Election 2015

[ModlrMike]

I would make a slight adjustment of your observations, Edward.

The route to 24 Sussex runs through Quebec for the Liberals and NDP. Not neccessarily for the Conservatives.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think that just as Premier Wynne campaigned against Prime Minister Harper in the recent Ontario election, Prime Minister Harper is going to campaign against her in the lead up to 2015, as explained in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/07/03/kelly-mcparland-joe-oliver-channels-jim-flaherty-in-telling-ontario-to-quit-whining-and-solve-its-own-budget-problems/

Joe Oliver channels Jim Flaherty in telling Ontario to quit whining and solve its own budget problems

Kelly McParland

July 3, 2014

When the late Jim Flaherty was finance minister, he got a certain joy from taking pot shots at Ontario’s economy, which he felt was badly managed under a series of Liberal governments.

In a 2012 speech  he said the province had “no one to blame but themselves” for their troubles, and complained that “Ontario’s spending mismanagement is a problem for the entire country.”

He had plenty of justification for his taunts. Under his direction, the federal budget was well on the way to being balanced, while Ontario couldn’t seem to get a handle on its much-smaller shortfall,  for all the bold talk from Queen’s Park.  At the time of Flaherty’s address, Ontario expected a deficit of more than $12 billion, but was promising to bring it down. Two years later, it is still expecting a deficit of more than $12 billion and is still promising to bring it down.

It was reported that the Prime Minister’s Office eventually intervened and suggested Mr. Flaherty put a sock in it. His successor, Joe Oliver, lacks Mr. Flaherty’s brashness, but also seems to have been freed of the sock. In an article in the Financial Post  Thursday, Mr. Oliver suggests, in the politest of terms, that the new government of Kathleen Wynne has no one but itself to blame for the mess it’s made of its economy, and should stop bleating at Ottawa to come to its rescue.

In response to complaints from Ms. Wynne and her Finance Minister, Charles Sousa, that Ontario has somehow been shortchanged – a charge they’ve used to divert attention from their ongoing borrowing binge – Mr. Oliver dismissed their charge as “both false and sad…. False because it is contradicted by the facts and sad because Ontario used to take pride in being a contributor to Confederation and now is squabbling for a greater piece of the pie.”

Money for Ontario under the three main federal transfer programs have all increased dramatically since the Harper government took office in 2006; a 76% hike overall, to a record $19.2 billion, he said. Of that, $2 billion is under the equalization program,  which is designed to help less prosperous provinces, which Ontario didn’t used to be.

“As the engine of the Canadian economy, Ontario had never collected Equalization money until 2009,” Oliver notes  sharply. “The year before, Premier Dalton McGuinty argued it was time to kill the program, which Ontario was paying into. Now that it is a ‘have-not’ province receiving equalization funds, the Ontario government has changed its tune and wants more.”

The finance minister’s rebuke appeared the same day Moody’s debt rating agency cut the outlook  on Ontario’s debt to negative, a reflection of its inability to get a handle on its finances.  The move was long forecast, particularly after Mr. Sousa unveiled a big-spending budget in May in an effort to stave off an election.  The election took place anyway, producing a surprising majority for the Liberals, indicating Ontarians are unaccountably sanguine about the state of the economy even as professional watchdogs like Moody’s grow increasingly alarmed.

The heart of the problem is the Liberal pledge to reduce the deficit to zero by 2017-18.  Even with interest rates near historic lows, this year’s $12.5 billion deficit is  25% higher than forecast , and Ms. Wynne was unable to explain how it could be eliminated in three years other than to suggest the economy would grow thanks to government “investment.” Ontario already spends almost 10% of its revenue financing the debt. And that will only grow if Moody’s follows up its warning with a downgrade, making borrowing pricier. Signalling how little it thinks of Liberal promises, the agency didn’t even wait for Mr. Sousa to re-introduce his budget to deliver its verdict.

Ontarians voted for a fairy tale in June, and already the tale is unraveling. After pouring millions into efforts to get Wynne re-elected, Ontario teachers are already building a strike campaign in anticipation of a walkout in the fall. Mr. Sousa can’t possibly cut costs without reducing public service jobs, which represent the majority of provincial spending. If he doesn’t cut costs, a downgrade is inevitable. If he does cut jobs he’s following exactly the line proposed by the Conservatives during the campaign, when they were denounced by the Liberals as heartless beasts.

Oh well. You make your bed. Mr. Sousa and Ms. Wynne will no doubt continue to insist their troubles are all caused by those other heartless Tories, the ones in Ottawa, despite the $20 billion they’ve been getting. It’s going to wear pretty thin, though, over the next four years.

National Post

Next year, at budget time, Ontario is going to have to signal its firm intention to reduce spending, social spending, in order to balance the budget by 2017/18. That will mean breaking its 'promises' to most of its constituencies and I expect the Conservative Party of Ontario to tie Premier Wynne very, Very, VERY closely to Justin Trudeau and paint him as equally untrustworthy ...

              [size=13pt]I suspect M. Trudeau may live to regret these pictures. I have no doubt they helped Premier Wynne this year...
                                                          I'm less sure they will help him in 2015.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A province which mismanages its productivity and economy reduces not only on its own revenues, but also Canadian federal revenues.  It is fragrantly ironic that a provincial government might ask for a greater share of a pie it made smaller.

 

[Edward Campbell]

When even Jeffrey Simpson, the establishment voice of the tax/spend Laurentian Consensus gets it, as he does in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, then you and I must know that the "facts on the ground,' on the balance sheets cannot be ignored:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/wynnes-ontario-can-no-longer-afford-to-ignore-fiscal-reality/article19451455/#dashboard/follows/

Wynne’s Ontario can no longer afford to ignore fiscal reality

JEFFREY SIMPSON
The Globe and Mail

Published Saturday, Jul. 05 2014

Well, that didn’t take long. Moody’s Investors Service has changed its outlook for Ontario’s fiscal situation to “negative” and warned of a forthcoming downgrade of debt. Standard & Poor’s is likely to follow very shortly.

Can you blame the ratings agencies? They studied the Ontario budget presented by the governing Liberals. They witnessed the party’s majority election triumph. They heard pledges, repeated in Thursday’s Speech from the Throne, to push ahead with that budget and its $12.5-billion deficit. And they witnessed Premier Kathleen Wynne’s refusal thus far to take a hard decision about anything.

That the ratings agencies would do what Moody’s has now begun was evident before the election. In this space May 31, it was written that “ratings agencies already smell a rat. Get ready for a downgrading of Ontario’s standing if the Liberals win and actually try to implement this budget.” The only question was when, not if, reality would smack the Liberals in the face.

Now, having systematically fled from reality before and during the election, and having been rewarded handsomely for this evasion, Ms. Wynne and her government face the difficult task of beginning to tell the truth. This volte-face is always hard for a government that lives and dies by what pollsters tell politicians that voters want to hear, rather than by what they need to hear.

Squaring the circle of Ontario’s deteriorating fiscal situation with the expansionist Liberal budget will require spending restraint of a kind for which the party did not prepare the electorate, because the spending restraint will have to be tighter than anything the Liberals imagined. Moreover, the tax increase on people earning more than $150,000 a year, while progressive in a manner of speaking, will raise only a small amount of money, far below what the deficit requires.

Already, rumblings have begun at Queen’s Park about further tax increases. But on what, and how? If taxes are indeed boosted beyond the additional levy on those earning more than $150,000, what would that do for stronger economic growth, on which the Liberals have pinned an inordinate amount of hope?

Perhaps – but this is mere speculation – the Liberals will do a Quebec and appoint a commission to investigate the province’s tax code to see if it can find the right balance of promoting fairness and efficiency. After all, the previous Liberal government asked economist Don Drummond and his colleague to examine only the spending side of the ledger. His mandate explicitly ruled out examining revenues, a restriction he ruefully lamented. Governments in doubt, as Ms. Wynne’s evidently is, often seek delay and help through commissions. Why not, therefore Drummond II?

Of course, Ms. Wynne will whinge about how unfairly Ontario is being treated by federal transfer policies, a complaint recently given modest support by the Parliamentary Budget Office. But even if treatment were improved, Ontario would still face obstacles of its own making, and, more important, of shifts in the world and North American economies, and of an aging population, that will render governing choices much harder than anything the Premier spoke about before and during the campaign.

The most likely scenario, now that reality is smacking Ms. Wynne in the face, is that she will do a Jean Chrétien. Here was a prime minister who waltzed into office with a big smile in 1993 saying trust me and everything will be okay. He dawdled through 1994 and then, with finance minister Paul Martin helping hugely, got serious about attacking the federal fiscal situation with a tough budget in 1995 – for which the party was rewarded by public opinion.

It helped the Chrétien-Martin duo to find courage when outside observers – including ratings agencies – started sending disquieting signals about the country’s inattention to its fiscal challenge. The knock-knock coming from the ratings agencies for Ontario might therefore help concentrate previously scattered minds.

The Chrétien-Martin effort was easier in one sense than what confronts Ontario. Ottawa could cut transfers to the provinces as part of its assault on the deficit, an option obviously not available to a provincial government.

The only glimmer of hope is that a majority government and external messages of disquiet will encourage the Ontario Liberals to govern with a seriousness of purpose almost completely lacking in their election campaign.

This is an Canada Election 2015 rather than Ontario Election 2014 topic because Premier Wynne and the Liberal Party (Canada and Ontario) chose to make Canada, specifically the Conservative Government of Canada a provincial issue ... it will come back to haunt them because, it appears, Prime Minister Harper and Finance Minister Oliver will be content to watch Kathleen Wynne and, by extension, Justin Trudeau twist in the wind as they, in Simpson's words, finally face the reality from which they (and the voters) fled during the Ontario campaign.

Premier Wynne cannot keep most of her promises; she must do a sharp volte face (Simpson's words again) and, in fact, adopt very Conservative solutions to Liberal/Laurentian Consensus problems: overspending on social programmes.

(Reminder: there are two kinds of spending:

    1. Long term infrastructure type spending (roads, bridges, ports, canals, airports, etc) which provides a 'common good' that enhances productivity and economic growth; and

    2. Immediate gratification type spending, programmes that, fairly directly, benefit people on an individual level, social spending.

Sadly, for politicians, the first type, the productive type is discretionary, it is (fairly) easy to switch on and off; the second type, once initiated becomes damned near mandatory - voters hate politicians who cut 'transfers to individuals.' The secret to Chrétien-Martin programme was that they cut transfers to provinces and made those provinces, including Ontario, make the hard choices: cut transfers to individuals, which is what Ralph Klein did, or borrow to maintain social spending which was the Ontario reaction, even under Mike Harris. But this is a provincial problem and Premier Wynne cannot 'download' enough to municipalities.)

Just as we, Canadians, begin to think about who should govern us from 2015 to 2019, in about the late summer of 2015, we will see images of Stephen Harper crowing about a growing economy, a balanced budget and some targeted tax cuts, and Kathleen Wynee (and, again by extension, Justin Trudeau) breaking her promises, cutting payrolls, raising taxes and slashing transfers to individuals.

 

[a_majoor]

Schadenfreude, Ontario will get the PC platform and a majority government to enact it anyway....

Back on the election 2015 topic, one issue which is lurking in the background is the $500 billion + in unfunded liabilities that the Federal government carries in addition to the $500+ billion in debt. This is another one of those stealth issues which will rise up and consume some future government as Federal workers retire in greater and greater numbers (along with the rest of the "boomers") and want to start collecting on the promised pensions and benefits.

No one cares because (like sewers and most other infrastructure) it isn't visible or "sexy", but the sooner steps are taken to address the issue, the easier it will be to fix.

 

[Old Sweat]

Schadenfreude, No one cares because (like sewers and most other infrastructure) it isn't visible or "sexy", but the sooner steps are taken to address the issue, the easier it will be to fix.

Agreed, but it isn't sexy, which is the usual answer. As well, the public goes nuts because of construction during the snow and ice free months. Just listen to talk radio for a bit or check community newspapers. In our little burg one of the major streets was dug up and completely rebuilt, including water and sewer lines, last summer. At the same time the railway overpass south of the town was being replaced by CPR. The local weekly rag went nuts with long, nasty editorials and opinion pieces about poor planning and the mayor and council being in Walmart's pockets because they obviously were trying to put all the downtown merchants out of business. To the council's credit, they are continuing with a program of upgrades and repairs this year, but in a less visible area this time.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The 'unfunded liabilities' issues is not as clear as either the political right, who scream in horror about it, or left, who say it's a non-issue, would have us believe.

First: the number is far closer to, probably above $800 Billion in 2014 than it is to $500 Billion ... it's too high, no question.

Second: the real question is "too high by how much?" The answer, as far as I can see is:  :dunno:

What I do know is that it is incorrect to compare, directly, unfunded liabilities in public pension plans to the unfunded liabilities in private plans. There are too many differences between them to make simple, direct comparisons and extrapolations very useful. There are some similarities, and the rules of accounting apply universally, but there are also some quite fundamental differences.

Public pensions are, traditionally, generous because, back in the day, until circa 1970, public sector wages were low. Public sector workers traded wages for excellent job security and very good pensions. That's no longer the case: public employees still have excellent job security, damned near iron rice bowl level job security, and very good pensions (a liability on the government) and, now, very good salaries, too. The "scandal" of unfunded public pension liabilities is, in fact, a "scandal" of poor public management. Governments entered into a version of free labour market economics with both hands, intentionally, tied behind their backs ~ it's pretty much the same across the OECD, by the way. Governments wanted to be, and to be seen to be, exemplary employers so they 'caved' in to labour's wage demands and never asked for concessions in either job security or pensions. That's probably politically unsustainable. It isn't mainstream economist who worry about unfunded public sector pension liabilities, it's right wing ideologues who want a smaller, weaker, public sector in general.

 

[Edward Campbell]

More on the issue of 'good debt' and 'bad debt' in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/rob-insight/why-we-should-cheer-canadas-debt-growth-double-act/article19472162/#dashboard/follows/

Why we should cheer Canada’s new debt surge

SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

David Parkinson
The Globe and Mail

Published Friday, Jul. 04 2014

Canada’s credit situation has assumed a split personality – the debt loads of consumers and businesses are headed in opposite directions. But as households slow their debt accumulation while businesses ramp up their borrowing, this is a divergence that might suit Canada’s current economic needs just fine.

According to the latest credit data from the Bank of Canada, total household debt in Canada was up 4.2 per cent in May from a year earlier – the fourth straight month at that level. Indeed, the annual pace of household debt growth has been hovering around 4 per cent, the bottom of its long-term historical range, for a year now.

Year-over-year growth in mortgage credit, at 5.1 per cent, is near its lowest levels since 2001. Growth in consumer credit – credit cards, personal lines of credit and consumer loans – rebounded slightly in May to 2.2 per cent, but is still tracking near the bottom of its 20-year range. Pretty much any way you slice it, household debt growth has stabilized, at about as slow a pace as we’re likely to get.

That’s certainly encouraging in terms of the nagging risks to Canada’s financial stability that excess household debt poses – an issue over which regulators and policy makers of various stripes in Ottawa have long fretted. While no one is ready to declare the threat over, it is certainly fading. Moody’s Analytics economist David Rosenblum noted this week that household assets are now growing at 8 per cent year over year – nearly double the pace of debts. That trend surely is putting Canadian household balance sheets on more stable footing in the event of a rapid surge in interest rates – something that, it should be said, looks extremely unlikely anyway.

But a slowdown in consumer credit growth to historic lows does pose a downside to the economy – it implies slower growth in consumption, and is thus a serious headwind for economic expansion in the current cycle. Fortuitous, then, that Corporate Canada looks to be stepping in to fill this economic void – and then some.

The Bank of Canada data show that business credit was up 8.3 per cent in May from a year earlier, its fastest growth since the pre-recession days of early 2008. And the pace of corporate borrowing has been accelerating rapidly: Over the past three months, the annualized growth rate was 10.6 per cent, more than double the pace of the same period a year ago and the fastest three-month trend in seven years. While consumer credit has added a modest $11-billion over the past 12 months, business credit has expanded by $121.6-billion.

It’s a little unclear what companies are planning to do with their expanded credit – though one obvious use would be to finance that long-awaited expansion in capital investment, something the Bank of Canada has often cited as a crucial missing ingredient in Canada’s economic recovery. The historical data suggests that this magnitude of business-credit growth is often associated with acceleration of business capital formation, but not always.

It could be that corporate Canada is taking advantage of historically low interest rates and their improved balance sheets to build up a war chest for investment opportunities down the road, but will still wait for more definitive signs of sustained strength in demand before investing more heavily in expansion. Nevertheless, the recent trend in borrowing shows they are gathering a lot of economic fuel; where there’s smoke, there will inevitably be fire, sooner or later.

Putting these two opposite trends together, we’re seeing more light at the end of two key tunnels for Canada’s economy. And for them to be developing at the same time, to nicely offset each other, could prove a very handy bit of timing.

So: Canadians, people just like you and me, are slowing the borrowing they do for instant gratification (but they are borrowing only somewhat less for mortgages, which is more productive borrowing) and that's a good thing; but business is, finally, taking advantage of low interest rates to borrow to invest in productive things, things that create jobs, which is also a good thing.

 

[Edward Campbell]

According to an article in the Globe and Mail, Prime Minister Harper is moving his campaign in what I think is the right direct: towards policy and away from personal attacks on M. Trudeau.

Attacking M. Trudeau for his youth, inexperience, verbal gaffes and so on is a bad tactic ~ M. Trudeau is both charismatic and charming (Mr Harper is neither) people naturally and instinctively like him, all attack ads do is annoy the voters.

But: M. Trudeau is weak on policy and it is both legitimate and smart to remind Canadians of that. Now, the Liberals (and their media apologists*) will say, "we have policies, it's just too early to release them," and that's probably true on both counts but now is the time (for the CPC) to begin forcing the issue.

The next step for the CPC, in my opinion is to attack M. Trudeau's lack of policies by asking specific questions (about e.g. tax policy, foreign policy, pipelines to the two coasts, Quebec and infrastructure spending) during speeches, etc ... the media is forced to cover the PM and even the notably anti-Conservative CBC will be forced to repeat specific questions. (It is best to stay away from social policy, including law and order questions because M. Trudeau actually can, assuming he's well briefed, score points on the 'return' on those questions, but he and the LPC are weak, I believe, on the points I listed.)

_____
* Not all the media is pro Liberals, both the NDP and the CPC have friendly outlets, in the CPC's case I would suggest that they have more friendly media than do the Liberals.

 

[a_majoor]

WRT unfunded liabilities, one does not have to be an ideologue to be concerned about the issue. $5-800 billion in pensions and benefits are going to be claimed by members of the Federal civil service, Armed Forces, RCMP and the various agencies like the Coast Guard and CBSA, yet there is nothing to in the till to pay these claims. Do we at some point simply say: "Sorry bub, we can't fulfill those contractual promises we made...."?

And much like the old lady who stopped the Mulrouney government from slaying the deficit and debt, governments of whatever stripe WILL be faced with protests by individuals and groups all demanding to receive their pensions and benefits, and providing bad "optics" for the government of the day. Of course, any political party which makes cause with the protesters to score political points will have made a bargain with the Devil; like Ontario's hapless Liberal government they will be expected to "pay up" and pay handsomely once they are gain or are returned to power only to look at the books and the judgement of the financial markets and realize that there is no feasible way to pay.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Issues ...

There's an interesting piece in today's Globe and Mail about Jason Kenney defuzing the Temporary Foreign Worker problem. Much has been made of the fact, and it is a fact, that the business community is upset but the article piints out that, "There are more than 1.1 million employers in Canada. Only about 12,000 used temporary foreign workers in 2013; barely 6,000 of them relied on migrant workers for more than 10 per cent of their work force." The problem isn't with employers; it is with the perception, fair or not, that induced "indignation [in] millions of Canadians, new and native-born, inundated with TFW horror stories."

It is similar with the anti-spam laws. Business, especially small businesses, are annoyed with a law that may not do much good and that has disproportionate, even draconian penalties, but millions and millions of "ordinary Canadians' see that the government has listened to them and has "done something" about a problem.

It's also why the Conservative government will appeal an (overwrought) Federal Court opinion on health care for refugees. It really doesn't matter if Judge Anne Mactavish erred in law (I suspect she did, she acknowledged that the government has the right, the duty to assign priorities and set limits on social benefit plans but she thought it "cruel and unusual" to apply such priorities to pregnant women and children) the electorate are, again, seized with the issue of foreigners "ripping off: Canada's social safety net and they a government that is trying to fix things but is being blocked by elite judges.

Ditto the prostitution bill ~ which, I by the way, think is doomed to fail because it is just plain silly* ~ my guess is that Prime Minister Harper and Minister MacKay know their bill is fatally flawed but they don't care; they are not trying to pass a useful law, they are trying to appease one sergment of their base but will be fully content when, after the 2015 election the Supremes[ declare that prostitution is, de facto an ordinary, fully legal, acceptable commercial enterprise in Canada; the existing criminal law will be sufficient to handle pimping, human trafficking and other forms of abuse; good business sense and municipal bylaws will prevent some of the messier side effects of the sex trade. It will be another issue on which the CPC can tell part of its base that the elite courts overruled the "will of the people."

Issue after issue can be declared 'settled' (to general satisfaction) despite the wishes of conservative Conservatives ... just in time for 2015.

____
How can it be legal for prostitutes to sell sex, as Canadian law says it is, but illegal for customers to buy it?

 

[GAP]

How can it be legal for prostitutes to sell sex, as Canadian law says it is, but illegal for customers to buy it?

reference......see: Alice in Wonderland..... ;D




and not the porn version either!!

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think both Prime Minister Harper and Minister MacKay know, with absolute certainty, that C-36 will be challenged in court ~ Peter MacKay admitted that yesterday. I also believe that they think, they're fairly certain, that the Supremes will reject it, too.

Why, then, bring forward a fatally flawed bill?

Because:

    1. One part (a small but important part) of the CPC base wants them to try; and

    2. Both MacKay (an old Progressive Conservative) and Harper (a pragmatic Conservative) want to legalize prostitution in Canada but neither wants to actually say so. Beverley McLachlin and her colleagues will be invited to do the deed for them
        ~ and accept the blame from that small segment of Canadians that actually cares.


Edit: typo

 

[George Wallace]

I find this whole debate quite amusing.  It is proposed to make the selling of sex legal, but the purchasing of sex illegal.  I actually find that hilarious. 


Meanwhile, in other nations, the sex trade is regulated and closely monitored by the law.  As long as the act is conducted by licensed sex trade workers, who are required by law to have regular medical checkups, in licensed premises, there is no illegal act being performed.  There is also policing of the sex trade workers to ensure they are conducting their business following all regulations and laws.  The policing involves inspection of licences and medical documents/certificates.



Perhaps the words of PET are forgotten in all of this: "there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation."

 

[Remius]

Why, then, bring forward a fatally flawed bill?

Because:

    1. One part (a small but important part) of the CPC base wants them to try; and

    2. Both MacKay (an old Progressive Conservative) and Harper (a pragmatic Conservative) want to legalize prostitution in Canada but neither wants to actually say so. Beverley McLachlin and her colleagues will be invited to do the deed for them
        ~ and accept the blame from that small segment of Canadians that actually cares.


Edit: typo

I agree on both points.  My only issue is that with the growing list of failed/flawed legislation, the CPC is starting to show that it cannot draft proper legislation.  I can understand one or two but the list is starting to get ridiculous.  While it is easy to blame the courts, one must remember that we do not have a partisan politicized judiciary (although some would disagree).

However I think, that the initial court ruling on the matter forced the CPC to act and was likely, like the abortion debate, something they wanted to avoid outright.  Inaction would have eroded their base as Mr. Campbell indicated in his post.

George hits it on the nail though.  The law makes no sense.  Ideally legalise the whole thing and all parts of it, buying, selling, etc.  Regulate it and use the money wasted on enforcement to promote education.  The same for marijuana.  If you apply the same principles applied to fight cigarette smoking you will yield better results than prohibition and wasted law enforcement ever will. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail is an interesting bit of speculation or prognostication, if you will:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/why-stephen-harper-may-call-an-election-earlier-than-planned/article10337226/

I agree with Ibbitson's rationale for changing from fall to spring. Campaigns are, at a lawful minimum (and recent traditional maximum), 36 days in length, so an election on, say, 12 May 15 would require the campaign to begin on (or before) 6 Apr 15.

And there is, now, much speculation today that the timing of Mike Duffy's court case could well impact on the timing of the election. If his trial is scheduled for, say, the summer or fall of 2015 - entirely possible - then a sprinf election might be very, very attractive, politically.

Senator Duffy is toxic and he has the capacity, as the Globe and Mail's Campbell Clark suggests to derail the CPC's campaign plans.

M. Trudeau's popularity, based nearly totally on a) his 'niceness,' and b) the simple fact that he is NOT Stephen Harper, remains very high. Hurrican Duffy (to be followed by Typhoon Wallin?) will be a real gift for the Liberal Party of Canada. Maybe that gift, coupled with M Trudeau's charisma, which is real, will be enough to unseat the Tories.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Further to Hurricane Duffy, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen, is an assessment from a Liberal partisan:

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/reid-when-it-comes-to-mike-duffy-theres-always-more

When it comes to Mike Duffy, there's always more

SCOTT REID

Last Updated: July 25, 2014

From Peru to Prince Edward Island, Mike Duffy has spent the past two weeks lacquering his name with fresh new coats of disgrace. Fifteen counts of breach of trust. Fifteen counts of fraud. One charge of bribery. And, most spectacularly, one allegation of paternity.

To the mental portrait of Duffy clutching Nigel Wright’s $92,000 cheque like a pink round Sméagol we can now add a whole new catalogue of distinguished images — attending funeral services with expense claims in pocket, quaffing taxpayer-funded per diems while travelling on Conservative party business, stamping RETURN TO SENDER on envelopes hand-addressed in Spanish.  We can even imagine, if the latest reports are to be believed, a much younger man, bewitching a convicted drug mule into ignoring curfew at her halfway house with his best imitation of Richard Gere.

The Senator and his lawyer deny all and insist that they welcome the impartiality of a criminal trial. That’s codswallop. The truth is that Duffy is done. Finished completely and savagely. There can be no vindication from a tarnishing this extensive. No matter the trial’s verdict, his reputation is now utterly and hopelessly demolished.

Stephen Harper should take heed of this ugly truth. Because it means that Duffy, desperate and fierce, only appears to be in the business of clearing his name. In reality, his business now is revenge — and the prime minister is his certain target.

Which raises the question: how much of a threat does Duffy actually pose?

For Conservatives, it will be tempting to believe that their former colleague’s ability to inflict further damage is limited.  Many observers assume that whatever political price might be extracted for Duffy’s sins, it has been paid already. Helpfully, a headline-dominating trial will likely occur only after next year’s election campaign. These are sensible considerations. But they pale in contrast to the two reasons that Conservatives should continue to fear Duffy.

First, Harper is more vulnerable now than he has been at any point since 2006. With job creation and economic growth weakening, Harper’s most basic claim to re-election is fading noticeably. This renders him even less able to deflect incoming fire and sustain damaging innuendo from Duffy. After nine years of grudging respect, but precious little affection for Harper, Canadians’ appetite for change is already running dangerously high. Additional reminders of how the status quo in the PMO is failing voters is the last thing Harper needs.

In this context, the resurrection of Duffy as a reportable news item hurts in ways both direct and indirect.  First, it most obviously places the government on defense, consuming the energy and attention of senior staff and advisors. For those who have never worked in a PMO, it is difficult to adequately comprehend the degree to which a threatening political development can exhaust all other functions and focus within the office. Duffy also serves to fill the news hole – pushing out less glamorous government initiatives and creating a steady diet of negative impressions. Governments subject to such periods tend to comfort themselves by arguing that real people grow bored and ignore such reports. There’s some truth to that. But persistently negative news can seep in like rainwater rotting away the timbers that hold a government erect and steady.

Second, Duffy’s return places the spotlight firmly on Stephen Harper’s greatest handicap: his political character. The flinty-eyed, ends-justifies-the-means manner affected by this government has, over time, morphed from proof of leadership into evidence of licentiousness. Defenders will point out that such faults haven’t hurt Harper yet at the ballot box, but can Conservatives afford to take voters’ ongoing indifference for granted?

More reports about the lengths taken by PMO to wash away Duffy’s abuses will surely harden the already sizable majority of Canadian voters who disapprove of the prime minister’s performance. Even without new revelations, there is plenty to cause worry lines on Conservative foreheads. For example, we know already that Stephen Harper was consulted at some point during this drama, leaving his then-chief of staff to report that from the perspective of the prime minister they were “good to go”.  Salt will surely be poured by Duffy into this unhealed scar across the government’s story.

More damning yet is what remains undisclosed. Take Mike Duffy’s hints of wild new exposures for what they’re worth but a mystery still exists at the centre of this entire debacle. Why did PMO go to such extraordinary lengths to help Duffy? Why was the Conservative Party willing to pay his tab when they thought it was a mere $30,000? Why did a person as seemingly intelligent and conscientious as Nigel Wright reach into his own pocket when he realized that tab was actually $92,000?  There must be an answer to these questions. There must be a motivation that has not yet been shared. It seems likely to assume it will emerge at trial. Just as it seems unlikely to assume that it will flatter the government.

Harper’s greatest hope now lies in the timing. If the trial occurs after the next election perhaps the return to crisis can be avoided. But the prime minister doesn’t control that particular variable. It is the purview of the courts to set the schedule. Worse, Duffy will decide if he’s willing to wait until then to start making news once more.  If the pride of Cavendish is bent on revenge above all else, he knows that his moment needs to arrive before October 19, 2015, not after.  For all these reasons, it’s a good bet that we won’t need to wait much longer for Mike Duffy’s particular brand of more.

Scott Reid is a principal at Feschuk.Reid and a CTV News political analyst. He was Director of Communications for former prime minister Paul Martin.

Bear in mind that this is the Liberal Party's view ... but we can (must) expect that the LPC will exploit l'affaire Duffy to the hilt, starting with this piece.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The point of the article was evidently to be a vehicle for the speculations in the penultimate paragraph.  The rest is the standard FUD one gets from fartcatchers of every political stripe.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It appears to some commentators, like Mark Kennedy in the Ottawa Citizen, relying, largely, on the 'information' from Liberal insiders, think that "Since Justin Trudeau assumed the leadership in the spring of 2013, the Liberals have been at the top of the polls, and they remain there despite repeated efforts by Stephen Harper’s governing Conservatives to cast doubt on his character, his judgment and his leadership." And, they suggest, it may be enough to earn him the keys to 24 Sussex Drive.

Sun Media, on the other hand (and not unexpectedly) took a look at a recent statement by M. Trudeau and declared it to be "just plain stupid." Now I am a pretty solid CPC partisan but, on its merits, I agree with Brian Lilley that Justin Trudeau's remarks display an abysmal depth of ignorance and naivety.  Gerald Butts and the Trudeau brain-trust were supposed to have stuffed some sense into M. Trudeau, he's supposed to be able to do something besides regurgitate inane, juvenile platitudes.

But, Brian Gable, in the Globe and Mail, gets it:

Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/karma/article19965366/#dashboard/follows/

Both Thomas Mulcair and Prime Minister Harper, and their campaign machines, have a steep hill to climb: M. Trudeau has captured the "liability" high ground and it may be enough to propel him  and the Liberals into government next year.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Pure uneducated bafflegab designed to elicit support from the ignorant.

Anyone able to parse what he said should, rightfully, be able to determine that a shiny pony is not the person to entrust our country to.

I agree with B Lilley, people may condemn the CPC of re-iterating that Trudeau is in over his head, all the time. However, in token, Trudeau just can't stop proving them right.