Election 2015

[Good2Golf]

Like every party.

Conservatives as well.

Absolutely, and NDP and others.  In no case should any of them be given a bye since someone took a knee quickly once caught.

The important takeaway is that people should understand that there is what parties tell people in the open, and then agendas beneath the surface, in some/many cases, duplicitous.  Such behaviour is not the monopolistic realm of the Conservatives.

I would prefer to see Trudeau address this directly and forthrightly, and explain why this is unacceptable and how that perspective doesn't represent the keeping of the people's trust that the Liberal party is looking to gain and maintain.  Sadly, most response is aligned with "what a good thing he stepped down so quickly" and "he was just doing what he thought was right."

 

[PuckChaser]

Must say a lot about Stephen Harper when a guy who has made all of these comments can still beat him in the general election.

No one has beaten anyone yet. The GTA has proven time and time again they'll vote for a mouth piece with grand ideas that'll never work. They elected Wynne once and McGuinty twice.

 

[Altair]

See you Monday.

 

[dimsum]

Cripes, I really can't wait until the election is done.  Churchill had it right when he said something to the effect that the biggest factor against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.  Canadians are proving that in spades these days, it seems.  Low information voters indeed.

"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."      - Mark Twain

 

[Edward Campbell]

The latest from Nanos via CTV News:

Prime Minister Harper got a solid, serviceable majority with 39.62% of the popular vote in 2011, despite great inefficiency in the prairies and Alberta; Paul Martin got a weak minority in 2004 with 36.73%; Jean Chrétien got his last, slim, majority in 2000 with 40.85%; Pierre Trudeau's popular vote share ranges from 38% (minority) to 45% (first majority) in 1968.

 

[Edward Campbell]

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.

Campbell Clark, in the Globe and Mail, says, in this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from that newspaper, that it is dangerous for M Trudeau to come right out and ask for a majority ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/trudeau-takes-a-risk-asking-voters-for-a-majority-government/article26818414/?click=sf_globe

Trudeau takes a risk asking voters for a majority government

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Campbell Clark
The Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Oct. 15, 2015

Majority? Did I say majority? What’s the big deal?

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, who is pulling ahead in opinion polls, asked Canadians on Wednesday for a majority government. And, although his campaign then got busy telling folks there was nothing remarkable, it made headlines.

For Mr. Trudeau, there is a danger that it will sound like triumphalism, that he’s a leader who thinks victory is in the bag and is now asking for the whole thing, a majority government – and that those who were thinking about voting Liberal but aren’t totally convinced might pull back. Ask Conservative Leader Stephen Harper about that: Talking about a majority was a disaster for his 2004 campaign.

The Liberals have a long reputation for arrogance, so a rush of overconfidence, the minute they are ahead, could turn voters off. But maybe it wasn’t just hubris – perhaps they feel the potential gains, notably in Quebec, are worth the risk.

After the first stories on Mr. Trudeau’s call for a majority were filed on Wednesday, the Liberals started to scoff at the notion that Mr. Trudeau’s comment was anything special, and he was just doing what politicians do. Nothing to see here – move along. Gerry Butts, Mr. Trudeau’s principal secretary, started tweeting examples of NDP Leader Tom Mulcair and Mr. Harper saying they wanted a majority, and then that hockey players want to score goals, too.

But context matters in politics. It’s one thing for Mr. Mulcair to say he wants a majority to buck up the troops, hoping to make them feel like he still has a shot at winning. It would have been an anodyne way for Mr. Trudeau to rebut questions about coalitions when he was in third place back in August. But now that a shiny, grinning Mr. Trudeau is caravanning through opponents’ ridings, ahead in the polls, it’s very different. That makes asking for a majority look like you expect to win, and want to win big. It can seem like the Liberals are getting giddy, or arrogant. So why say it at all? It’s worth noting that Mr. Trudeau was campaigning in Hamilton and said it in French. It was in an answer to a reporter’s question, but Mr. Trudeau, who has turned cautious since he became the front-runner, has proved he’s capable of responding to a question without ever coming anywhere near answering it – as he did on Wednesday when asked about a possible coalition. He did answer about a majority: “Am I asking for a majority government? Yes.”

It seems likely Mr. Trudeau was targeting the point at Quebec, where the Liberals face a different political dynamic than they do in Ontario, where they are far ahead.

In Quebec, Mr. Trudeau is running slightly behind the NDP, according to most polls, but the party’s vote is traditionally concentrated among anglophones and ethnic communities in the Montreal area. A modest boost among francophone voters could see the Liberals suddenly pick up a lot more seats.

Asking for a majority is one way to tell Quebeckers he’s best placed to beat Mr. Harper and the Conservatives – and appeal to them to help him do it. Quebec is the province where Mr. Harper’s negative ratings are the highest, after all. And as it happens, Mr. Trudeau will be campaigning in Quebec ridings on Thursday.

But it is taking a chance with an appeal that’s gone wrong before. It did for Mr. Harper in 2004. Less than two weeks before the election, with polls showing him pulling ahead of Liberal PM Paul Martin, Mr. Harper’s talk of majority rekindled qualms that he harboured a social-conservative “hidden agenda” – also fuelled by comments made by Conservative backbenchers – and Mr. Martin won. After that, Mr. Harper usually tried to play down talk of majority until the 2011 election, when he argued a majority would stop the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois from forming a coalition.

Mr. Trudeau, of course, doesn’t have the hidden-agenda label. But it’s still a risk. There remain potential Liberal voters who aren’t convinced he’s a prime minister, who might pull back at the thought he’d have a four-year majority. Perhaps this time, Mr. Trudeau felt it was worth the risk.

    ... I don't agree. If M Trudeau has a programme for Canada in which he believes and in which he wants us to believe then he needs to ask for a majority to see it through. The CPC and NDP, of course, want a minority (to the extent that they "want" a LPC government at all) because then they can force M Trudeau off his programme and towards theirs.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I wonder how this law will fare under a LPC government. If Mme Justice Arbour is against it, and if it might threaten Jean Chrétien (remember the Grand-Mère Golf Course and Auberge Grand-Mère Hotel and Prime Minister Chrétien personally interfering with a loan application with the Business Development Bank?), then my guess is that it's dead in the water. The problem, you see, is that no one has ever even hinted at personal dishonest on tha part of Prime Minister Harper but Liberals, and their friends and camp followers, are notorious ... we don't want accountants investigating corruption, do we?

 

[Edward Campbell]

And, to round out the morning, here is Brian Gable drawing in the Globe and Mail:

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorial-cartoons-for-october-2015/article26577881/

 

[Edward Campbell]

If this report, that "The Australian dirty tricks strategist brought in last month to salvage Stephen Harper’s re-election campaign has abandoned the Conservatives, according to the spin doctor’s partner," is true, then it may be due to what was rumoured, way back in September, to be dissent in the CPC campaign team.

A campaign must have one chief ... for good or ill.

Calling in the Wizard of Oz was a mistake if his advice wasn't going to be followed.


Edit: clarity

 

[Edward Campbell]

Hmm, how things change:

Yesterday: "Earlier in the day, when the Canadian Press first broke the story, the Liberals stood by
Gagnier, saying he did not break any ethical standards." (Ottawa Citizen)

Today: "Justin Trudeau calls Dan Gagnier's letter to pipeline officials 'inappropriate'" (CBC News)

 

[Edward Campbell]

From iPolitics:

 

[jollyjacktar]

Sadly, the masses of electorate sheep that will blindly follow this Sheppard over the cliff with their votes, don't care or are too enthralled by the pan pipe he plays to notice it's the same old crooks in the back rooms as before.

 

[Lumber]

And, to round out the morning, here is Brian Gable drawing in the Globe and Mail:

E.R.C.

I'm not really sure I get the message that the drawing is trying to convey.

Trudeau is David and Harper is Goliath, I get that, but I guess I never saw this election (or the leaders) in that way. Perhaps a comparison to Chamberlain and Churchill is more accurate?

 

[Edward Campbell]

To put the niqab thing into some sort of perspective, CBC News is reporting that, in Edmonton, this man, wearing a hat and mask so that only his eyes were visible ...

   

          ... "Once the man produced proper identification, he was allowed to vote ... [and] ... Elections Canada said similar events have occurred at other advance polls across the country."

(By the way, filming/recording the event, as his 'accomplice' was doing, is illegal.)

 

[Jed]

I fear that many Canadians are going to learn their lessons the hard way. The young voters insist on passing up the wisdom of their seniors and to put the hopes and faith on fresh new faces that tell them what they want to hear.

It is sad really. How quickly we forget those hard won lessons of the past.

 

[Edward Campbell]

E.R.C.

I'm not really sure I get the message that the drawing is trying to convey.

Trudeau is David and Harper is Goliath, I get that, but I guess I never saw this election (or the leaders) in that way. Perhaps a comparison to Chamberlain and Churchill is more accurate?

I think that CPC argued, and for a time many Canadians agreed, that M Trudeau was "just a kid," was was (and in my opinion is) "Just Not Ready," which effectively made him how Goliath and the Philistines must have seen David.

 

[Lumber]

I think that CPC argued, and for a time many Canadians agreed, that M Trudeau was "just a kid," was was (and in my opinion is) "Just Not Ready," which effectively made him how Goliath and the Philistines must have seen David.

I guess THAT is a fair comparison, but against the backdrop of the election as a whole, the Liberal Party is NOT David. Even from the get go when they weren't doing as well as they are now, and with only 34 seats in parliament, the Party was not weak, at least not so much so that I think you can compare them to David and Goliath.

Which makes it all the more surprising that the Globe and Mail, who I feel do a better job of looking past the surface and performing real analysis, would seem to be playing up the image that the whole party is Justin, and that Justin is "Just Not Ready".

 

[George Wallace]

I fear that many Canadians are going to learn their lessons the hard way. The young voters insist on passing up the wisdom of their seniors and to put the hopes and faith on fresh new faces that tell them what they want to hear.

It is sad really. How quickly we forget those hard won lessons of the past.

Such is life.....The young are rebellious, looking to make a mark and as they grow older and mature with families and careers, they swing towards being more conservative in their views. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

I guess THAT is a fair comparison, but against the backdrop of the election as a whole, the Liberal Party is NOT David. Even from the get go when they weren't doing as well as they are now, and with only 34 seats in parliament, the Party was not weak, at least not so much so that I think you can compare them to David and Goliath.

Which makes it all the more surprising that the Globe and Mail, who I feel do a better job of looking past the surface and performing real analysis, would seem to be playing up the image that the whole party is Justin, and that Justin is "Just Not Ready".

Fair enough, but just ten days ago we were looking at this ...

The Globe and Mail has a new Election Forecast to kick off the last two weeks of the campaign. The data suggests that there is a:

74% chance that the Conservatives get the most seats

5% chance that the NDP gets the most seats

22% chance that the Liberals get the most seats

And a

19% chance that the Green party gets more than one seat

7% chance that all three main parties win 100 seats or more

8% chance that any party gets a majority


The analysis is:

    Conservative lead widens as NDP slide in polls

    Paul Fairie
    Special to The Globe and Mail

    UPDATE OCT. 5:

    Polls released in the last week seem to be in general agreement on the slide by the NDP, driven largely by a decline in their vote share in Quebec, which is what the new Globe Election Forecast reflects. However, the
    polls have disagreed about what else is happening in the national race.

    Polls by both Forum and Angus Reid showed the Conservatives leading by a reasonably healthy six-to-seven-percentage-point margin, with the NDP and Liberals tied for second. If these polls ended up being the final result,
    the Conservatives would likely win a strong minority government, with the two remaining parties battling for Official Opposition status.

    Just as this narrative was emerging, three pollsters have, in the last few days, put the Liberals in first by a small margin. Léger and Innovative Research had the Liberals ahead by two percentage points, while the latest
    Nanos three-day rolling poll puts the Liberals ahead of the Conservatives by five, and a full 13 points ahead of the NDP.

    These last few polls might be picking up the beginnings of a Liberal surge, but in the context of the last week of polls, it’s still not quite clear enough. If there is a real increase in the Liberal vote, they will surely be able
    to repeat their performance over the next few days of polling. If this is the case, the forecast will accordingly become more favourable to them. If, instead, the mixed messages of the last week are repeated, the Forecast
    should remain steady. ...
    ...
    Paul Fairie is a University of Calgary political scientist who studies voter behaviour, who designed The Globe’s Election Forecast.

And this:

So, in fairness to Brian Gable, the CPC vs LPC contest did look a bit like David and Goliath ...

 

[Altair]

I fear that many Canadians are going to learn their lessons the hard way. The young voters insist on passing up the wisdom of their seniors and to put the hopes and faith on fresh new faces that tell them what they want to hear.

It is sad really. How quickly we forget those hard won lessons of the past.

Has Mr Harper given young Canadians one single reason to vote for him or has he written off young Canadians as a bloc of voters who don't vote enough to care about?

From the attack ads to racial politics to his never ending partisan politics, stephen harper has managed to turn off 70 percent of the electorate. He really should have stepped down in 2013 and given the party at least some small chance of renewal.  Instead his ego got in the way and he wanted to beat trudeau and be one of Canada's longest serving prime ministers. It's fitting he gets neither.

So don't blame the electorate. Blame the guy who has run a horrible campaign on old, stale, ideas with his only reason to vote for him is "fear the other guys!"

Good riddance, Monday can't come soon enough.