Election 2015

[ModlrMike]

Rail has to be carefully thought out. In specific locations it makes better options than building more highways. High speed rail needs to be seriously looked at as an alternative to air travel in short  to moderate distance travel between cities. The Boston to Washington Corridor is the only profitable section of the entire Amtrak System. But the numbers when extended to high speed rail make runs like NY to Chicago, and California SF to LA much more economically feasible.

In Canada it doesn't make sense because of the vast distances between major population centers, other than the Montreal to Toronto corridor.

I would argue that Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton might work.

 

[Infanteer]

Forget it - Brad has it right.  Invest in roads.  There are long stretches in Western Canada (specifically BC - Hwys 1, 3, 16 and 97)) of our national highway system that are narrow, windy and dangerous.  A project to turn these into twin freeways (a la Hwy 5) - even with the fancy Alpine elevated highways I've seen in Europe - is right up ER Campbell's alley and would do wonders for our road networks.  Anyone who has driven to Ft McMurray and seen the amount of work going into making Hwy 63 a safe, twin-two lane freeway understands how this kind of infrastructure is a great, long-term stimulus.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>But the numbers when extended to high speed rail make runs like NY to Chicago, and California SF to LA much more economically feasible.

"Economically feasible" should be interpreted as "profitable" ("loss-less").  If it needs an operating subsidy, it isn't economically feasible.  I know the SF/LA HSR proponents think it is going to be profitable without a subsidy, but the ridership estimates and operating cost estimates they use are (as customarily happens with HSR) very optimistic.  It isn't an open/shut case either way, but I find the critics more persuasive - particularly given the tendency of HSR projects to spiral up.

With both the CPC and LPC on-board with infrastructure investment, I'm more optimistic about positive outcomes for a CPC minority supported by - and occasionally answering to - Liberals.

 

[dapaterson]

"Economically feasible" should be interpreted as "profitable" ("loss-less").  If it needs an operating subsidy, it isn't economically feasible. 

By that logic, we should only have toll roads, since highways and streets require ongoing maintenance, snow removal etc - they therefore require operating subsidies and, by your logic, are not economically feasible.

 

[Harrigan]

Are the two mutually exclusive? What is the definition of the "national" interest. 

No, they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.  But partisan policies (of any political stripe) are rarely in the national interest.

But if they get elected by giving people what they want, isn't that what they are there for?

Wow......

 

[Harrigan]

That is a purely philosophical question ~ I say that because Canada has good enough credit (better than most countries, including the USA, thanks to King, St Laurent, Pearson, Diefenbaker, Mulroney, Chrétien and Harper (and John Turner and Paul Martin, too, as finance ministers)) so, should there be a HUGE disaster we would have no problem borrowing whatever is necessary to finance a recovery. "Hope" doesn't have to be a COA; seven of Canada's last 12 prime ministers left a good enough fiscal legacy to allow us ready access to credit.

Some economists and other observers will say it, constraining governments' abilities to spend, is very much in the national interest because politicians cannot be trusted to act in that manner. Others will say that it is wrong headed because we need to move, steadily, towards a Marxist model: social equality or equality of outcomes ~ from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. Me? I'm an old fashioned utilitarian (Betham and Mill) ~ the greatest good for the greatest number ~ so I tend to say that smaller, less intrusive and less active government is better for most of us most of the time.

And that is consistent with the belief of the 40% of the nation that is conservative-leaning.  The other 60% (we've discussed this before) believes that government has a positive role to play, and doesn't automatically mean that it must be "more" intrusive. (After all, Bill C-51 is not coming from, say, the NDP)

 

[Edward Campbell]

>I support borrowing, massively, for public transit

If you mean to include "rail", you should rethink it.  Rail transit in North America is almost without exception a money sink that cannibalizes (devours) other parts of a transit agency's budget: essentially, it's a vicious cycle in which the more rail is built, the greater become the operating subsidies which have to be made up by cutting other (inevitably, bus) service.

Build roads - including negotiating the obstacles - and buy buses.  Everyone can use a road; you can detour around an interruption; you can change routes.

It is very easy to misallocate capital in the guise of "infrastructure investment", even without touching circuses.

I didn't mention rail. Generally I agree with you, Brad and Infanteer: we haven't the population density to make rail an affordable means of internodal human transport. But, I do support rail as an urban, mass/rapid transit solution for large(r) cities, including e.g. Ottawa and its suburbs, so when I agree that "public transit" is a good priority I am thinking about investing in subways and light rail systems.

I also agree with datpaterson that some roads should be toll roads.

I believe that price (market forces) is a very good way to clarify and prioritize "demand" for any good or service, including some public goods and services. I was closely involved in the (radio) "spectrum auction" process, from it's inception, in New Zealand back around 1989, until I retired from the business in 2006. There was much public and bureaucratic angst about using "market forces" to do something that had, always, been done by bureaucrats using the :"beauty contest" method of determining the public good. The evidence, as I see it, anyway, is overwhelming: auctions, market forces, make bidders refine and optimize their "demands" and gives the public the best return ~ short and medium term, for sure, we'll have to wait a generation to see if the long term results are what we believe they should be ~ for "supplying" its (public) resource. Thus, I believe that the market ~ bus fares and road tolls and gas taxes ~ can be used to optimize transportation use: road vs rail; car vs bus or metro; faster (toll road) vs slower (free).

 

[Jed]

Infrastructure: How about Sewer and Water for communities, not sexy but needed by all.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Infrastructure: How about Sewer and Water for communities, not sexy but needed by all.

Indeed, Jed, they should be at the top of everyone's list, along with good (better? best?) garbage disposal. It is city engineers ~ clean water, sewage and garbage disposal ~ not doctors, nurses and hospitals that keep us alive into our '60s and even '80s. The doctors and hospitals extend our lives to 70+ and into our '90s.

If we consider infrastructure to be like the human body then the road and rail networks are both the bones/skeleton and the circulatory systems, that keep us alive and working; the sewers and water and garbage dumps are the immune system, that keeps us healthy. We need to care for (maintain) both. (And don't forget seaport and airports and, to go back to Kevin Lynch's article, basic research (not applied research or "development") which is done, mostly,* in our great public universities, in laboratories that we, Canadians, should build and maintain for the common good.)

____
* The Perimeter Institute is the exception that proves the rule.

 

[Altair]

I wouldn't be choked if it was a bit of media bias, I see it as a full on deceptive assault, and in the CBC's case, job protection.  And that is 9 years with most of those years hampered with minorities and piss poor opposition parties. And those 9 years gave us pretty good governance considering.

Don't get me wrong, I am definitely not a Stephen Harper supporter, I wish he would have taken a long walk in the snow.  However, his party is far and away much better than the other alternatives, especially when we have to deal with the upcoming economic concerns.  Of course this is just my opinion based on observing all of these politicians and their respective parties over the last 40 to 50 years.

In the category of "Stupid self inflicted wounds" Harper has his current director of issues management talking to the former director of issues management while he is a sworn witness.

Then to have your campaign manager come out on TV looking like a fool, and the prime minister with his same talking points that have nothing to do with the question at hand. Again, Duffy means nothing to me, other than the conservatives bush league handling of it only making their reelection chances worst by the gaffe.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Well, foreign policy, one aspect of it , anyway, has made its way onto the campaign stage, albeit a bit obliquely, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/justin-trudeau-fundraiser-picketed-by-jewish-group-over-liberals-support-for-iran-nuclear-deal

Justin Trudeau fundraiser picketed by Jewish group over Liberals’ support for Iran nuclear deal

Jake Edmiston | August 26, 2015 | Last Updated: Aug 27

TORONTO — A Toronto Jewish group made the rare move of protesting one of its own community leaders on Wednesday evening, staging a picket outside billionaire Barry Sherman’s house during his cocktail fundraiser for the Liberal party.

About 30 protesters from the Jewish Defence League lined the street out front of Sherman’s lavish north Toronto home, holding Israeli and Canadian flags.

“Enjoy the food,” a man holding an Israeli flag yelled as guests walked up the driveway, past a line of valets. Tickets for the party and opportunity to meet leader Justin Trudeau reportedly went for $1,500 each.

One guest stopped and smiled at a protester in the picket line. “Joel? What are you doing here?”

The protester, Joel Goldman, said he was there because he didn’t support the Liberals’ position on the Iran nuclear deal.

“They’re just coming to see Mick Jagger tonight,” Goldman said after his friend went inside. “They’re coming to see a rock star.”

Protesters with the Jewish Defence League picket a Justin Trudeau
fundraiser in Toronto, Aug. 26, 2015.
                                                                                J.P. Moczulski for NP
Defence League leader Meir Weinstein, who organized the protest, emphasized that his group wasn’t “looking to get into any shouting matches or anything like that.”

But the disruption nonetheless “unnerved” some of his counterparts, as he put it.

“We don’t picket Jewish leaders in our community,” Weinstein said. But “when it comes to Iran, that’s the red line.”

The Liberals have pledged to reopen diplomatic ties with Iran and have welcomed the new Iranian nuclear deal.

“If there was disagreement (on the Iran deal), that would be one thing. But there is unanimity: The deal is horrible for Israel.”

But Michael Levitt, Liberal candidate in York Centre who attended the fundraiser, said his party has been “adamant that we’re going to take a wait-and-see approach and make sure the actions match the words.”

Ahead of the protest, the Liberals issued a statement from foreign affairs critic Marc Garneau, saying, “Iran must comply with the terms of this agreement and match its words with concrete deeds.”

As Trudeau pulled up in a black van at about 7:15 p.m., the crowd started chanting, “No Iran deal.” Trudeau stopped on the stoop of Sherman’s house for a moment, then slipped inside.

Sherman, CEO of Canadian pharmaceutical giant Apotex, is hailed as a major philanthropist in the Toronto Jewish community. Last year, Canadian Business listed him as the 14th richest person in Canada.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs defended Sherman and his wife, Honey. The centre’s chief executive Shimon Fogel scolded the Defence League for “disparaging, personal attacks.”

“We do not support the JDL’s decision,” Fogel told the Post in an email. “We raised the issue with them directly and are deeply disappointed that they chose not to heed our counsel.”

Weinstein said he had a “respectful” conversation on the phone with Sherman Wednesday, and apologized for any inconvenience.

But he said he wasn’t trying to “win a popularity contest.”

On a Facebook page for the protest, organizers posted one invitee’s emailed response to Sherman. In the email, Gabriel Erem told Sherman he was “tragically misinformed, and perhaps misguided regarding the political agenda of the handsome young man whom you will be toasting.”

The Iran nuclear deal is divisive; it is risky and complex, but, if it works (a Big IF) it will be a signature achievement.

There is, on this issues, a clear division of opinion between the CPC on one hand, and the LPC and NDP on the other(s). 

The forthcoming, televised Munk Centre Leaders' Debate on Foreign Policy on 28 Sep will, I hope, test leaders' foreign policy chops.

 

[Remius]

In the category of "Stupid self inflicted wounds" Harper has his current director of issues management talking to the former director of issues management while he is a sworn witness.

Then to have your campaign manager come out on TV looking like a fool, and the prime minister with his same talking points that have nothing to do with the question at hand. Again, Duffy means nothing to me, other than the conservatives bush league handling of it only making their reelection chances worst by the gaffe.

Agreed.  Most of this is self inflicted.  Put a bit of your own blood in the water and teh sharks will come. This whole thing though will likely not be a huge factor for the base.  Swing voters though...

 

[Edward Campbell]

And, the National Post reports that M Trudeau has another nomination challenge, this time in a Montreal area riding where the loser contends that there were 285 more ballots cast then there were riding association members voting, and since she lost by less than 195 votes she probably believes that some "ballot box stuffing" may have occurred. The winner, Mélanie Joly, is described as a "confidante" of Justin Trudeau.

 

[suffolkowner]

The thing is what is Duffy guilty of? To me the whole thing is a non issue. I think Harper made a mistake by painting Duffy as a villain so heavily that now everybody is tainted by association.

 

[Remius]

The thing is what is Duffy guilty of? To me the whole thing is a non issue. I think Harper made a mistake by painting Duffy as a villain so heavily that now everybody is tainted by association.

He isn't guilty of anything yet.  He faces charges of breach of trust and bribery.  None of which has been proven yet.  The PMO made sveral misteps and mismanaged this whole thing.  The that's where the taint comes from.  Although not shocking, they tried to make the whole thing go away with PR and smoke and mirrors.  Except the magic trick failed and we saw the Wizard of Oz for what he is.

That leads to other questions about other things that may or may not be what they seem. 

And whileit is a non-issue to some, for others it is an issue.  The media has made it an issue and newer revelations have made it an issue.  Plus we're in the middle of a campaign. 

So yeah, a bit of the perfect storm.  But now that court is adjourned i suspect we'll hear less and less but the damage I think is done, but limited.

 

[a_majoor]

In one issue I sense that Stephen Harper has already won, and won a huge victory. I have seen two talking head pieces on CBC and CTV in the last week, both of which were arguing how the Liberals and NDP could possibly carry out their promises without creating a deficit.

The idea of running deficits as if there were no consequences runs very deeply in the Liberal/NDP wolrdview, and is generally accepted as a given by the Laurentian consensus, the fact that the debate has now shifted to the idea that running deficits is a bad idea. The fact that pro Liberal and NDP policy wonks/TV talking heads should be talking in such a fashion indicates a huge sea change in what ideas are considered "acceptable" by the electorate today.

 

[Remius]

In one issue I sense that Stephen Harper has already won, and won a huge victory. I have seen two talking head pieces on CBC and CTV in the last week, both of which were arguing how the Liberals and NDP could possibly carry out their promises without creating a deficit.

The idea of running deficits as if there were no consequences runs very deeply in the Liberal/NDP wolrdview, and is generally accepted as a given by the Laurentian consensus, the fact that the debate has now shifted to the idea that running deficits is a bad idea. The fact that pro Liberal and NDP policy wonks/TV talking heads should be talking in such a fashion indicates a huge sea change in what ideas are considered "acceptable" by the electorate today.

I guess you haven't seen this yet. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-liberals-infrastructure-deficits-1.3205535

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/liberals-propose-modest-deficits-in-order-to-kickstart-economy-1.2535718

 

[dapaterson]

It's interesting political theatre right now.

The NDP is attempting to shed its image as spendthrift, and thus appeal to more centrist voters, by committing to no deficits.

The Liberals are attempting to appeal to a wider swath of the left, and thus committing to potential deficits to fund a variety of Good Ideas.

Methinks strategists for the third political party are enjoying watching that jockeying for position on the centre/left.

 

[a_majoor]

But the Young Dauphin and his advisors cannot propose freely spending and are constrained by the "new" reality of what voters will find acceptable to only propose "small" deficits. (You and I know that that promise is only a form of organic fertilizer, of course).

And when Thomas Mulcaire finds himself actively arguing for a balanced budget, then you know that Steven Harper is smiling to himself when he reaches for the remote to turn off the news.

 

[Remius]

It's interesting political theatre right now.

The NDP is attempting to shed its image as spendthrift, and thus appeal to more centrist voters, by committing to no deficits.

The Liberals are attempting to appeal to a wider swath of the left, and thus committing to potential deficits to fund a variety of Good Ideas.

Methinks strategists for the third political party are enjoying watching that jockeying for position on the centre/left.

Too true.

I suspect that you are correct about the NDP.  I'm not sure people are buying it.

Not so sure that is the complete picture of the Liberals.  While I agree that they want more of the NDP share of the vote, I suspect that this latest move is to appeal to those that believe in stimulus spending.  Done right it could work.  I'd rather see us have a deficit by investing in infrastructure than in 15$ a day daycare.    It also eliminates the "how to pay for it argument" before it happens.  It is an interesting move.

Yes, I suspect the CPC is hoping for a split.  But so far I'm not sure they are happy with what they were hoping for.  But there is still plenty of time.