Election 2015

[Altair]

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com//full-comment/kelly-mcparland-campaign-2015-is-trite-trivialized-and-superficial-no-wonder-voters-are-tuned-out

It’s getting increasingly difficult to take this election seriously. There are big issues in the balance, as there always are, but it’s hard to spot them amid the careening, caterwauling campaigns and the screeching mobs bent on derailing them. It all reminds me of a description from the dawn of yellow journalism a century ago, when William Randolph Hearst overturned the staid world of journalism with lurid tales of sex, crime and political corruption: “A Hearst newspaper,” wrote one of his employees, “is like a screaming woman running down the street with her throat cut.”

The headlines alone make you want to skip right to the sports section, where the Blue Jays are winning and hockey is back. NDP candidate Pat Martin apologizes because he can’t control his potty mouth. NDP leader Thomas Mulcair apologizes because he once said “Newfie”. Is there a non-Newfie in Canada who hasn’t? The Prime Minister is being bashed for using the term “old stock” for some Canadians. Terry Fox’s family is upset at being offered money for their cancer fund during the campaign. A Liberal candidate is outed for allegedly trying to skip the sales tax on his home renovation, like about 80% of other homeowners. Another Liberal is dropped for making nutbar statements about the RCMP, which he thinks is “Canada’s Gestapo.” A third Liberal quits after suggesting pot-smoking is a good way to reduce domestic violence. A fourth apologizes for an obscenity-laced Twitter tirade, explaining he was drunk at the time.

A Conservative candidate is dumped for peeing in a cup. The NDP’s communications genius doesn’t quit, despite suggesting the Pope go copulate with himself, explaining he was upset at the time. Are we supposed to care about this stuff? The parties are always insisting they need to maintain their pay and perks as a way of attracting good candidates, and this is what they produce?

Stephen Harper has barely changed a word in his stump speech since the day the writ dropped. Justin Trudeau, in contrast, seems to make it up as he goes along, tripping over himself in puppy-like excitement. When the refugee crisis suddenly erupted, having been comprehensively ignored all summer, the Liberal leader wanted to send a jet immediately to scoop up 25,000 refugees. He wants to give billions of dollars to natives, billions of dollars to municipalities, and solve “women’s problems” all at once. He also wants to scrap the F-35 fighter jet program and start all over, despite the impact on billions of dollars of Canadian contracts. Jean Chretien made the same pledge about a Tory helicopter purchase in 1990, cancelled the deal at a cost of $478 million in penalties, and waited 11 years to pick a new helicopter, the first of which wasn’t delivered until this year, at triple the original cost. But being young and Liberal means never having to learn history, I guess.

CANADIAN PRESS/Ryan Remiorz

You get the impression the campaigns are driven largely by a compulsive need to respond to whatever latest obsession is convulsing the screaming meemies of social media. For two weeks we heard nothing but Mike Duffy. Then we heard nothing but the economy. Then it was refugees. Once they dropped from trending Tweets, they all but disappeared from the campaigns. Now it’s “old stock Canadians” and Pamela Anderson, who says she’d never vote for Stephen Harper, if she could, which she probably can’t, since she lives in Malibu and likely knows as much about Stephen Harper as I know about Baywatch, which isn’t much. Wayne Gretzky, meanwhile, is a Harper man, but he can’t vote either.
When historians look back on the campaign – and it won’t be a surprise if they put off the task as long as possible – the defining moment may be the second debate of the three leaders. It wasn’t carried by national television, it was preceded by 20 minutes of pundits interviewing one another, and it was largely incoherent. Trudeaudistinguished himself by ignoring time limits, talking over opponents and interrupting anyone who tried to make a point with which he disagreed. This was called being “aggressive.” The Globe and Mail bragged that Twitter included more than 1,300 tweets mentioning either ‘bell’ or ‘ding’ – referring to the little bell used to end segments – a pretty close reflection of the depth of discussion the debate inspired.

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian WyldLiberal Leader Justin Trudeau walks to his campaign plane in Toronto.

Voters have signaled their displeasure by remaining firmly disengaged. According to the CBC Polltracker, based on figures from all major polls, the Liberals, NDP and Conservatives started with roughly 30% of the vote apiece, and remain deadlocked after seven weeks. Despite constant predictions of a Tory demise, Harper’s party, as of today, appears to be marginally ahead, and would emerge with 126 seats and a minority government according to the latest seat projection. The NDP and Liberals could combine to rule as a coalition, except Trudeau says he won’t coalesce with an NDP run by Mulcair.

It suggests Canadians are thoroughly put off by the whole sad, sophomoric mess. The rise of Twitter, Facebook and instant opinion – no matter how ill-informed – has reduced public discussion to a level only the most partisan diehards can endure. Everyone else has something better to do, and almost anything is better than this.

National Post

KellyMcParland

Helps explain why people couldn't care less about politics these days.

 

[ModlrMike]

One of the least biased pieces produced thus far. It lambastes each party just about evenly, although it does go a little light on Mr Mulcair.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And, the opposite direction, the Toronto Star plays the race card in an article that ascribes racist motives to Joe Daniel, an undistinguished CPC MP, a "visible minority," and an immigrant from Trinidad, because he cited his concerns about the rush to screen Syrian refugees ... concerns that many Canadians share.

 

[Lumber]

From: Toronto Star plays the race card

"According to the Ottawa Citizen, star Conservative candidate Dianne Watts in Surrey South-White Rock (B.C.) retweeted a message implying the Islamic State had “orchestrated” the migration of Syrian refugees. The re-tweet has since been deleted."

My cynical side was also wondering the other day if ISIS is so brutal because they see it as a necessary evil; a tool with which to spread a wave muslims into the western world.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Reviving something said here, a few days ago, a fellow named Matt Skinner (@KrankyKanuck on Twitter) says, and I agree that ...

          A Liberal party led by Mulcair would be infinitely better than the current NDP or Lib parties

          ... because, he says ...

        Mulcair has some useless MPs and the Liberal MPs have a useless leader.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And, here, from our "will wonders never cease?" department is an excellent, informative report, from Global News, on the promises made by the three contending party leaders. Well worth a look ...

(The article is too long to post.)

 

[Remius]

For those that follow the polls here is the latest NANOS poll.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/liberals-conservatives-numerically-tied-nanos-1.2576705


If I read this right, it looks like the NDP is close to dropping out of the margin of error and might be in third now.

I'm not sure I'm a fan of Nanos' nightly polling but it seems according to them, that last week didn't hurt the conservatives but seems to have affected the liberals a bit in the positive.

I'll be curious to see what the other polls are saying.

 

[Remius]

For those that follow the polls here is the latest NANOS poll.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/liberals-conservatives-numerically-tied-nanos-1.2576705


If I read this right, it looks like the NDP is close to dropping out of the margin of error and might be in third now.

I'm not sure I'm a fan of Nanos' nightly polling but it seems according to them, that last week didn't hurt the conservatives but seems to have affected the liberals a bit in the positive.

I'll be curious to see what the other polls are saying.

And looking here at Eric Grenier's poll tracker we see what might be the start of a Liberal momentum.  Of note is their uptick in projected seat wins in Ontario.  This may explain why the leaders are there now duking it out.

 

[The Bread Guy]

This just out earlier today from the Conservatives:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that a re-elected Conservative government will re-establish College Militaire Royal de St. Jean as a full degree-granting institution.

“From Charles de Salaberry during the War of 1812 to the tens of thousands of in uniform today, francophones have a long and honourable history of serving in our armed forces,” said the Prime Minister.

“CMR was a distinguished, full-service military college from 1952 to 1995 when the Liberals closed it as part of their “decade of darkness” and neglect of our armed forces, said Prime Minister Harper. “Their decision to close CMR was the wrong decision for Quebec, for Canada and for our military.”

As one of many steps undertaken to rebuild and restore our military, the Conservative government righted this historic mistake by re-opening CMR as a CEGEP in 2008. Today, the Prime Minister announced it would make the College a full-fledged, degree-granting military university. The Prime Minister said his government would work collaboratively with the Quebec Government as it re-establishes the university.

“While our Conservative party has taken a number of steps to support our men and women in uniform, Justin Trudeau’s Liberals and Tom Mulcair’s NDP have viewed the Canadian Armed Forces with attitudes ranging from disinterest to contempt,” said the Prime Minister. “They lack true respect for our military and true appreciation for the absolute necessity of the work it does.”

More from CBC.ca here - more Army.ca backstory here.

 

[Remius]

Well that will likely initiate some debate.  It certainly caters to the Quebec voter but I wonder what the non-quebecer thinks. 

Do we really need another degree granting military college?  I'm not so sure. 

 

[Kirkhill]

For those that follow the polls here is the latest NANOS poll.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/election/liberals-conservatives-numerically-tied-nanos-1.2576705


If I read this right, it looks like the NDP is close to dropping out of the margin of error and might be in third now.

I'm not sure I'm a fan of Nanos' nightly polling but it seems according to them, that last week didn't hurt the conservatives but seems to have affected the liberals a bit in the positive.

I'll be curious to see what the other polls are saying.

http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/20150922%20Ballot%20TrackingE.pdf

Interesting to me is the 2nd Choice analysis.

The Tories have 46% with no second choice.  The Libs, NDP and Greens are 16%, 12% and 7% respective.  In the words of Alexander Keith: "Those that like the Tories like them a lot."  The Libs, NDP and Greens don't have a similarly dedicated core.

Meanwhile the Libs and the NDP have ~50% of their vote that is still considering voting for the other guy.  Could give Harper concerns with strategic voting but can't be doing much for letting Trudeau and Mulcair sleep at night.

As a Tory supporter this is interesting to me:

18% of Justin's 32% would vote for Harper as a second choice (an additional 5.7% of the vote in play for Harper).
11% of Tom's 29% would vote for Harper as a second choice (an additional 3.2% of the vote in play for Harper).
19% of Elizabeth's 4% would vote for Harper as a second choice (an additional 0.8% of the vote in play for Harper).
4% of Gilles's 3% would vote for Harper as a second choice (an additional 0.1% of the vote in play for Harper).

If Harper could convert all of those second choice votes then his total would be 31.5+5.7+3.2+0.8+0.1 = 41.3%
41.3% of the voters don't hate Harper/Tories and Harper has a solid core of 16% of the electorate to depend on.

Conversely the HarperHaters are split four ways and none of parties have a base of support as strong as the Tories 16%.

The Libs have a base of 16% of 31.6% = 5% of the electorate or 31% of the Tory base.
The NDP have a base of 12% of 29% = 3.5% or 21% of the Tory base.
The Greens have a base of 7% of 4% = 0.3% or 2% of the Tory base.
The Bloc have a base of 25% of 3% = 0.8% or 5% of the Tory base.

Add all of the firm anti-Harper teams together and you get 5%+3.5%+0.3%+0.8% = 9.6% of the electorate or 60% of the Tory base.

Advantage Team Harper I would say.  And the wide fluctuations in the polls for the Libs and NDP - swapping ground and back - while the Tory numbers have stayed fairly flat (constant) over the last couple of years is supportive of that hypothesis.

He has a bigger base than all his opponents combined, his support has stayed with him in good times and bad, and 42% 41.3% of the population are considering voting for him.

Meanwhile the opposition is greatly divided and inimical to each other, not just to Harper and the Tories.

At the same time the pool of undecided is dropping to the 10% range from the 20 to 25% range seen a year ago.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Well that will likely initiate some debate.  It certainly caters to the Quebec voter but I wonder what the non-quebecer thinks. 

Do we really need another degree granting military college?  I'm not so sure.

We have a current thread that deals with that, as an aside.

Some members make the (valid) point that we don't need any degree granting military colleges ~ RMC could be a Sandhurst like institution doing officer training and degrees could be earned, later in an officer's career and any of Canada's universities, as the officer's wishes and the needs of the service, together, dictate.

Other members, me included, argue that both RMC and CMR should exist as both Sandhurst like institutions and universities that grant some, special to the military, degrees, again later in an officer's career.


Edit: to add quote from Remius

 

[The Bread Guy]

We have a current thread that deals with that, as an aside.

Some members make the (valid) point that we don't need any degree granting military colleges ~ RMC could be a Sandhurst like institution doing officer training and degrees could be earned, later in an officer's career and any of Canada's universities, as the officer's wishes and the needs of the service, together, dictate.

Other members, me included, argue that both RMC and CMR should exist as both Sandhurst like institutions and universities that grant some, special to the military, degrees, again later in an officer's career.

That said, and given Canada's wide-thin support for the military, is this enough to get some mo' Quebec votes?

 

[Edward Campbell]

That said, and given Canada's wide-thin support for the military, is this enough to get some mo' Quebec votes?

The CPC are only really competitive in a few Quebec ridings ~ maybe five should wins and five more could wins; if this sways enough votes in even just one or two of those could wins ridings then the party likely thinks it's a worthwhile promise ... to be kept at their leisure.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The CPC are only really competitive in a few Quebec ridings ~ maybe five should wins and five more could wins; if this sways enough votes in even just one or two of those could wins ridings then the party likely thinks it's a worthwhile promise ... to be kept at their leisure.

Good point in yellow there.

 

[cupper]

That would go far to pissing the Royal Roads alumni off.

 

[Good2Golf]

That would go far to pissing the Royal Roads alumni off.

We kind of new it was bound to happen...just a matter of time...

 

[Edward Campbell]

Although this is local, Ottawa news, it should be of interest because:

    1. It shows that the Liberals have made some substantial gains in ridings previously held by the Conservatives;

    2. With the exception of Ottawa Centre (where I live and vote) the NDP is not much of a factor in Ottawa; and

    3. LGen (Ret'd) Andrew Leslie (LPC) has a commanding lead over incumbent, albeit undistinguished CPC MP Royal Galipeau in Orléans.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Too bad about #3.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from Yahoo! News, is just in from our "who would have ever even thought the NDP might be unethical?" department:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/ndp-mp-pat-martin-used-donations-unions-pay-210359545.html

NDP MP Pat Martin used donations from unions to pay off debt from defamation law suit

By Andy Radia | Canada Politics – Mon, 23 Sep, 2013

For months the NDP has been railing against Mike Duffy for accepting a gift — from Nigel Wright — to pay off his debt for inappropriately claiming a Senate living allowance.
Well, it looks like one of their own has done the same thing — sort of.

According to the Ottawa Citizen, New Democrat MP Pat Martin, received cash gifts from several unions to pay off debts incurred with regard to a defamation law suit against him for accusing an Edmonton call centre of being behind the Guelph robocall scandal.

    Documents filed with the federal ethics commissioner by the Manitoba MP earlier this month show he accepted contributions to a legal defence fund from the Canadian Labour Congress, the United Steelworkers and the
    Canadian Union of Public Employees, and 14 other unions or locals.

    The donations are being used the repay a loan Martin received from the New Democratic Party of Canada to settle the legal case.

    Political contributions from unions have been illegal at the federal level since 2004, but Martin says these donations to his legal defence are considered “gifts” to him personally under ethics rules, even though he will never see the money.

According to the Ottawa Citizen report, Martin did get approval from federal ethics commissioner Mary Dawson prior to accepting the union donations. But while he must recuse himself from voting on legislation that "affect his donors specifically" he is free to vote "on legislation that affects labour unions generally."

Certainly, this isn't the exact same thing as the prime minister's former chief of staff secretly gifting Mike Duffy $90,000 so that he could repay taxpayers. Martin was upfront about his gifts, he sought and received approval from the ethics commissioner and seemingly played by the rules.

But , according political consultant Gerry Nicholls, there's a definitely a perception of impropriety here.

"The problem for the NDP with this issue is one of perception. Yes maybe Martin did everything by the book, but that won’t stop the Liberals, the Conservatives and the media from comparing him to Duffy," Nicholls told Yahoo Canada News in an email exchange.

"That could undermine the NDP’s efforts to make political hay on the Duffy scandal. It’s hard to attack and defend at the same time."

If the Liberals and the Conservatives need some help developing some good talking points, they might want to look to Twitter:

    James Bowie @JamesDBowie
    If Pat Martin, a sitting MP, is accepting gifts to settle his debts, then he is no longer allowed to criticize Mike Duffy. #cdnpoli
    3:26 PM - 23 Sep 2013

    Scott Gorry @TheGorryDetails 
    I wonder if all these union members are ok with their dues going to help Pat Martin fight a lawsuit
    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Martin+loan+from+donations+from+labour+robocalls+defamation+lawsuit/8948493/story.html …
    3:52 PM - 23 Sep 2013

    Dean Skoreyko @bcbluecon
    Pat Martin ruling by Ethics Commish shows 1) The rules are a joke 2) Mary Dawson is incompetent  http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Martin+loan+fr
    4:05 PM - 23 Sep 2013

:rofl:  but no further comment ...