Election 2015
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 3,948
- Points
- 1,260
So his choice, maybe for optics reasons, even if he didn't need their votes, is their fault?GAP said:
- Reaction score
- 4,532
- Points
- 1,160
Or it was required because we were already addicted to stimulus. Once we went down that road, I strongly doubt a policy 180 would have been good for the fragile recovery period, majority government or not. The fact that he was able to hack spending and reduce to near balance in a few short years while cutting some tax revenue, speaks volumes. Look at what Ontario has done with its deficits: spend more, and beg for more money.
- Reaction score
- 3,948
- Points
- 1,260
Maybe (no matter the party).PuckChaser said:
PuckChaser said:
So it wasn't the opposition's fault thenGAP said:
That's true enough.PuckChaser said:
- Reaction score
- 4,532
- Points
- 1,160
milnews.ca said:So it wasn't the opposition's fault then
Maybe not completely, but they were the catalyst, so they have no right to make an issue of successive deficits that they wanted and pushed for, all the while proposing massive social programs without a clue on how to pay for them.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,306
- Points
- 1,040
>Even during a majority government?
Together with the collapse of federal revenues due to the recession, the government - while still in its minority period - committed itself to four things which probably account for all or very nearly all of the deficits: the "action plan" that the opposition demanded as the price of allowing the minority to continue; the GST cut; the Health Accord (extended for 2 years); and not cutting transfers to fix a deficit.
Together with the collapse of federal revenues due to the recession, the government - while still in its minority period - committed itself to four things which probably account for all or very nearly all of the deficits: the "action plan" that the opposition demanded as the price of allowing the minority to continue; the GST cut; the Health Accord (extended for 2 years); and not cutting transfers to fix a deficit.
Something I've noticed in the last few days is the CPC moving away from the economy and seem to be trying to focus on security. Even the "not ready" commercials seem to be re tailored or edited. Maybe their internal polling is showing that they are taking some heat on the economy.
- Reaction score
- 5,524
- Points
- 1,260
I think that David Parkins, in the Globe and Mail, understands the strategic issue:
Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorial-cartoons-for-august-2015/article25744115/
Prime Minister Harper (rather than his government or the CPC, itself) "wins" by not losing badly (à la Kim Campbell (1993), Joe Clark (2000) or even Michael Ignatieff (2011)). He keeps his reputation and his party lives to fight anew. Prime Ministers Campbell and Clark left the old Progressive Conservative Party shattered, ripe for a takeover by Stephen Harper. Michael Ignatieff left the Liberals badly weakened, not, necessarily, doomed to the PC's fate, but in danger of being overwhelmed in the centre from both the right and the left. In fact, in my opinion, the right kind of loss* might serve the CPC very well.
* The "right kind of loss" is a minority that falls. Let's say, just for argument, that on 20 Oct we have (roughly) this situation:
CPC: 150 seats
NDP: 125
LPC: 55
Others: 8
The CPC forms a government and Prime Minister Harper resigns, immediately. The CPC, being prepared for this, calls a leadership convention for January. The other parties, being polite, in Canadian parliamentary tradition, agree to pass
an interim supply bill to allow the Conservative government to operate until a budget is brought down in February. (The NDP are not inclined to change leaders and the Liberals, while still 3rd, have improved and decide to "stand pat.")
The New CPC Prime Minister meets parliament in early February and a budget is brought down in mid February. It is defeated. The government falls. The Governor General, quite correctly, calls upon M Mulcair to form a government. He does
and, in summer, he brings down his budget. It is too far left for some Liberals and they break ranks and vote against the budget with the CPC. The NDP government also falls. This time the GG, also very correctly, drops the writs
for another general election ... in early October 2016. This time the CP wins a small majority because Canadians are frightened of the direction the NDP took and they don't know ~ and neither does the Liberal leader ~ just where the LPC
stands on much of anything.
If we agree that one of Prime Minister Harper's aims is to change the political alignment in Canada, then the right* sort of NDP victory might serve him well.
Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorial-cartoons-for-august-2015/article25744115/
Prime Minister Harper (rather than his government or the CPC, itself) "wins" by not losing badly (à la Kim Campbell (1993), Joe Clark (2000) or even Michael Ignatieff (2011)). He keeps his reputation and his party lives to fight anew. Prime Ministers Campbell and Clark left the old Progressive Conservative Party shattered, ripe for a takeover by Stephen Harper. Michael Ignatieff left the Liberals badly weakened, not, necessarily, doomed to the PC's fate, but in danger of being overwhelmed in the centre from both the right and the left. In fact, in my opinion, the right kind of loss* might serve the CPC very well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The "right kind of loss" is a minority that falls. Let's say, just for argument, that on 20 Oct we have (roughly) this situation:
CPC: 150 seats
NDP: 125
LPC: 55
Others: 8
The CPC forms a government and Prime Minister Harper resigns, immediately. The CPC, being prepared for this, calls a leadership convention for January. The other parties, being polite, in Canadian parliamentary tradition, agree to pass
an interim supply bill to allow the Conservative government to operate until a budget is brought down in February. (The NDP are not inclined to change leaders and the Liberals, while still 3rd, have improved and decide to "stand pat.")
The New CPC Prime Minister meets parliament in early February and a budget is brought down in mid February. It is defeated. The government falls. The Governor General, quite correctly, calls upon M Mulcair to form a government. He does
and, in summer, he brings down his budget. It is too far left for some Liberals and they break ranks and vote against the budget with the CPC. The NDP government also falls. This time the GG, also very correctly, drops the writs
for another general election ... in early October 2016. This time the CP wins a small majority because Canadians are frightened of the direction the NDP took and they don't know ~ and neither does the Liberal leader ~ just where the LPC
stands on much of anything.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we agree that one of Prime Minister Harper's aims is to change the political alignment in Canada, then the right* sort of NDP victory might serve him well.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 180
Two things:
I suspect there is zero chance that if the Conservatives get the most seats and are defeated in Parliament that the opposition will be asked to form a government. I would assume the Governor General will do what is asked of him by the Prime Minister and that would be to call for new elections.
If the NDP are the opposition, the dumbest thing that Trudeau could do is defeat a Conservative government to force an election in which they will not place first or second. I suspect that once the NDP rule, any reason to vote Liberal pretty must is gone. Mind you Trudeau hasn't been all that good in showing smarts.
I suspect there is zero chance that if the Conservatives get the most seats and are defeated in Parliament that the opposition will be asked to form a government. I would assume the Governor General will do what is asked of him by the Prime Minister and that would be to call for new elections.
If the NDP are the opposition, the dumbest thing that Trudeau could do is defeat a Conservative government to force an election in which they will not place first or second. I suspect that once the NDP rule, any reason to vote Liberal pretty must is gone. Mind you Trudeau hasn't been all that good in showing smarts.
Interesting bit from John Robson (a Conservative) on the disaster that this government has been:
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-robson-i-cant-vote-for-the-harper-conservatives-i-just-cant
And here's some news on the NDP front. I feel John Robson's pain, as in my opinion, Morgan Wheeldon is entitled to his own and I don't find anything he said to be factually incorrect. If we're going to have a party on the left, that party should at least act like it. This underlines my point about the NDP not really being a left wing party. It's embraced neo-liberal economics, and now it appears willing to whitewash what are indisputably war crimes in order to avoid raising the ire of supporters of Israel. Ironically the parties at both ends of our very narrow spectrum have completely abandoned their "principles." Now, the Liberals never had any of their own, so do I vote Trudeau now? ;D
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/09/morgan-wheeldon-ndp-israel-nova-scotia_n_7962834.html
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/john-robson-i-cant-vote-for-the-harper-conservatives-i-just-cant
And here's some news on the NDP front. I feel John Robson's pain, as in my opinion, Morgan Wheeldon is entitled to his own and I don't find anything he said to be factually incorrect. If we're going to have a party on the left, that party should at least act like it. This underlines my point about the NDP not really being a left wing party. It's embraced neo-liberal economics, and now it appears willing to whitewash what are indisputably war crimes in order to avoid raising the ire of supporters of Israel. Ironically the parties at both ends of our very narrow spectrum have completely abandoned their "principles." Now, the Liberals never had any of their own, so do I vote Trudeau now? ;D
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/08/09/morgan-wheeldon-ndp-israel-nova-scotia_n_7962834.html
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
One can look at other parties, on both the Federal and Provincial levels, and find the same poor leadership decisions:
http://globalnews.ca/news/2085210/ndper-brent-danceys-apparent-criminal-history-needs-explanation-wildrose/
http://globalnews.ca/news/2085210/ndper-brent-danceys-apparent-criminal-history-needs-explanation-wildrose/
- Reaction score
- 3,948
- Points
- 1,260
I stand corrected, then - thanks for the education/reminder.Brad Sallows said:
Hugely interesting scenario - how confident are you that the current PM will resign if the CPC wins a minority, though? Nobody can say he's not tenacious.E.R. Campbell said:
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
While reading the Prime Minister's mind is not something anyone should try lightly, I suspect that Mr Harper can step down gracefully after a victory of any sort in October, having accomplished a great many things and fulfilling much of whatever his personal agenda is.
He has:
United the Right under a single party banner
Gone from opposition to Minority to Majority government
Crushed three Liberal leaders in sucession (Mr Dithers, Mr Dion and Mr Ignatieff)
Moved the country more to the right, where it is impolite if not actively dangerous to talk about creating bigger deficiets or increasing taxes
Moved some of the other public dialogue on issues further right
Created conditions for a "two party" system of politics
Taken Canada from the position of "leaving the table when the cheque is presented" to at least throwing in a bit in international diplomacyImplimented or initiated more free trade agreements (t\with the EU and the TPP), more in keeping with an image of Canada as a true "middle power".
I suspect the last things on his "to do" list is to hang the Young Dauphin's scalp on his belt, and ensure Canada running on a new set of rails pointed center-right for the next several decades.
He has:
United the Right under a single party banner
Gone from opposition to Minority to Majority government
Crushed three Liberal leaders in sucession (Mr Dithers, Mr Dion and Mr Ignatieff)
Moved the country more to the right, where it is impolite if not actively dangerous to talk about creating bigger deficiets or increasing taxes
Moved some of the other public dialogue on issues further right
Created conditions for a "two party" system of politics
Taken Canada from the position of "leaving the table when the cheque is presented" to at least throwing in a bit in international diplomacyImplimented or initiated more free trade agreements (t\with the EU and the TPP), more in keeping with an image of Canada as a true "middle power".
I suspect the last things on his "to do" list is to hang the Young Dauphin's scalp on his belt, and ensure Canada running on a new set of rails pointed center-right for the next several decades.
McG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 2,944
- Points
- 1,160
That is a good article, but better in full than the little bit you cropped out. From the bit where he admonishes Harper for buying votes through subsidizing backyard decks, to the equally significant conclusion where he concedes the other parties are not an option for him.Kilo_302 said:
MCG said:
The intent is always that people read the whole article, so cropping out whatever I did serves underline the main thrust of author's point. It's not about cherry picking, more generating interest so that people will want to see the whole thing.
- Reaction score
- 5,524
- Points
- 1,260
E.R. Campbell said:
Some of you don't like Gerald Caplan (he is, in person, witty, charming and erudite, if, in my opinion, totally "out to lunch" politically) but he gets a periodic "free ride" in the Globe and Mail, as a guest columnist, representing the left/NDP, and so his influence has more reach than yours and mine. Here is his latest offering, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, this time taking aim at M Trudeau:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/is-trudeau-really-just-not-ready-maybe/article25903903/
Is Trudeau really ‘just not ready’?
Maybe
GERALD CAPLAN
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Aug. 10, 2015
Gerald Caplan is an Africa scholar, a former NDP national director and a regular panelist on CBC’s Power & Politics.
What’s most fun about the Conservatives’ highly effective ad saying that Justin Trudeau is “just not ready” to be prime minister is that it could’ve been directed at Stephen Harper when he first ran for prime minister. Although Mr. Harper never had nice hair. Nevertheless, the ad seems to have been a blow to Mr. Trudeau’s standing with the public. Unfair as it may be, it clearly resonates with lots of Canadians. I must admit I’m one of them. Let me explain why.
Please, please believe I have tried to take Mr. Trudeau’s measure fairly, without partisan bias. After all, one day soon, the NDP must work closely with this man. So I promise you: I take him seriously, and I’ve done my homework.
I’ve spoken privately to Liberal insiders about the private Trudeau, and I can report that they are deeply split. Like me, many buy the Conservative line.
I actually attended the Liberal Convention where he was elected leader, and I’m here to say that he rose to the occasion that afternoon. Mr. Harper has never made as good a speech as Mr. Trudeau did that afternoon. He easily outshone his opponents. But they were spectacularly unimpressive, and it was no high bar to be the best of that lot. Lucky for him, he won’t have to name a cabinet.
I also read his book, called, I believe, Common Ground. The title is as forgettable as the contents. In summary: he had an unusual boyhood being raised by fascinating but dysfunctional parents; he was a high-school teacher; and then he decided to run for party leader. If there was more substance, or any insights, I missed them. The book shows why so many have said that if his last name weren’t Trudeau, he’d never have dreamed of running for leader.
Among Mr. Trudeau’s liabilities is the inevitable tendency to compare his memoir with others of the same ilk, most obviously Barack Obama’s Dreams from My Father. This comparison does no favours to Mr. Trudeau. President Obama, who also had fascinating but unusual parents, wrote Dreams when he was only 34, and for originality and brilliance it can hardly be improved. It’s hard to know whether Mr. Trudeau actually wrote his own book, and if he did, he shouldn’t have. A good ghostwriter might have contributed some gripping sections.
I don’t want to kick Mr. Trudeau too much now that he’s down in the polls, but I must add this: I have rarely heard him speak where he doesn’t sound as if he’s ready for the local Toastmasters youth club, or perhaps a university debating society. He often seems uncomfortable with his material, and lacking in confidence and authority. Gravitas is the overworked but accurate word.
On the other hand, he does seem to be a clutch player, a valuable strength, as he showed both at the leadership convention and in last week’s leaders’ debate, where he more than held his own. Though I never trust a politician who declares he loves Canada, as if the rest of us don’t.
On the whole, I find that Stephen Harper regularly feels like Mr. Trudeau’s smart-ass and nerdy first cousin, and Mr. Mulcair like his wise and experienced uncle.
Mr. Trudeau has been criticized for a series of foolish gaffes that seems to have brought his popularity crashing back down to Earth. For me, two other matters have been far more disillusioning. One was the egregiously crass opportunism of welcoming into the Liberal fold hardline Tory defector Eve Adams and her notorious hardball-playing fiancé.
The second was his acceptance while an MP of many handsomely paid speaking engagements proffered by groups in the wider public sector. Education groups, library groups, charities, health associations – all of them hard-up, not-for-profits – offered newly elected MP Trudeau between $10,000 and $20,000 to speak to them. That was appalling thoughtlessness on their part. What was worse, he accepted, even though he agreed publicly he didn’t need the money.
Think about it. After becoming an MP in 2008, Mr. Trudeau raked in $277,000 in speaking fees from 17 such speeches until he stopped to run for leader. What does that say about his good sense and his judgment? I confess it outrages me still, and it should you, too.
Nor did the man do himself a favour when he claimed that he didn’t talk politics at these speeches, although his topics had included youth issues and education. Hello? How can these not be political issues, especially if you happened to be your party’s parliamentary critic for youth, as he was? And as education critic, are you allowed to charge school boards when you address them? What was the man thinking?
As of this moment, according to the polls, it’s a reasonable bet the Conservatives will win most seats, but not a majority. So the NDP, which should come a strong second, together with the Liberals, should easily be able to form a majority unity government (though probably not a coalition). As of this moment, that will make Mr. Mulcair the Prime Minister and Mr. Trudeau his lieutenant. That sounds like a good result for Canada. I presume the two are quietly preparing for this eventuality.
I don't disagree with most of Mr Caplan's thesis, especially not about the likely outcome of the election. Unlike Mr Caplan I have read neither Common Ground by Justin Trudeau nor Dreams of my Father by President Obama but I suspect that President Obama could afford first rate ghost writers and editors and used them, perhaps M Trudeau could (afford them) did not. I disagree with the penultimate sentence in the last paragraph: in my opinion neither M Mulcair nor M Trudeau are a "good result" for Canada.
- Reaction score
- 5,524
- Points
- 1,260
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from The Economist, is that newspapers take on our election:
http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21660571-stephen-harper-wants-fourth-term-prime-minister-he-faces-tough-fight-long-not?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/LongButNotBoring
http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21660571-stephen-harper-wants-fourth-term-prime-minister-he-faces-tough-fight-long-not?fsrc=scn/fb/te/pe/ed/LongButNotBoring
Canada’s election campaign
Long, but not boring
Stephen Harper wants a fourth term as prime minister. He faces a tough fight
Aug 8th 2015 | OTTAWA | From the print edition
THE hard-nosed, frontiersman’s personality of Stephen Harper has dominated Canadian politics for a decade. However it turns out, therefore, the federal election on October 19th will be fateful. If the Conservative prime minister wins a fourth consecutive term in office, he will be the first leader to do so since 1908. If he loses, it will be the end of an era, and what comes next will be very different. The election might well bring to power the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP), which has never governed Canada before.
To forestall that prospect, Mr Harper triggered the campaign earlier than he had to. On August 2nd he asked the governor-general to dissolve parliament, giving his Conservative Party 11 weeks to put its case to the voters. That is double the length of recent election campaigns.
He needs the extra time. The slogan emblazoned on the Conservative campaign bus is “Safer Canada/Stronger Economy”. Although the country feels relatively secure, its economy is hardly vigorous. As the world’s fifth-largest producer of oil, Canada has been hurt by the collapse in prices. The economy contracted in the first five months of 2015. Confidence among consumers and small businesses is sinking. The Conservatives may break their promise to balance the budget after seven years of deficit. All this has handed a cudgel to the opposition: the NDP and the centrist Liberals.
The politician best placed to wield it is Thomas Mulcair, who leads the NDP. Formed in 1961 from a merger of socialist and union groups, the party has governed five provinces but was thought to lean too far left to win a federal election. That changed in May, when it won power in Alberta, Mr Harper’s political home, ending four decades of rule by the Progressive Conservatives, a provincial party much like the prime minister’s. The Conservatives’ fortress in western Canada no longer looks impregnable. Polls suggest that the Conservatives and the NDP are running neck and neck, with the Liberals trailing.
The NDP would bring change, though just how much is unclear. It would raise taxes on big companies and makes vaguer promises to support the manufacturing sector. It would finance 1m child-care places rather than support families directly, as the Conservatives have done. Mr Mulcair, a veteran of Quebec provincial politics, has proved himself a political scrapper. As leader of the opposition in the House of Commons, he has exploited ethical lapses under the Conservatives. The campaign may offer more opportunities: the trial of a senator in an expenses scandal is likely to embarrass the ruling party, even though he resigned from the Conservative caucus in 2013. But the hot-tempered Mr Mulcair has yet to show that he is prime-ministerial material. He fluffed his answer to an easy question about corporate taxes, and has sent confused messages about whether he supports an east-west pipeline to transport Alberta crude.
Similar doubts surround the other opposition contender, Justin Trudeau. A year ago he seemed likely to win. That would have been a return to normality: the Liberals governed Canada for most of the 20th century, most memorably under Mr Trudeau’s, father, Pierre. But Conservative adverts attacking the son as inexperienced proved effective (even though, at 43, he is just three years younger than Mr Harper was when he became prime minister). Mr Trudeau hurt his standing with civil libertarians by backing tough security legislation proposed by the government while promising to soften it after winning the election. In an attempt to win back support from left-of-centre voters, he is advocating the legalisation of marijuana and the imposition of a price on carbon (also backed by the NDP). His relative youth may appeal to ballot-shy younger voters.
Two-thirds of Canadians say they want a change of government. Mr Mulcair has offered to govern in coalition with the Liberals, if necessary, to bring that about; Mr Trudeau has so far been cool to the idea.
Despite the anti-incumbency mood and the weak economy, Mr Harper brings formidable weaponry to the contest. He has been building the country’s most effective political machine since 2003, when he united Canada’s various right-leaning parties under the Conservative banner. He imposed iron discipline on three successive governments, the first two of which lacked a majority in the House of Commons.
Backbenchers were kept in line, rivals disposed of. Luck played a part in Mr Harper’s longevity. The Liberals put up ineffectual leaders in earlier elections and the commodity boom spared Canada the worst effects of the financial crisis. But Mr Harper’s skill mattered as much.
Now, with characteristic belligerence, he has seized the initiative. By calling the election early, he has silenced unions and other anti-government groups, which had launched a barrage of hostile adverts in preparation for the poll. Now that the campaign is officially on, they will be subject to much stricter spending limits than parties. The Conservatives, meanwhile, can ramp up spending; they have more cash than the NDP and the Liberals.
Mr Harper will use it to appeal to the groups he has assiduously courted throughout his time in office, such as Ukrainian immigrants and Jews. On a campaign stop in Mount Royal, a largely Jewish area of Montreal, he flaunted his support for Israel and criticised Muslim women who veil their faces at citizenship ceremonies (though the Conservatives are generally pro-immigration). The economy may be wobbling, but Conservatives will ask: can Canadians really trust the excitable Mr Mulcair, or the callow Mr Trudeau, to steady it? The race may be long; it is unlikely to be boring.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,306
- Points
- 1,040
>fascinating but dysfunctional parents;
That's unfair to Pierre. All accounts I have read indicate Pierre was a pretty good father. A political writer should know what he is writing about, and present evidence when he challenges commonly held views.
That's unfair to Pierre. All accounts I have read indicate Pierre was a pretty good father. A political writer should know what he is writing about, and present evidence when he challenges commonly held views.
- Status
Similar threads
