Election 2015

[Rocky Mountains]

But it does make sense if the budget is bland enough, and you get electoral reform.

If the NDP was one of the top 2 parties, I suspect their memory may be short on electoral reform.  It would tie their hands.

 

[Edward Campbell]

If the NDP was one of the top 2 parties, I suspect their memory may be short on electoral reform.  It would tie their hands.

I think you're right. This has been studied several times, even I did a cheap and dirty analysis a few years back: it's true, FPTP rewards the most successful parties ~ see Singapore, today, just as an example ~ and it punishes the weak. As the NDP become stronger and stronger I suspect that their affection for some sort of PR will grow weaker and weaker. PR is loved by the third place finishers; first and second place finishes want to ride FPTP to majorities.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The NDP has a good anti-Harper attach ad which parodies the CPC's "interview/Just Not Ready" ad.

It's a back handed compliment, in its own way, to the original "Just Not Ready" ad from May of this year.

 

[Remius]

The NDP has a good anti-Harper attach ad which parodies the CPC's "interview/Just Not Ready" ad.

It's a back handed compliment, in its own way, to the original "Just Not Ready" ad from May of this year.

That had coffee come out my nose.  Lol.  Pretty slick.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Proportional Representation is a stupid idea, just like abolishing the Senate is a stupid idea. 

Our country is too large and its different regions are too diverse for a proportional representation system to work.  Given the geographic and political layout pf pur country, FPTP is the best system of government.

Ditto the Senate.  The stated purpose of the Senate is to ratify bills but the real purpose is to protect smaller provinces from the larger ones. 

By all means reform the Senate but don't get rid of it.

 

[Underway]

Does it not require a constitutional change to alter the election rules from FPTP to something else or would it just be "wiser" to have an referendum on the issue like BC did...  As the devil is often in the details for some thing like that.  Just wondering as I was in a argument with a Green Party supporter regarding this very issue today.

 

[dapaterson]

Ditto the Senate.  The stated purpose of the Senate is to ratify bills but the real purpose is to protect smaller provinces from the larger ones. 

I think you meant "the real purpose is to prop up economically unviable outposts through transfers of wealth from west to east".

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I think you meant "the real purpose is to prop up economically unviable outposts through transfers of wealth from west to east".

Some of those "economically unviable" outposts were killed off right after confederation by national policies that punished their economies for looking South and not East-West.  Nova Scotia and New Brunswick should have never joined, they got a crap deal.

Like crack addicts they are now "dependent" for a fix.

Does it not require a constitutional change to alter the election rules from FPTP to something else or would it just be "wiser" to have an referendum on the issue like BC did...  As the devil is often in the details for some thing like that.  Just wondering as I was in a argument with a Green Party supporter regarding this very issue today.

The constitution would need to be opened to change it.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And the Forum/Red Star poll has the Conservatives up 4 % from last week and 5 % from a week before

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html#polls

I questioned whether anyone who would vote Conservative would want unrestricted immigration from Syria - I guess I now get my answer.  Unrestricted immigration from Syria scares the hell out of everyone but Mulcair and Trudeau.

And Greg Lyle, of the Innovative Research Group, a market research and public affairs firm, agrees with you in and article in The Hill Times.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I find this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, a bit rich, coming, as it does, from the pen of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who was very like Mackenzie-King, in that he was, as the Canadian the poet FR Scott said, best remembered for his mediocrity because he would "Do nothing by halves which can be done by quarters:"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canada-must-reclaim-its-role-as-a-world-leader/article26337462/

Canada must reclaim its role as a world leader

JEAN CHRÉTIEN
Contributed to The Globe and Mail

Published Saturday, Sep. 12, 2015

Jean Chrétien is a former Liberal prime minister of Canada (1993-2003).

---------------------------

In the mid-1940s, Canada was a principal founder of the United Nations and a Canadian drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then, Canada has built an exceptional international reputation with its commitment to multilateral approaches and solutions to international conflicts.

In 1957, the role of Lester Pearson, then minister of external affairs, earned him the Nobel Peace Prize for developing a solution to end the Suez Canal crisis by proposing a peacekeeping force, the famous Blue Berets. In 1965, Prime Minister Pearson named me as his parliamentary secretary and appointed me to his cabinet two years later.

Under Mr. Pearson’s leadership, Canada called for the end of the bombing of North Vietnam to allow for negotiations to end the conflict. Although armed conflicts are sometimes unavoidable, Canada has traditionally sided with countries that sought peaceful solutions. If, however, there were a NATO or UN mandate for military intervention, as was the case in Iraq in 1990 and a few years later in the former Yugoslavia, Canada always stepped up to meet its international military responsibilities and obligations.

Under Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Canada pursued independent foreign policy. In 1970, his government established diplomatic relations with China, ahead of the United States. Canada also blazed its own trail, as Mr. Trudeau was among the first to support the struggle of Nelson Mandela against apartheid in South Africa.

Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Joe Clark, his foreign affairs minister, took the lead in the struggle against apartheid and the movement to free Mr. Mandela. On this point, Mr. Mulroney was not afraid to stand up to Margaret Thatcher and our close ally, Britain. He rightly saw that they were wrong.

Canada has managed to assert repeatedly both its independence and its commitment to international institutions such as the UN and NATO in international relations.

Working within this framework led Canada, during my mandate, to play leading roles on issues such as the Ottawa Treaty, an international convention on the ban of anti-personnel mines, and the establishment of the International Criminal Court. In this same spirit, we also signed the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

In 2003, to the dismay of our American and British allies, we refused to go to war in Iraq because the UN refused its consent to what is now universally acknowledged as a big mistake. Canada was noticed and respected for this decision.

However, since then something has happened to Canada’s international reputation. I fear it has been altered and damaged for a long time. In 2010, for the first time, Canada’s bid for a seat on the Security Council of the United Nations was defeated. The next year we sent our planes to bomb Libya, and we are now participating militarily in Iraq and Syria.

After the campaign in Libya – which we now know had disastrous consequences in the region – the Harper government trumpeted Canada’s bombing role with a flyover above Parliament Hill to celebrate our “victory.” This is a ritual normally characteristic of conquering and warlike countries.

Today, with great sadness and shame, I am watching Mr. Harper’s cold-hearted reaction to the tragedy of refugees from Syria and Iraq. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has stepped up to the plate, and the world looks upon the generosity of her country with admiration. The same goes for Norway, Sweden and Finland, which have welcomed refugees and do not erect roadblocks to taking them in. Instead they get rid of roadblocks. But not Mr. Harper. He has shamed Canada in the eyes of Canadians and of the international community.

In my travels around the globe, I am regularly asked: What has happened to Canada? What has happened to the advanced, peace-seeking, progressive country Canada once was? What has happened to the country that was a model for peace and stability in a tumultuous world? These questions evoke great sadness in me.

I am sad to see that in fewer than 10 years, the Harper government has tarnished almost 60 years of Canada’s reputation as a builder of peace and progress. During all these years, government leaders, whether Liberal or Progressive Conservative, have sought to understand, engage and influence their international peers, including those with whom they disagreed. They did not try to embarrass or give other countries lessons in good behaviour. Rather, they patiently sought to convince others of the universal values that make our global community a better and safer place to live.

Of course, peaceful dialogue does not always work. War is sometimes unavoidable. But solutions should come from the world community working together – not from a handful of countries acting outside international institutions to which they belong.

Canadians will soon choose their next government. When considering the role of Canada on the world stage, I hope they will choose a government in line with our great tradition of peace-building, initiated by Mr. Pearson and promoted by all of his successors until the arrival of the Harper administration.

Let’s take back our place in the world.

I am posting this here, rather than in the Conservative Foreign Policy thread because this is Liberal campaigning, pure and simple.

Note, first of all, that Prime Minister Chrétien, with characteristic duplicity "cherry picks" the foreign policy "achievements" of himself and his predecessors ~ ignoring, as Pierre Trudeau's memory demands ~ that Prime Minister St Laurent was also instrumental in founding NATO (as well as the UN) and that he made Canada a leading middle power, something that Prime Minister Trudeau for his own, deeply held but totally misguided reasons, undid, and something that Prime Minister Chrétien continued to undo while he was in power.

The greatest, ever, failures in Canadian foreign policy were committed, successively, by three Liberal prime ministers:

    1. King, who kept us out of the councils of leadership (where we belonged and to which Churchill invited us) in World War II because of his mistrust of the British and his own personal insecurities;

    2. Trudeau, who, in act of policy vandalism, dismantled almost everything Prime  Minister St Laurent had accomplished, because of his own misguided mistrust of nationalism; and

    3. Chrétien, himself, who always, without fail, put the partisan political welfare of his slice of the Liberal Party of Canada ahead of the good of the country.

But, this will resonate with the Harper Haters™ because they are, almost to person, blind to realism and Canada's national interests in foreign policy, and with the media, because Prime Minister Chrétien remains hugely popular with the chattering classes.

 

[Good2Golf]

...Note, first of all, that Prime Minister Chrétien, with characteristic duplicity "cherry picks" the foreign policy "achievements" of himself and his predecessors ~ ignoring, as Pierre Trudeau's memory demands ~ that Prime Minister St Laurent was also instrumental in founding NATO (as well as the UN) and that he made Canada a leading middle power, something that Prime Minister Trudeau for his own, deeply held but totally misguided reasons, undid, and something that Prime Minister Chrétien continued to undo while he was in power.

Rich indeed, coming from Jean Chrétien...

A quick refresher: http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/resources/statistics/contributors_archive.shtml

PM Kim Campbell hand's Parliamentary reigns to PM Jean Chrétien in 19993.

In 1992, France was the #1 UN Peacekeeping contributor with 6502 troops supporting worldwide UN missions.  Canada was #3 with 3285.

In December of 2003, when PM Chrétien handed over to PM Paul Martin, under Chrétien's leadership, Canada had fallen from #3 to #38 in support of the UN...providing a mere 233 soldiers, down almost fifteen-fold from when Chrétien took power.

That Chrétien can utter such self-aggrandizing drivel is something that should turn one's stomach...apparently all too many buy into the continuation of these mis-truths...sad. :not-again:

Regards
G2G

 

[McG]

2.  Some sort of deal is struck between the NDP and Liberals whereby the party with the most seats forms government (assuming the Governor General gives them a chance);

GG likely won't believe them now. Muclair is curiously silent on the issue, and Trudeau has publicly said no to a formal coalition. He'd have no reason to believe they'd work together, and we'd have another election right away.

The Greens are now campaigning that they would seek to mediate such a coalition (with PR being one condition of their support) ... and where opposition to coalitions seems to be party leaders not willing to work together (as opposed to parties themselves being unable to work together), there might be a coalition possibility if either (or both) of Mr Trudeau or Mr Mulcair are unsuccessful in winning their own seat.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The Greens are now campaigning that they would seek to mediate such a coalition (with PR being one condition of their support) ... and where opposition to coalitions seems to be party leaders not willing to work together (as opposed to parties themselves being unable to work together), there might be a coalition possibility if either (or both) of Mr Trudeau or Mr Mulcair are unsuccessful in winning their own seat.

If we heard the same interview on the radio, Green Lizzie said they'd head to the GG if there was a Tory minority - methinks the PM, still being PM, would get the first crack.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

If we heard the same interview on the radio, Green Lizzie said they'd head to the GG if there was a Tory minority - methinks the PM, still being PM, would get the first crack.

Speaking of Elizabeth May:

64 Reasons NOT to vote for Elizabeth May and her "Green Party."

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright At from the Globe and Mail is an analysis of the leaders' (parties') positions on selected economic issues:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/as-canadas-economy-takes-a-hit-heres-where-the-parties-stand-on-key-economic-issues/article26343277/

As Canada’s economy takes a hit, here’s where the parties stand on key economic issues

BILL CURRY
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Last updated Saturday, Sep. 12, 2015

The Globe and Mail is hosting a debate on the economy among the leaders of the three main political parties on Thursday at 8 pm (ET). Click here for more details.

Recession or not, Canada’s economy is in a rut.

Party leaders are telling Canadians on the campaign trail that they have the best plan to spur growth, create jobs and set the country up to be competitive over the long term.

While none of the three major parties has yet released a detailed election platform, all have outlined many of their key economic plans.

More than half way into the 78-day election campaign, here’s where the parties stand on key economic issues as they prepare for an English-language leaders debate Thursday in Calgary hosted by The Globe and Mail that will focus on the economy.

Taxation

Conservatives: Conservative Leader Stephen Harper likes to boast, accurately, that federal taxes are lower now than they’ve been in more than 50 years. Keeping taxes low is the central theme of the Conservatives’ stay-the-course message. Last year they announced billions in new tax cuts, including income splitting for families with children under 18. They also brought in more generous Universal Child Care Benefit payments. The 2015 budget promised to cut the small-business tax rate from 11 to 9 per cent by 2019.

The Conservatives would cut employment insurance premiums from $1.88 per $100 of insurable earnings to $1.49 in 2017.

Liberals:The Liberals are the only major party promising to change personal tax rates. They would introduce a new tax rate of 33 per cent on income over $200,000. That would help fund a tax cut on income between $44,701 and $89,401, where the rate would drop to 20.5 per cent from 22 per cent.

The Liberals would also launch a “Canada Child Benefit,” which would repackage and expand existing programs such as the Universal Child Care Benefit. The change would fund larger monthly payments to families at lower incomes by providing less generous benefits to higher income families.

The Liberals would also cancel income splitting for families but would maintain it for seniors. Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau supports lowering the small-business tax rate, but has faced criticism from the Conservatives and NDP for saying measures would be required to ensure the small-business tax system isn’t used by high-income Canadians as a way of avoiding taxes. The Liberals promise to reduce EI premiums to $1.65 in 2017 while also expanding EI benefits.

NDP:The NDP says it won’t touch personal income taxes and will cut the small-business tax rate to 9 per cent within two years. The NDP would raise the corporate tax rate, but NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair has said only that the new rate would be below what the average rate has been under the Conservatives. He is promising to release a full platform before the Sept. 17 leaders debate.

The NDP would also cancel income splitting for families but maintain it for seniors.

Infrastructure

Conservatives: The Conservatives topped up their long-term infrastructure program in the 2015 budget with a new public transit fund, which would ramp up to $1-billion per year in 2019-2020. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, annual federal spending on infrastructure grew from $1.7-billion in 2007-08 to about $5-billion a year now.

Liberals:The Liberals made a major policy splash near the midway point of the campaign, announcing they would run three years of deficits to finance a major spike in infrastructure spending. The party is promising $60-billion in new spending over 10 years on roads, bridges, transit and other projects. Mr. Trudeau said municipalities would set the priorities as to what gets built.

NDP:The NDP is promising to increase transfers to municipalities and boost transit funding all while balancing the books. The federal gas tax transfer, which municipalities can use as they wish, would be gradually increased over the existing annual level of $2.1-billion. In the fourth year of an NDP government, the transfer would be worth $3.7-billion. The NDP would also spend slightly more on transit than the Conservatives over the next two years, rising to $1.3-billion a year by the fourth year, which is $300-million more than the Tories. In addition, the NDP is promising a one-time $500-million incentive for new affordable housing and annual funding for existing affordable housing programs that would grow to $650-million a year.

Energy

Conservatives: With oil prices plummeting, Mr. Harper has argued that temporary swings in the energy sector can be expected. He continues to advocate for new energy pipelines to bring Alberta crude to global markets and warns against Liberal and NDP environmental policies, which he predicts will hurt the economy.

Liberals:The Liberals ran into trouble in 2008 with a campaign centred on a detailed “Green Shift” policy based on carbon taxes and tax breaks. This time, the party said key details on energy and climate change policy will come after the election based on discussions with the provinces. Mr. Trudeau has promised federal cash for the provinces to help them implement their climate-change plans. He promises to meet with the provinces to discuss energy issues if elected. The party promises to encourage renewable energy use across Canada.

NDP:NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair often accuses the Conservatives of placing too much focus on the energy sector, to the detriment of other sectors such as manufacturing. Mr. Mulcair said he will bring in stronger environmental regulations and those rules will determine whether an NDP government approves projects such as the Energy East pipeline.

Manufacturing

Conservatives: Manufacturers are the darlings of this election campaign. With a low dollar and a struggling energy sector, there is a lot of pressure on manufacturers to boost economic growth. Leaders are regularly holding events and photo ops at manufacturing plants. Mr. Harper is promising an Advanced Manufacturing Hub will be set up in Burlington, Ont., and an Investment and Trade Promotion Office that will look to attract international manufacturing investment.

Liberals:The Liberals have not yet announced their manufacturing platform. But they have warned that the NDP plans to raise the corporate tax rate will make it harder for Canada to attract manufacturing jobs.

NDP:Mr. Mulcair says he will be a personal champion of Canada’s manufacturing sector. He said this means he will personally attend international trade shows to encourage multinational companies to increase their manufacturing presence in Canada. He has also promised an innovation tax credit for manufactures at a cost of $40-million per year.

Bottom line

Conservatives: The Conservatives are promising to post a small surplus in the current 2015-16 fiscal year and to continue running surpluses. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has warned that federal finances are on track for a small deficit this year because of lower-than-expected economic growth.

Liberals:The Liberals are promising to balance the books in 2019 after three years of deficits that would help pay for infrastructure spending. The party insists that Canada’s debt as a share of the economy will continue to decline over that period. It also promises that the size of annual deficits will not exceed $10-billion.

NDP:The NDP promises to balance the books during its first full fiscal year in power, which would be 2016-17. The party says ending tax breaks for people who are compensated with stock options are among the measures that will bring in the additional revenue required to cover the cost of the NDP’s spending promises.

On balance (no pun intended) I favour the CPC's proposals as being closest to economic/fiscal prudence in tumultuous times. I favour some, limited, well focused (on productive things) stimulus that can be financed with long term debt, while money is cheap. I oppose any and all new social spending.

Taxes are high enough. In fact, if we have some well placed spending cuts, they could be lowered: corporate taxes should be lowered, first.

We do not need and cannot afford, yet, any sort of "Green Shift," that is economic nonsense.

Manufacturing is an eternal problem for Canada. We are unproductive for some, good, geographic reasons, but, mainly, because we have a weak business management culture.

 

[Scott]

Speaking of Elizabeth May:

64 Reasons NOT to vote for Elizabeth May and her "Green Party."

Seems like there is an ABE movement out west. Too bad a split vote would probably keep her coming back. Oh irony.

 

[a_majoor]

She just needs to hang around long enough for a Liberal government to be elected and then she can be be appointed to the Senate (which seemed to be her long term plan). I somehow doubt that this is going to be an option after this election, and is questionable in 18 months or 2019 either...

 

[Edward Campbell]

There are some further comments on the Léger poll in this article in the Globe and Mail which is headlined: "Canadians want a new PM, poll suggests."

Now, I still think it's too early to worry about polls, but I suspect that the headline is correct. As I have said, earlier and more than once, I believe that seven to 10 years is about the modern "limit" for a prime minister. I doubt that we will, ever again, see PMs who endure for 15+ (Trudeau) or 20+ (Mackenzie King) years. My sense is that Prime Minister's Harper's "best before date" was in the Spring of 2015. He might have given his party a better shot at remaining in power had he announced his resignation in late 2014, and handed over, after a two month leadership race, early in 2015. But late summer 2014, when he might have made that decision, was a very, very different time: before the oil price collapse (Sep 14), before the Mike Duffy charges (Jul 14) and trial (Apr 15) and before the NDP victory in Alberta (May 15).

My guess is that Canadians will vote against Prime Minister Stephen Harper, not because they actually oppose his policies (the vast majority will have little or no idea about any party's policies) and not because they think he's dishonest (Ialthough some do believe that) but, rather, because they are tired of him ~ sick and tired of him in some cases.

And the Globe and Mail'f Jeffrey Simpson agrees, in a column in that newspaper. He ascribes Canadians' inclination to think that seven to ten years is  about enough to our "democratic instinct for change," but I'm not so sure. I think we have simply picked up on another American notion: the two term (eight year) presidency being all that's allowed.

 

[Altair]

And the Globe and Mail'f Jeffrey Simpson agrees, in a column in that newspaper. He ascribes Canadians' inclination to think that seven to ten years is  about enough to our "democratic instinct for change," but I'm not so sure. I think we have simply picked up on another American notion: the two term (eight year) presidency being all that's allowed.

Lets face it, most goverments accomplish what they wanted to do within two terms. Then they run on their record with little to no plans for the future other than stay the course.

New nanos poll has

CPC 32
NDP 31
LPC 31

The only thing I read into here is the NDP dropping outside their margin of error.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Lets face it, most goverments accomplish what they wanted to do within two terms. Then they run on their record with little to no plans for the future other than stay the course.

I've been saying for some time that governments, including this one, get tired and stale ~ they run out of good ideas. There's no fixed timeline for it: Jean Chrétien took power in 1993 and he had only two ideas: one deeply flawed and the other good. His "bad idea" was the national unity file which nearly destroyed if party (sponsorship scandal) and the country (his incredibly inept mismanagement ~ one cannot possibly ever call it leadership ~ of the referendum "no" side). His "good idea" was the 1995 budget that, under severe pressure from the bond rating agencies and his own civil service, began to reduce the budget deficits and even pay back some debt. But that was it: Prime Minister Chrétien wasn't about "ideas," good or bad, he was just about power, he had his big idea in 1995 and then stayed in power until 2003; Canadians elected and re-elected Jean Chrétien despite his dearth of ideas. They "liked" him, he was the "tough little guy," "le 'tit gars de Shawinigan," Canadians could identify with him, and he played, very skilfully, on our emotions; his policies and ideas didn't matter. Ditto for both Mulroney and Trudeau, earlier: they had ideas but Canadians were not much interested, not even in free trade. It was one of Mulroney's good ideas, the GST, that cost him his personal popularity. In what remains to me an inexplicable act of good policy and dreadful politics, he made thew GST highly visible (in contrast to e.g. Europe, where a higher VAT is just part of the price of goods and services); Canadians hated, still dislike, the GST and they came to detest Mulroney, too. It was, again, personality, not ideas that cost him. Trudeau was full of ideas ~ uniformly bad ~ but, again,  no one cared because he both won and then lost on his own personality. Canadians loved him, for a while, then got bored and tired of him.

In my view the Conservatives are out of ideas, they are tired and stale ... but we will not vote about ideas, we, the vast majority of us, will vote because we like or dislike Prime Minister Harper and/or M Mulcair and/or M Trudeau.