He wasn't overwhelmed by the three other very experienced opponents which was my main worry.

He wasn't able to give much specifics when it came to his plan, but I don't think any of the leaders did too much of that. He tried too hard to speak over others, which tends to be annoying. I understand that he needed to be very involved but it still got to me and the wife a bit. His arms were going g crazy, but between mulcair crazy eyes and harpers non smile, I'll call that a wash.

All told, a positive night for the liberals. I just hope that justin trudeau is playing the long game in the sense that he doesn't just resign ig he doesn't win the election. He looks like he's going to be able to just about triple his parties seat count to 90 something from the mid 30s in what looks like a upcoming minority parliament. He will hold the balance of power nobody who wins the minority and he can then hone his skills a bit. Seeing as this will probably be harpers last election he will have a bit of experience going up against a rookie CPC leader whenever the minority goverment falls. I think that counts as success when you consider the LPC was on its deathbed after the 2011 election results.

He reminds me a bit of Stephen Harper in the sense that he didn't win his first two elections but stuck it out until the Canadian public wasn't terrified of him anymore. If trudeau plays the long game and sticks it out for what I believe to be the next two minority parliaments we are likely to have that he will have positioned himself well.

 

[Edward Campbell]

As a biased liberal, I'll give my spin on trudeau's performance.

For a rookie leader, think he did quite well. He couldn't afford to be marginalized and concede the ABC role to mulcair. I don't think he did enough to win this election but I sure think he didn't lose it tonight. He was aggressive, which should help counter some of those ads saying he's a lightweight airhead. He wasn't overwhelmed by the three other very experienced opponents which was my main worry.

    Anthony Furey writing in the Winnipeg Sun, agrees with you.

He wasn't able to give much specifics when it came to his plan, but I don't think any of the leaders did too much of that. He tried too hard to speak over others, which tends to be annoying. I understand that he needed to be very involved but it still got to me and the wife a bit. His arms were going g crazy, but between mulcair crazy eyes and harpers non smile, I'll call that a wash.

All told, a positive night for the liberals. I just hope that justin trudeau is playing the long game in the sense that he doesn't just resign ig he doesn't win the election. He looks like he's going to be able to just about triple his parties seat count to 90 something from the mid 30s in what looks like a upcoming minority parliament. He will hold the balance of power nobody who wins the minority and he can then hone his skills a bit. Seeing as this will probably be harpers last election he will have a bit of experience going up against a rookie CPC leader whenever the minority goverment falls. I think that counts as success when you consider the LPC was on its deathbed after the 2011 election results.

He reminds me a bit of Stephen Harper in the sense that he didn't win his first two elections but stuck it out until the Canadian public wasn't terrified of him anymore. If trudeau plays the long game and sticks it out for what I believe to be the next two minority parliaments we are likely to have that he will have positioned himself well.

      I agree with you again, but I don't think that the Liberal Party of Canada is willing to "play the long game." My guess is that the LPC wants Stornoway, as a bare minimum, and 24 Sussex Drive within 18 months, max.
    If M Trudeau cannot deliver that ~ and the current odds, 73 days away from 19 Oct, says he cannot ~ then my guess is that he follows Dion and Ignatieff into the political wilderness.

 

[dapaterson]

John Robson of the National Post is experiencing some angst:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-robson-i-cant-vote-for-the-harper-conservatives-i-just-cant

Elections are such infuriating spectacles that sometimes one doesn't know which obscenity to utter first. But I've decided to aim my initial outburst at the Harper Tories.

I cannot vote for them. I just can't. They should be my natural choice but their coarse, vindictive, proudly unprincipled cynicism must not be rewarded with electoral success, regardless of the consequences.

Let's start with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's first major campaign pledge: to make the home renovation tax credit permanent if he is re-elected. If it were economics, it would clearly be bad economics, aiming to "stimulate" one of the few sectors of the economy doing so well it already has the government worried about a bubble.

Worse, it's yet another "boutique" tax credit, disguised spending cunningly designed to look as though government is getting smaller, while actually making it bigger. The cliché that Harper shrank government suits partisans on all sides, but it is false.

Worse still, it rests on the premise that anything you want should be subsidized. The Tories were already pumping out dozens of press releases a week touting handouts to everyone from bison farmers to door makers, which assumes that nothing good can be produced through unaided private markets, a theory not even the NDP ever endorsed. Now they've doubled down, promising to subsidize anything you happen to like.

According to the prime minister, "For most Canadians, the family home is their biggest asset and their most significant investment in their future financial security. I'm therefore very pleased to announce that to help make it more affordable for Canadians to adapt their homes to their changing needs and to maintain and increase those houses' values, we will establish a new home renovation tax credit."

There's absolutely no claim here that such handouts are a legitimate government function. It's a bribe, plain, simple and naked: vote for us and we'll give you money. Lots of it.

 

[Remius]

I suspect that many traditional fiscal conservatives feel the same way.

 

[PuckChaser]

If it's there, I'll use it. I'm more concerned that income splitting is going to be cancelled by the opposition. That's thousands of dollars out of my pocket every year, and I'm hardly the "rich, upper class".

 

[PPCLI Guy]

I suspect that many traditional fiscal conservatives feel the same way.

:nod:

 

[Remius]

I saw the debate yesterday and overall I think it was a very GOOD debate.  Maclean's certainly had a good format and a great moderator.  I can't say anyone came out on top but will make the following observations about the leaders.

Stephen Harper:  The man who was the primary target (as is always the case with incumbents) held his own.  But i don't think he did with ease.  The opposition hammered him and made sure he didn't have an easy time of it.  He did look like a leader and was to the point.  I thought he was a little weaker when it came to the environment and the senate (I think we were expecting that) and he let the three others dictate the conversation on the economy.  He was strong on the whole ISIL issue in the middle east but I think he could have done better and really slammed the other three on this o, and he scored some great points by being(surprisingly) the moderate middle man when the whole clarity act issue came up.  That last point for me was his strongest performance last night.

Thomas Mulcair:  I don't know.  Maybe I was expecting more.  When he was good he was good but he had a few waffles and looked uncomfortable for a bit.  While I understand he needs Quebec's support, his position on the clarity act will only hurt him in places like Ontario.  This was an English debate, he likely should have tried to change the tune on that one rather than push it further.  He also looked weak on the questions about the Ukraine and ISIL.  His position is clear enough but I don't think it was communicated very well.  He gets points from me for setting the tone on the economy issue and scoring what some say was a solid hit when he managed to get Stephen Harper to admit (sort of) that we are indeed in a recession.

Justin Trudeau:  I didn't like his closing speech.  Too wordy and trying to sound inspiring without inspiration.  I think his party can walk away happy with last night's performance.  He didn't let up and while he won't convince the partisan or hardcore conservative base he may have shown the undecided and middle of the road voters that he is more than just hair.  More importantly he may have shown dissaffected liberals that he might have more substance than his opponents would have them believe.  I noticed something interesting in his choice of words- "No one believes you" and "No one trusts you on..." and "Failed plan".  I wonder if this is how the Liberals will attempt to frame Mr. Harper in the coming weeks.

Elizabeth May:  Solid performance.  I think of all the leaders there she exceeded expectations.  She knew her material and ws clearly the best prepared.  But I really don't think a significant amount of Canadians care what she has to say so it is a moot point in the end. 

All this to say that this was good debate.  A lot of policy talk and really put the party platforms to the forefront.  The format was excellent I think.  Andrew Coyne stated that this makes for a good start to the campaign and I agree.  I also agree that with a looooong campaign ahead that this debate likely will have little impact on the end result but it does set the tone.

Many more things to come I think.  For me though at this time, no one has convinced me yet why I should vote for them.

 

[George Wallace]

John Robson of the National Post is experiencing some angst:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-robson-i-cant-vote-for-the-harper-conservatives-i-just-cant

Makes me wonder where John Robson wants the money to be handed out, if not to promote business?  Just give it to the homeless guy sitting with his cup out on the street corner, a block from a liquor store?

 

[dapaterson]

Perhaps he thinks government shouldn't be in the business of making handouts?  That's the traditional conservative approach.

 

[Remius]

Especially handouts of questionable value.  I think, that was Robson's point.

 

[George Wallace]

I look at the 'trickle down effect' of these decisions/handouts.  For some it is a tax break, and if that is where you want to stop your opinion will vary.  If you follow the affects further to the labourers, for instance those who will be employed in renovating the home and the materials purchased, as well as the labourers and businesses involved in producing those materials, and the businesses and labourers involved in procuring the raw materials and transporting them to production facilities, and so on.  We then see the 'trickle down effect' has greatly affected a vast number more Canadians than just the one getting a tax break.  99% of Canadians can not see past the tips of their noses.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Perhaps he thinks government shouldn't be in the business of making handouts?  That's the traditional conservative approach.

:bravo:

It's not the home renovation tax credit, itself, that I find really objectionable: it is the enormous pile of "boutique tax credits," especially and above all the family allowance rubbish.*

    (I don't propose an end to social programmes but I would like to see a slow, steady but implacable federal government withdrawal from the field, beginning with a simple repeal of the Canada Health Act which would allow (force?) provinces to
      get both creative and cooperative in funding health care, freeing up money for infrastructure maintenance, especially for helping towns and cities water and sewers ~ clean water and good sewage disposal has done more,
      over the past 500 years, and still does more to to keep us all alive and healthy than does medical care ~ and education ~ which will involve spending our grandchildren's money on them, rather than on us.)

My problem, and the reason I cannot look elsewhere, other than to the CPC, is that Messers Mulcair and Trudeau, the only viable alternatives, offer only to be worse than than Prime Minister Harper and his Conservatives.

_____
* Our current system of family allowances was set up in 1945, it was, in some measure a reaction to the surge in support for the CCF (MJ Coldwell was leader then, during the war) and it's (the CCF's) emphasis on social programmes. It, along with the entire Liberal platform of a "New Social Order" (land, jobs and business support for veterans; new housing (aimed at veterans); family allowances; establishing an Industrial development Bank; loans to farmers, floor prices for agricultural products; and tax reductions) was all "pork barrelling" of the highest order.

 

[Remius]

I look at the 'trickle down effect' of these decisions/handouts.  For some it is a tax break, and if that is where you want to stop your opinion will vary.  If you follow the affects further to the labourers, for instance those who will be employed in renovating the home and the materials purchased, as well as the labourers and businesses involved in producing those materials, and the businesses and labourers involved in procuring the raw materials and transporting them to production facilities, and so on.  We then see the 'trickle down effect' has greatly affected a vast number more Canadians than just the one getting a tax break.  99% of Canadians can not see past the tips of their noses.

The problem is that there are far better ways to stimulate the economy.  As well this isn't even in the cards until they balance the budget so is years away.  How many people actually do the renovations themselves?  Or hire under the table labourers?  And how many people with the intention of moving and decide to stay put because ofthe tax break. 

I don't disagree with this particular tax break in principle but the timing, the implementation and the fact that they themselves stopped it a few years ago is raising some alarm bells that this is in fact another boutique tax that has nothing to do with the economy and everything to do with getting votes.  Some fiscal conservatives are seeing through this.  I've listened to Jon Robson before on teh radio etc, and if he is upset about this then maybe there is a problem. 

I'm not sure that dissaffected conservatives would vote liberal or NDP (certainly not now) but they might just not vote at all.  Something, for the CPC, is just as bad as voting for the other guy. 

 

 

[George Wallace]

I agree ERC.

There are a few 'social programs' that are 'necessary'; but to create a myriad of 'social programs' for any conceivable social problem is not only a drain on the nation's finances, but will bring about the collapse of the nation.  We only have to look at Greece. 

Should we only concentrate on Health Care, Infrastructure and Education and do away with all other social programs?  Those seem to be supporting an the overall aim towards 'nation building' as opposed to handouts that terminate in bottomless pits that solve no problems and produce nothing.

 

[Good2Golf]

Did you even read it? I would say this is relatively balanced. No one can argue with the veracity of the data, however as Moffatt points out, it was "kind of selective." Of course Unifor is opposed to Harper, but again, the data doesn't lie and while this doesn't paint the whole picture it gets some things right. Namely that the Conservatives have not been good for our economy.

You have a very irritating habit of posting links to reports with a one-liner "here's balance", then when others respond to the material you have linked to which provides indications that don't fully support your "here's balance" narrative, you then accuse them of not having read the report/article/publication.  Why don't you refer to the material, then add your own perspective and thoughts on why the material is balanced, instead of accusing any one with a view different than yours of not reading it when they clearly have -- how else could they have responded with specific references to the material?

G2G

 

[George Wallace]

The problem is that there are far better ways to stimulate the economy.

I agree, but feel that any stimulus, no matter how small, is still better than none.

.....  As well this isn't even in the cards until they balance the budget so is years away.  How many people actually do the renovations themselves?  Or hire under the table labourers?  And how many people with the intention of moving and decide to stay put because of the tax break.

Doesn't matter who does the renovations, it still has a trickle down affect.  Materials do not magically appear out of thin air.  With a Tax Break, you need receipts.  That has an affect on the 'under the table' contractors and labour.  Property owners, whether they are staying or moving, know that property needs maintenance.  Before we get into the fact that this is aimed at Property owners, don't forget that the contractors, labourers, manufacturers of the materials, truckers, etc. are not all Property owners. 

Along with this tax break, came another earlier announcement about increasing the number of years to help train Apprentice's in the Trades.  Another step towards, what I feel, nation building.  Encouraging people to get into the Trades and 'build'.

I don't disagree with this particular tax break in principle but the timing, the implementation and the fact that they themselves stopped it a few years ago is raising some alarm bells that this is in fact another boutique tax that has nothing to do with the economy and everything to do with getting votes.  .....

It is an election.  Some of these announcements are naturally going to be 'good' and many are going to be 'fluff'.  Hopefully the winner is the one with the best to offer.

 

[McG]

CTV says that the "experts" are divided on the renovation tax credit, but their article reflects more negative to disinterest.  The sums are apparently too small to influence the economy, there is doubt that such a credit causes people to spend money they were not going to spend anyway, and there is conflicting opinion as to what this might do for housing sales market:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/harper-s-home-reno-tax-credit-promise-divides-realtors-1.2504528

If the goal was to leave money in Canadians' pockets, then a simple, little tax cut for everybody would be preferable.