Election 2015

[YZT580]

So the clothes you wear don't say made in China, Bangladesh etc. and the fish dinner you had last week wasn't caught by some slave from Thailand.  Where were the guts of your iphone manufactured?If you can honestly say that you purchase none of those products or vetted your electronics purchases then I can accept your arguments.    Otherwise it is just NIMBY.  Are you willing to pay $80 for a leisure shirt and $40 for a tee-shirt?  That is what a minimum wage shirt made in a Canadian class manufacturing facility would cost today.  If you are paying less or buying at Walmart then chances are you are contributing to the sweatshop world.  Besides you missed the point or perhaps I didn't express myself clearly.  In the 60's they clamped down on the garment industry in Toronto and most of the factories went union. (about 80%).  The union bargaining coupled with the minimum wage requirements forced owners to either fold up shop completely or move off-shore.  If there had been some protection of the market place through tariffs coupled with more reasonable union demands many of those factories would have remained and the sweatshops would have been reduced to a scattered few.  Those you could have closed down and the employees would have had a reasonable chance at getting another position.  But strikes, and out sourcing and no product protection priced many of the small businesses out of business and we went hungry.  It is the industry protection aspect that I was thinking of when I stated that there was room for negotiation.  Without it there was no work.     

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So the clothes you wear don't say made in China, Bangladesh etc. and the fish dinner you had last week wasn't caught by some slave from Thailand.  Where were the guts of your iphone manufactured?If you can honestly say that you purchase none of those products or vetted your electronics purchases then I can accept your arguments.    Otherwise it is just NIMBY.  Are you willing to pay $80 for a leisure shirt and $40 for a tee-shirt?  That is what a minimum wage shirt made in a Canadian class manufacturing facility would cost today.  If you are paying less or buying at Walmart then chances are you are contributing to the sweatshop world.  Besides you missed the point or perhaps I didn't express myself clearly.  In the 60's they clamped down on the garment industry in Toronto and most of the factories went union. (about 80%).  The union bargaining coupled with the minimum wage requirements forced owners to either fold up shop completely or move off-shore.  If there had been some protection of the market place through tariffs coupled with more reasonable union demands many of those factories would have remained and the sweatshops would have been reduced to a scattered few.  Those you could have closed down and the employees would have had a reasonable chance at getting another position.  But strikes, and out sourcing and no product protection priced many of the small businesses out of business and we went hungry.  It is the industry protection aspect that I was thinking of when I stated that there was room for negotiation.  Without it there was no work.     

You need to take your agenda and propaganda to its own thread. It doesn't belong here.

 

[Harrigan]

And if this were a scandal of that magnitude, it might be something.  Harper's problem is fatigue.

In my opinion, fatigue is not the government's problem - it is credibility.  I don't imagine there are many Canadians who care that much about Mike Duffy or the $90,000.  But if this trial proves (and it hasn't yet) that the PMO (and the many cabinet ministers and MP's that followed) knowingly and deliberately provided false information to the Canadian public, it calls into question everything else this government has said, fairly or not.

(And before you spout out disagreement with that, remember the tarnish that the Gomery Commission revealed for the entire Liberal Party - again, fairly or not)

Nothing has been proven yet, but the evidence that has been submitted to this stage (the actual emails) does suggest such a deliberate plan.  If this does end up proven, the damage to the government's electoral prospects could be severe.  Much of their advertising relies on their professed credibility to tackle complex problems in the Canadian national interest.  But as we all learned in elementary school (usually the hard way), once one has lied, it takes a very long time to regain that trust (ask the Liberals), and nobody wants to be lied to.

Harrigan

 

[Remius]

So?  When is Mulcair and the NDP going to pay back all the money they owe?  They make Duffy look like an amateur with their financial mismanagement.  No one seems to care about their financial improprieties.  What gives?

They aren't the incumbents.  That likely factors in.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Nothing has been proven yet, but the evidence that has been submitted to this stage (the actual emails) does suggest such a deliberate plan.  If this does end up proven, the damage to the government's electoral prospects could be severe.  Much of their advertising relies on their professed credibility to tackle complex problems in the Canadian national interest.  But as we all learned in elementary school (usually the hard way), once one has lied, it takes a very long time to regain that trust (ask the Liberals), and nobody wants to be lied to.

Harrigan
[/quote ]
As the old sayings go "where there's smoke there's fire"  and "throw enough mud and some will Stick" apply equally here.  Maybe nothing has been proved in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion, I believe the magistrate is putting his black cloth on his wig before passing sentence.

 

[George Wallace]

They aren't the incumbents.  That likely factors in.

Meanwhile, Mulcair is calling for more RCMP investigations and charges be laid in reference to the Duffy Trial, Nigel Wright and the mention of Ray Novak possibly being involved.  Does the Canadian Public not see the hypocrisy here?

 

[Remius]

Meanwhile, Mulcair is calling for more RCMP investigations and charges be laid in reference to the Duffy Trial, Nigel Wright and the mention of Ray Novak possibly being involved.  Does the Canadian Public not see the hypocrisy here?

I doubt it.  Remember that Stephen Harper is the big bad wolf here.  If the Ontario election is any indication, the Public won't care very much about that.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And it appears, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, that some Liberals might be worried:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-unsure-if-wynne-a-boon-or-bane-for-trudeau-in-ontario/article25976807/

My perception is that Premier Wynne doesn't really care too much about who wins Ottawa in Oct ~ her problem is with the policy centre in Ottawa which will not change all that much.

I suspect that Premier Wynne and M Trudeau are popular and unpopular in the same areas. In other words he help may be useful against the NDP but not against the CPC.

But Jane Taber, writing in the Globe and Mail, disagrees. She thinks Premier Wynne is taking a big risk. She says, in the last paragraph of the article:

          "Ms. Wynne told supporters she would be “all in” for this election in favour of Mr.Trudeau and his team. But as Donald Savoie, Canada Research Chair in public administration and governance at
          the Université de Moncton, observes: “If Trudeau wins, there will be an IOU. If he doesn’t, there will be no IOU and politicians do have long memories. Of that I am certain.”"

As it stands, two months away from the election, proper, the greatest likelihood is that either Prime Minister Harper or M Mulcair will form a government, likely a minority. Neither will be inclined to do Premier Wynne any favours. But whoever wins may well need some Liberal support to stay in power and the Liberal Party's leader, if it is still M Trudeau, might extract some concessions for Ontario as a price for that support.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
As it stands, two months away from the election, proper, the greatest likelihood is that either Prime Minister Harper or M Mulcair will form a government, likely a minority. Neither will be inclined to do Premier Wynne any favours. But whoever wins may well need some Liberal support to stay in power and the Liberal Party's leader, if it is still M Trudeau, might extract some concessions for Ontario as a price for that support.

But, I do not, even for a µsecond, discount the fact that M Trudeau can turn things around, that he can do a 10+% jump in national support and end up, on 20 Oct 15 as prime Minister Trudeau. In this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen, Michael Den Tandt explains how he is strengthening his position and will make gains ... if he doesn't implode:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Michael+Tandt+Justin+Trudeau+puts+Liberals+position+emerge+from/11299448/story.html

Justin Trudeau puts Liberals in position to emerge from election with more influence

MICHAEL DEN TANDT

08.17.2015

Justin Trudeau, though no longer a shoo-in to become prime minister in October, or ever for that matter, is so far in this campaign doggedly resisting the inevitability of his own catastrophic implosion, as mapped out months ago by his opponents. This must be galling them no end, since it puts the Liberals in a position to emerge with more influence than they’ve had in years, whether or not they form a government this fall.

In a nutshell, Trudeau has (so far) managed to surprise to the upside in the two key areas where he absolutely had to do so, to keep his party’s hopes alive, after a long decline in public support that began last winter. Policy-wise, the Grits this spring replaced what had been an alarmingly blank slate with a suite of deftly calibrated measures that sidestep the major policy errors of the 2008 and 2011 campaigns. And Trudeau himself has proved far more adept at explaining his intentions, in the one leaders’ debate so far, and in town halls or scrums, than a series of Tory attack ads led voters to expect he would.

Speaking of which, let’s consider again the double-edged nature of the modern attack ad. Many will argue Trudeau’s drop from first to third place in the polls was at least partly a result of the steady drumbeat of messaging holding him to be “just not ready,” though he has “nice hair.”

They have a point. But the corollary is a Conservative party with a record that is in key respects laudable – as regards the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq & the Levant, for example, and moderate, centrist economic stewardship – that has sullied its own brand, exacerbated Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s personal negatives and created a frame within which Trudeau can exceed expectations. Should Harper lose power Oct. 19, it will be difficult to argue the low-brow, schoolyard stupidity of these ads, which many Conservative supporters dislike, were not at least partly to blame.

But we digress: given how the ads set the stage for Trudeau to unmask himself as an imbecile, unable to string three words together without praising a communist dictatorship, what has he done to turn things around? It’s interesting and gets to the subtleties of leader brand-building in the era of 24/7 video.

As a starting point, Trudeau changed the way he speaks. Three years ago or even 12 months past, the Liberal leader had a noticeably more florid speaking style, rife with unconscious small nods and gestures that together lent him an impression of drama and lacked gravitas. Those are gone now — though occasionally, when he’s feeling especially confident or addressing an audience he considers friendly, the tics can creep back in. Trudeau has learned to frown stolidly, glare impassively and scowl grimly – all important for a leader measuring himself against Harper, for whom these expressions come naturally.

Second, likely as a result of the hours of debate prep he’s undergone since May, Trudeau has acquired an internal editor. He no longer seems compelled to fill every silence with words as he once did, rather taking time to pause, frame his argument and re-frame it if necessary. This was a do-or-die modification: even mild garbling of a line, such as last week’s “from the heart outwards” meme, can create a small conflagration on Twitter. And a serious mistake now, on the scale of some of his previous gaffes, could sink him.

Third, and most obviously, Trudeau has saleable policy, which he communicates clearly and can persuasively defend. Given the broad policy convergence that characterizes our politics now, the Liberals’ challenge was not so much to craft bold change across the board, as it was to tweak where polls show most voters are broadly satisfied with the status quo (a low-tax, smaller-government model without massive new federal program promises), proceed pragmatically where this is warranted, as with Senate reform, and strike out boldly where sweeping change is needed, as in reversing the concentration of power in the Prime Minister Office. The Liberal policy kit was not drafted on the back of an envelope; the cracks in it are hard to find.

Taken together, it adds up to a nearly deadlocked race and a projection, according to the latest aggregated data from ThreeHundredEight.com, of 95 Liberal seats – almost triple the current 36, in a minority government led by the New Democratic Party. Even a third-place showing, with those kinds of numbers, would make Trudeau a kingmaker in the next parliament, putting him in position to influence legislation and burnish his credentials for a subsequent bid for the top job.

The caveat, in bold type: he may yet implode. It only takes one very bad moment. But at this juncture, despite having been belittled incessantly and given up for dead more than once, Trudeau is still in contention. The Conservatives, certainly, did not bank on his hanging in this long.

National Post

 

[Scott]

It is happening on other fronts with the other Partys as well.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberal-candidate-in-calgary-under-fire-after-screenshots-of-offensive-tweets-posted-several-years-ago-surface

And? There are things I've said "several years ago" that I've either changed my mind on, or just regret for their stupidity. I am referring to the disgusting reactions YESTERDAY by a supporter who is, apparently, closer to the PM than just some wag who decided to mouth off.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Each day the Duffy trial drags on, it seems to get uglier for the CPC.  I do wonder how much this will have an effect on voters come the 19th.  It seems as if the PM couldn't have called the election at a worse time, timing wise that is.

The Duffy trial will go into recess at the end of the week (or the end of next week?) and it will not resume until after the election.

Bear in mind this nugget of political wisdom:

                                                 

                                                                                ... we have almost nine "long times" until election day.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Has Wynne ever said where the money will be held? Will it be a fund like CPP that the government can't touch? Or is she planning on having it accessible to the government so she can raid it to help pay down Ontario's debt?

If I was in the CPC's campaign team I would advocate more of this:

         

                    ... and less personal attacks on Messers Mulcair and Trudeau. I think the personal attacks on M Trudeau worked; they were good and cheap but they are now stale and, likely unproductive.

I think the "We can't afford him" attacks on M Mulcair can work IF they are accompanied by specific attacks on his financial promises.

As many commentators have mentioned, the CPC has a credible fiscal record and some (politically) decent (if economically suspect) proposals, too. Canadians fear deficits and debts: as the old (1940s) song says, the CPC needs to accentuate the positive in the CPC record and highlight the negatives in the LPC and NDP promises. There is a time for negative, personal attack ads: before the campaign, proper, when the "Just Not Ready" ads did their work, and near the end, in the last week or so. In my opinion attack ads are good, they work, but it is the record/promises that should be attacked in mid-campaign, not the person. It is possible, as the image above does, to mix personal attacks - in this case associating M Trudeau with Premier Wynne and overspending/debt - with good, solid, attacks on policies and promises.

 

[Lumber]

Every political advertisment I've heard so far is just spend spend spend. They all promise to spend money on this, or money on that; but, none of them says where they are going to get that money! Where is money for all these new programs coming from? What programs are they cancelling to make room for them?

I suppose under the Liberals, we'll just legalize pot and pay for everything with tax revenues.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

I suppose under the Liberals, we'll just legalize pot and pay for everything with tax revenues.

You mean the drug dealers are going to give up their profits?  Probably just like the Indians give up their profits on cigarettes.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

An interesting National Post column.


http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/colby-cosh-if-theres-a-scandal-in-the-duffy-affair-why-cant-i-spot-it

 

[Kirkhill]

Billion Dollar new sports facility for Calgary to replace/complement McMahon and the Saddledome and add a Fieldhouse.

Middle of an election.  In Calgary.  During a recession (particularly bad locally).

No Federal money.  (And that is a good thing - the entire project is locally funded - not even any Provincial money).

 

[dapaterson]

Wait for it - the site is contaminated, and there will be a call for hundreds of milions from all levels of government for the cleanup.

 

[Lumber]

Wait for it - the site is contaminated, and there will be a call for hundreds of milions from all levels of government for the cleanup.

Most as a promise from one Federal party in particular?

 

[dapaterson]

In the "Idea whose time has come" department, the Rhino party has committed to privatizing the CAF, but nationalizing Tim Hortons.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rhino-party-tim-hortons-1.3195952

 

[Kirkhill]

In the "Idea whose time has come" department, the Rhino party has committed to privatizing the CAF, but nationalizing Tim Hortons.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rhino-party-tim-hortons-1.3195952

That does it.  I'm now voting Rhino.