Election 2015

[Lumber]

The CBC Bias and Laurentian elitist mentality has been in effect for decades. You truly have to work at getting a factual viewpoint. Most people have better and more interesting things to spend their time doing.

It is only when you get your arse bit a few times and decades later you have your eyes opened as to who, why and what did the chewing that the ordinary person begins to pay attention.

Unless you are from one of the Laurentian elite old stock families or on the Government's or one of the Big Union teats, Trudeau Liberals are not your cup of tea.

Does being in the military count as being on the Government's teat? Because there are lot of people here in the military who do not like Trudeau.

 

[Altair]

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, Jeffrey Simpson opines, correctly, I think, that "It really is all about Harper:"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/jeffrey-simpson-it-really-is-all-about-harper-pro-and-con/article26793653/

I think that Mr Simpson has it here: "Mr. Harper is running against the most powerful current in politics: time for a change ... Canada does not have term limits in law; it seems to have them in practice ..." and here: "In the television age, which is now more than a half-century old, leaders are almost all that medium cares about. Personality over policy is a truism of TV."

I have mentioned, several times over the past two or three years that "political parties need to be refreshed and renewed" and the mechanism we have to tell them "it's time," is to send them to the opposition benches for a while. Six to ten years seems to be about the limit of our patience with any one leader, maybe even with any one party (for the last 30 years, anyway). Of course no political discussion can ever finish without a return to the Nixon-Kennedy debate. I believe it is a fact that TV ~ the medium, not the journalists ~ "likes" M Trudeau and is cruel to Prime Minister Harper. It's not a fault or a strength for either man, it's just the nature of the medium. So, two factors: voter fatigue and TV and both have worked and are working against the prime minister.

Should Stephen Harper have resigned the CPC leadership, back in 2013/14 when it became obvious that M Trudeau was very, very strong on personal appeal? It's an open question ... could Jason Kenney beat M Trudeau in this election? I think not. John Baird or Rona Ambrose? ... maybe, but it would still be an uphill battle against the "time for a change" factor.

Are we shifting towards a de facto term limits system?

I think the bigger question is why did harper let his ego get in the way?

People were saying he should have stepped down for 2 years now but he decided to have 1 more kick at the can.

Didn't work for guy lafleur or Micheal Jordan and it isn't working for Stephen  Harper.

And now he's going to get beat by a Trudeau. That's got to sting.

 

[Remius]

Here is yesterday's Ipsos data ...

   

    Source: David Akin, Sun News

          ... which is almost the same as the EKOS numbers.

It is, now, faint hope time for the CPC. Yes, they can, theoretically, pull it out, but it doesn't look good, with only 4½ days of campaigning to go.

For the LPC: depending on vote efficiency, they are within 2 or 3 points of majority territory.

I'm not sure they can turn it around with only that time left.  I think the CPC has exhausted its bag of tricks.  Making cash machine sounds and throwing money down in front of small turn out crowds isn't helping either.  The momentum the LPC has came at exactly the right time for them and at the worst time for the CPC.  I'm sure there will be many theries and post mortems as to how it derailed for the NDP but also for the CPC. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

Does being in the military count as being on the Government's teat? Because there are lot of people here in the military who do not like Trudeau.

I have served in the times of Pierre through to the present day.  Yes, I have a distaste for Pierre, but I leave my real loathing for Jean.  He eclipsed Pierre in my ire.  Now to be fair, they all (from 1980 to today) have pissed me off at one time or another and some of them multiple times.  Jean is my # 1 with Pierre at # 2.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I am getting plenty of giggles at the frantic appeals from the NDP on the radio ads this past week.  I believe they've applied full military power on their nose dive as they head towards lawn dart territory. 

 

[Kirkhill]

This is something that I've always been confused about. I grew up hearing about how great a PM Pierre Trudeau was, and I still hear it all the time that "Pierre Trudeau was our greatest PM!" In fact, when the CBC ran "The Greatest Canadian", Pierre Trudeau was ranked the 3rd greatest Canadian in history!

But, as I grew older, started paying attention to politics and attending University, I discovered another cadre of people; those who think he is the worst Prime Minister in history. I know some of you here have said those exact words, "Pierre Trudeau is the worst PM ever." I got my worst grade in my entire time at University by writing a paper in history class whose thesis was basically "Pierre Trudea was the Greatest PM". I got a 55%, in part (my opinion) because my professor thought Trudeau was the worst PM in history, so how could my conclusions possibly be correct? I must have done spotty research.

How can someone be both the best and worst at the same time? Doesn't each side of the argument see how many people are on the other side and think "well.. ok maybe he's not quite as bad/good as I thought?" For one, I no longer think Trudeau was the messiah some treat him as, but I still like a lot of what he did.

So, do the people who hated Trudeau hate him as much as those who hate Harper?

Instead of "who was the best/worst" PM in Canadian history, how about, "Who is the most hated/villified PM in Canadian history?"

Cheers

As much as it pains me to say this (I am not a PET fan) Trudeau was a great leader - in the sense that he could motivate people and turn them into dedicated followers. 

This very characteristic is one of the things that concerned me, and still concerns me.  I distrust leaders that have that much charismatic influence.  It bothers me that many people feel comfortable "switching off" and letting someone else do the hard work of making decisions for them.

Regardless of his charismatic appeal and his ability to lead the other question is: Where was he leading?

In some senses I don't think he knew.  He liked the role of leader but I don't know that he ever had a plan. 

He was, successively, Catholic seminarian, Catholic corporatist, Socialist, Communist, NDP and Liberal.  He believed in power being translated downwards (through him) and not from the bottom up.

His policies were muddled - and leaned towards the authoritarian in my opinion.  Apparently the only place the state could not intervene was in my bedroom.  That left a pretty broad field.

Trudeau managed to alienate Quebecers with the War Measures Act, both Quebec francos and anglos in the rest of Canada with bilingualism and biculturalism, Western farmers by giving them the finger (literally) and refusing to sell their grain, Albertans with the National Energy Programme, fishers on both coasts by giving their fish away to Russian and Polish trawlers, and traditionalists that believed that Constitutions did not promote stability but took away power from where it should rightly reside: with the people's representatives in parliament.  The last line of decision, the last court of appeal should be parliament in open debate.

Trudeau, in my opinion, was many things but he was not a democrat.

Charismatic leader - yes.  Good Prime Minister - no.

 

[Jed]

As much as it pains me to say this (I am not a PET fan) Trudeau was a great leader - in the sense that he could motivate people and turn them into dedicated followers. 

This very characteristic is one of the things that concerned me, and still concerns me.  I distrust leaders that have that much charismatic influence.  It bothers me that many people feel comfortable "switching off" and letting someone else do the hard work of making decisions for them.

Regardless of his charismatic appeal and his ability to lead the other question is: Where was he leading?

In some senses I don't think he knew.  He liked the role of leader but I don't know that he ever had a plan. 

He was, successively, Catholic seminarian, Catholic corporatist, Socialist, Communist, NDP and Liberal.  He believed in power being translated downwards (through him) and not from the bottom up.

His policies were muddled - and leaned towards the authoritarian in my opinion.  Apparently the only place the state could not intervene was in my bedroom.  That left a pretty broad field.

Trudeau managed to alienate Quebecers with the War Measures Act, both Quebec francos and anglos in the rest of Canada with bilingualism and biculturalism, Western farmers by giving them the finger (literally) and refusing to sell their grain, Albertans with the National Energy Programme, fishers on both coasts by giving their fish away to Russian and Polish trawlers, and traditionalists that believed that Constitutions did not promote stability but took away power from where it should rightly reside: with the people's representatives in parliament.  The last line of decision, the last court of appeal should be parliament in open debate.

Trudeau, in my opinion, was many things but he was not a democrat.

Charismatic leader - yes.  Good Prime Minister - no.

His policies were Muddled, fuddled and duddled.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Premier Wynne tries to woo suburbanites in the GTA and Golden Horseshoe, many of whom are opposed to her Ontario Retirement Pension Plan scheme.

The "fine print": "She says if Trudeau wins the Oct. 19 federal election and is willing to improve the CPP, that would be “the solution” to her concerns about people not having enough money to live on when they retire."

Wynne would not have suddenly dropped this into the mix if she didn't think it would help elect Liberal MPs in ON.  And Wynne is tightly coupled to Trudeau and Butts, so I doubt she blind-sided them with a sudden announcement.  I conclude this was planned.

So here is your update on Trudeau's plans to help the middle class: whatever "the solution" is, if we assume Wynne's numbers represent careful consideration in back rooms and were not pulled out of someone's ass, then the payroll tax increase will be 3.8% of qualifying income (1.9% employee, 1.9% employer).

Using the 2015 income limit ($53,600), that is $2036.80.  That overwhelms the $670 break for reducing the 22% personal income tax rate to 20.5% and the proposed reduction in EI premiums ($0.23 per $100 of insurable earnings to the maximum of $49,500, for a reduction of $113.85).

I suppose you could still argue Trudeau is protecting the middle class, since CPP payroll tax increases affect everyone earning more than the minimum cutoff ($3,500) and the income tax cut doesn't start until $44,700 (2015 amount).  People with lower incomes will be doing their share to protect higher incomes and ensure that today's CPP recipients live a little more comfortably.  Thank you, Trudeau and Wynne.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

This was going to be a tax grab slush fund for the McWynnety government. They were going to reap in tons of money and then raid the fund for whatever they wanted. Like Martin used to do to balance budgets.

Kind of makes you wonder what The Hairdo promised to replace all that cash she'd be losing. :

Could Trudeau have a 'hidden agenda'?

 

[Brad Sallows]

There may be some ideas afoot for transfers or loans.

CPP expansion was talked about abstractly by federal campaigners, but never in specific dollar amounts.  Even the CBC "spin cycle / explainer" today took a lot of trouble to tease out dollar amounts, but left the cost of Wynne's CPP increase curiously uncalculated, and even psychologically low-balled the impact by describing it as "It's proposes a 1.9 per cent contribution to the retirement scheme for both the employee and employer. The current federal rate for the CPP is 4.95 per cent." rather than risk comparing it as, say, a "3.8% total contribution increase over an existing rate of 9.9%".  (A 13.7% percent tax rate starts to look rather large, no?)

It's easy to understand the timing.  The Liberals have calculated they are going to win big, and everything on the record before election day will be argued as part of any "mandate"; advance poll turnout was large and those people don't get a do-over based on any information provided in the final few days.  [Edit to add: expect more agenda items to become unhidden the closer we get to election day.]

 

[Altair]

Trudeau asking for a majority.

Don't think he can make it, would need to gain 4 percentage points in a week.

 

[Lumber]

Trudeau asking for a majority.

Don't think he can make it, would need to gain 4 percentage points in a week.

Here's what I don't understand (well, actually, I do) about the NDP's apparent desperation in these final few days.

I've read in several different places that Mulcair has stated that "Defeating Steven Harper and the Conservatives is his number 1 priority." If this is true, then instead of holding on desperately at the bitter end, why doesn't he recognize that he's lost the Democratic Nomination Liberal-NDP Race, back out and tell everyone who was going to vote NDP to vote Liberal? That would guarantee that the CPC and Harper fall, which in a way, would mean Mulcair is successful in achieving his number one priority.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Trudeau asking for a majority.

Don't think he can make it, would need to gain 4 percentage points in a week.

If he's going to win, which I would rather he doesn't, then I hope it's with a small, but workable majority.

I don't like minority governments: they are neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring. They require the worst sorts of policy compromises.

M Trudeau has a programme ... I think it's a damned poor one, but it is (barely) acceptable to many Canadians and if he wins then he should be given the (quite) free hand that majority government implies, to implement it. So it's good-bye to the F-35 and income splitting and expanded TFSA contributions and, and, and ... and it's hello to wasteful spending on social housing. Parts of his platform are fine, if he implements them, parts I will dislike, but, if he wins, he deserves the freedom to govern as he promised or to break his promises and face the consequences in four years.

My distaste for minorities isn't just for Conservative minorities. All minority governments are weak, ineffectual and wasteful ~ no one with the brains the gods gave to green peppers welcomes them.

 

[Old Sweat]

I'm not sure he has a lot of area to grow, but anything is possible. He is strong in Atlantic Canada, but he is nearly at a peak there. I don't know who much growth potential there is in Quebec and in the 416-905 belt in Ontario. That leaves the Prairies, which may have very limited potential at this time, and BC where maybe he can steal a bit from the NDP. I wonder, however, if both of the other parties aren't pretty well at their hard core supporters. A Green Party shift led by their leader?

Could be I'm wrong; goodness knows I've had lots of practice.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm not sure he has a lot of area to grow, but anything is possible. He is strong in Atlantic Canada, but he is nearly at a peak there. I don't know who much growth potential there is in Quebec and in the 416-905 belt in Ontario. That leaves the Prairies, which may have very limited potential at this time, and BC where maybe he can steal a bit from the NDP. I wonder, however, if both of the other parties aren't pretty well at their hard core supporters. A Green Party shift led by their leader?

Could be I'm wrong; goodness knows I've had lots of practice.

His strength it Atlantic Canada is, actually, a weakness: those very high numbers influence his national average ... he has a very inefficient vote base in Atlantic Canada and in Montreal.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The CPC is running a pretty nasty, maybe dishonest ad campaign some ethnic media in Toronto and Vancouver.

 

[Altair]

His strength it Atlantic Canada is, actually, a weakness: those very high numbers influence his national average ... he has a very inefficient vote base in Atlantic Canada and in Montreal.

The greater Montreal area could net him 25 seats so I wouldn't say that's a weakness.

The big battleground is ontario where it appears he's stretching his lead.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This will be a common (and, in my opinion, unfair) complaint amongst Conservatives ...

   

    Cartoon by Fleg an editorial cartoonist in Quebec.

          ... there is, of course, some truth in it, but for every media outlet that displays some animus towards Prime Minister Harper or that fawned over M Trudeau there were others that supported the Conservatives and were very critical of M Trudeau's policy proposals.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The CPC is running a pretty nasty, maybe dishonest ad campaign some ethnic media in Toronto and Vancouver.

It's not just the CPC. This Liberal ad is equally deceptive ...

   

          ... it says you can be deported and lose your citizenship, but it fails to mention that, first, you have to have been tried for and convicted of terrorism.

 

[observor 69]

The greater Montreal area could net him 25 seats so I wouldn't say that's a weakness.

The big battleground is ontario where it appears he's stretching his lead.

My southern Ontario community has six federal seats. Five weeks ago it was a mix of PC and Liberal MPs.
It now has strong numbers projecting it will go entirely Liberal.