Election 2015

[MilEME09]

So in a recent article Jason Fekete of the Ottawa citizen says the federal government decided not to spend $7 Billion of its own funding, including $1 billion from DND, $7 billion can make for a lot of incentives to throw around pre election.

 

[a_majoor]

Not spending $7 billion makes it easier to come in and present a balanced budget. I suspect the speading of pre election "goodies" will be rather restrained in order to reinforce the message (we are good budget managers), and the main offer to the electorate won't be Government programs but rather a tax cut (maybe a $7 billion tax cut  ).

Considering that the average Canadian household spends @ 40% of their income* on government fees and taxes (more than they do on food, fuel or housing), a broad based tax cut will be apprieciated by the middle class, and I expect to see something along these lines in the CPC platform.

* I have seen different numbers from various sources, ranging from 40 to 45% of income. The diference probably has a lot to do with what sorts of metrics are being used, but even 40% is far too high. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

And here is a reason to not go to the polls earlier than Oct 15: Mac Harb to go to trial Aug. 10 on fraud, breach of trust charges.

Retired senator Harb still has an opportunity to do a similar (à la Dead Del Mastro) great service to his party by pleading guilty ... otherwise his trial will provide lots of fodder for Liberals are all crooks attack ads ...

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Economist has a good wrap-up of the recent US mid-term elections, here. This is extracted from that newspaper and amended just slightly:

The answer is that although the economic headlines look good, voters do not feel that way. Median incomes are in the doldrums and many households feel terribly insecure about the future. A staggering two-thirds of Americans Canadians expect their children to be worse off than they are. And when they look at Washington, DC Ottawa, to see what their political leaders are doing about it, they see a circus of name-calling and irresponsibility ... The proportion of Americans Canadians who trust it is a wretched 7%. It may be harsh, but when voters think the country is on the wrong track, the president prime minister and his party get the blame.

Prime Minister Harper is not, in any respect, immune to the popular discontent that we see in the USA.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Professional Institute of the Public Service, the contradictorily named 'union' of 'professionals' has decide to campaign against Prime Minister Harper's government according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from Global News:

http://globalnews.ca/news/1660829/union-of-federal-scientists-professionals-to-campaign-against-harper-tories/

Union of federal scientists, professionals to campaign against Harper Tories

By Staff
The Canadian Press

November 7, 2014

OTTAWA – The union representing scientists and other professionals in the federal public service is abandoning its tradition of neutrality in elections to actively campaign against Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC) says delegates to its annual general meeting have agreed the union should be more politically active heading into next year’s federal election.

In particular, delegates have agreed that the union should energetically expose the damage they believe the Harper government has done to federal public services.

Members of the union have complained bitterly about what they claim is the muzzling of federal scientists and political interference with their work.

The union, which represents some 55,000 professionals in the public service, has traditionally chosen to stay at arm’s length from elections.

But union president Debi Daviau says the government’s war on labour unions and its cuts to public service jobs have forced a change in strategy.

My "spidey senses" tell me that the Conservatives are both a) ready for this, and b) going to use it as a weapon against the Public Service, which, despite itself and the good work it does for Canadians, is neither much liked nor respected.

 

[Remius]

My spider sense tells me we might be seeing a slew of third party advertising like we saw I the recent Ontario election.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

I missed the war on labour unions.  I don't think attacks from labour unions could do anything other than firm up the core Conservative support.  How many of the 38 % necessary to elect a Conservative majority would change their vote because of whining public service unions.  The exact number is none.

 

[Edward Campbell]

...

Prime Minister Harper is not, in any respect, immune to the popular discontent that we see in the USA.

But, there is a reason for the discontent in the USA.

Look at this infographic from the New York Times:

Canadian middle class, suburban, voters ought to be a lot less unhappy then their American confrères.

 

[a_majoor]

Ought to be, but since that does not fit the "narrative", don't expect celebratory reports in the media, academia or left wing think tanks.

This is probably the most pernicious problem with the modern political scene; "narratives". Looking at the real facts and figures, it is difficult to see the world of the "narrative" (from any side) being reflected in reality. Guns, crime, economic growth, employment figures, immigration...you'd think these headlines are being beamed in from a different planet (or maybe an alternate universe).

 

[Edward Campbell]

Ought to be, but since that does not fit the "narrative", don't expect celebratory reports in the media, academia or left wing think tanks.

This is probably the most pernicious problem with the modern political scene; "narratives". Looking at the real facts and figures, it is difficult to see the world of the "narrative" (from any side) being reflected in reality. Guns, crime, economic growth, employment figures, immigration...you'd think these headlines are being beamed in from a different planet (or maybe an alternate universe).

But those "facts and figures" are being bandied about, with equal dishonesty spin by both sides: liberals and conservatives.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

My spider sense tells me we might be seeing a slew of third party advertising like we saw I the recent Ontario election.

Nope. There's a spending cap on how much people/organizations can spend on political advertising during a federal election. Now, prior to the election that a different story.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This, from CBC News: "TTC union vows to make next federal election the 'transit election'" could be interesting. There are about 25 seats in the Toronto area that are served by the TTC ... out of 338. Currently the CCP has a bit more than ⅓ of them the remainder are fairly evenly split between the Liberals and the NDP.

Transit IS an issue ... in several cities. But John Tory and Kathleen Wynne both just won elections is which transit was a major issue. I suspect this issues can be made to work in some urban areas, but it is not clear to me that it will,help or hinder any particular party, especially in a federal election.

 

[dapaterson]

This, from CBC News: "TTC union vows to make next federal election the 'transit election'" could be interesting. There are about 25 seats in the Toronto area that are served by the TTC ... out of 338. Currently the CCP has a bit more than ⅓ of them the remainder are fairly evenly split between the Liberals and the NDP.

Transit IS an issue ... in several cities. But John Tory and Kathleen Wynne both just won elections is which transit was a major issue. I suspect this issues can be made to work in some urban areas, but it is not clear to me that it will,help or hinder any particular party, especially in a federal election.

Largely because the House is so badly skewed.  Each riding in PEI represents less than 35,000 citizens (a little more if you include Kanata North in the calculations, right, Senator Duffy?); Brampton represents 170,000 - nearly 5x as many.  Urban Canada is grossly under-represented.  Put a more equal footing in place, and urban issues will suddenly get a lot more traction - and the usurious supply management systems will crumble and fall.

 

[a_majoor]

The TTC union thing suggests the "Progressive" elements in Canadian politics have learned (or for that matter, are being coached) from the Democrats and their tactic of slicing and dicing the electorate into mini constituencies. Yes TO is only a few seats in a 300+ seat house, but if you apply the same logic to all other ridings and demographics, pitching whatever the "issue de jour" is for that demographic and using as much money and influence as possible to drown out other messages and counter narratives, then you may be able to pull in enough votes and win enough ridings to take the election.

Now the down side of this is many of these groups now feel entitled because they are part of the ruling coalition, but will discover they are disposable if they are up against another part of the ruling coalition with more clout. (This is the other half of the reason the Republicans swept the mid terms; there were enough Democrat sub groups who felt snubbed and didn't come out to vote this election cycle).

In this regard, I now see the lack of any visible platform for the Liberals as being a tactical advantage; the Young Dauphin simply needs to learn not to speak (otherwise he comes off as frighteningly uninformed and out of his depth) and the various sub electorates being courted by special interest groups like the TTC union will write their own narrative. Of course the feeling of being used and discarded will still apply post election, but there may be less blowback when people realize there actually isn't any promise they can point to.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

This, from CBC News: "TTC union vows to make next federal election the 'transit election'" could be interesting. There are about 25 seats in the Toronto area that are served by the TTC ... out of 338. Currently the CCP has a bit more than ⅓ of them the remainder are fairly evenly split between the Liberals and the NDP.

Transit IS an issue ... in several cities. But John Tory and Kathleen Wynne both just won elections is which transit was a major issue. I suspect this issues can be made to work in some urban areas, but it is not clear to me that it will,help or hinder any particular party, especially in a federal election.

Makes me wonder though. TO has the ability to steamroll the rest of the province in a provincial election. I don't think that they have the capability to do the same in a country wide election. The hate for TO is pretty universal across the country.

 

[CougarKing]

An election come March or April?

Andy Radia politics column/Yahoo News

Positive poll numbers for the Harper Conservatives could mean an early election
By Andy Radia | Canada Politics – 23 hours ago

There’s been a lot of chatter lately about the possibility of the Harper Conservatives calling an early election.
A new survey will no doubt help buoy that theory.

The Nanos Research analysis, released on Wednesday, claims that for the first time in months, Stephen Harper has numerically surpassed Liberal leader Justin Trudeau in the ‘preferred prime minister’ category.

"In the latest weekly tracking 32 per cent of Canadians say Harper is their preferred choice for PM followed by Trudeau at 30 per cent, Mulcair at 20 per cent and May at four percent," Nanos CEO Nic Nanos wrote to his email subscribers.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[McG]

And another lobby group declares its intent to fight the Conservatives in the next election.  This one wants serving service members to join its cause.

Veterans want military on side [to bring Conservative defeat in next election]
Murray Brewster
The Chronicle-Herald
13 Nov 2014

OTTAWA - A group of angry veterans who want the Harper government defeated in the next election is appealing to serving members of the military to join them in protest.

Ron Clarke, a member of Canada Coalition for Veterans who has been campaigning against the closure of Veterans Affairs offices, made the appeal Wednesday during a Parliament Hill news conference.

It may put those in uniform in an awkward position, but Clarke says they need a government sensitive to veterans and their needs.  "We need a government that looks after our veterans," he said.

The plea is just the latest move in what is a major rift in the veterans community, one that has the potential of undermining the coalition's aim of galvanizing votes against the Conservatives.

Last week, a group of outspoken veterans advocates announced that six organizations had formed a coalition that would, at a minimum, boycott government announcements and photo-ops.

The coalition says a low-key approach to confronting the government has not worked and spokesman Mike Blais says the Royal Canadian Legion seems satisfied with current disability awards for the most severely wounded troops.

Soldiers injured in combat are eligible for a one-time, lump-sum payment for non-economic loss that ranges up to $350,000.

"The Legion believes $350,000 is OK and the consultation group they have formed believes that's OK. We do not," said Blais, who is president of Canadian Veterans Advocacy.

"We have done extensive consultation with those who have suffered the consequences of war in Afghanistan. I have spoken to memorial cross mothers and those who are suffering."

Blais argues - as do a group of Afghan veterans in a lawsuit against the federal government - that the old system of pensions for life was more generous than the new veterans charter, introduced by the Liberals, but fully embraced by the Harper government in 2006.

Scott Ferris, a spokesman for the Legion, denies his organization is satisfied with the charter and points to a national letter-writing campaign that was started in late October, calling on members to buttonhole their MPs and demand change.

He also denied the Legion is happy with the current lump-sum benefits.

The infighting is counterproductive, Ferris said.

 

[a_majoor]

While I am not insensitive to the plight of injured veterans (my wife has been in a running battle with VAC and SISIP for several years now, which is very stressful for both of us), I hardly imagine that any of the other 19 political parties registered by Elections Canada will be more receptive or even interested in defense matters than the current government (i.e., not much more than is absolutely necessary).

Looking at the past platforms and statements (or lack thereof) of the major parties, I would suggest that *we* would be even worse off under a Liberal, NDP or Green government, and that includes the injured veterans. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The veterans' industry has the bit between its teeth, it can smell blood ... brains and critical thinking are left far, far behind.

(I repeat: I think the New Veterans' Charter is immoral ... not, necessarily, because of what it offers but because of how and when it was introduced. Every single member of the CF serving or who had served prior to or on 13 May 2006, when the NVC was given royal assent, should have been 'grandfathered' and, at least, given a choice of electing 'old' or 'new' benefits. We were in the middle of a (small) shooting war; it is fundamentally wrong to fiddle with such benefits when men are fighting and being wounded. That being said, I think the veterans of World War II - a hugely politically powerful cohort - voted themselves (aided by their parents and aunts and wives and so on) a 'sweetheart deal' back around 1947 when the now 'old' benefits package took effect. Veterans are special but they do not have an unlimited claim on the public purse.)

 

[ModlrMike]

The veterans' industry has the bit between its teeth, it can smell blood ... brains and critical thinking are left far, far behind.

(I repeat: I think the New Veterans' Charter is immoral ... not, necessarily, because of what it offers but because of how and when it was introduced. Every single member of the CF serving or who had served prior to or on 13 May 2006, when the NVC was given royal assent, should have been 'grandfathered' and, at least, given a choice of electing 'old' or 'new' benefits. We were in the middle of a (small) shooting war; it is fundamentally wrong to fiddle with such benefits when men are fighting and being wounded. That being said, I think the veterans of World War II - a hugely politically powerful cohort - voted themselves (aided by their parents and aunts and wives and so on) a 'sweetheart deal' back around 1947 when the now 'old' benefits package took effect. Veterans are special but they do not have an unlimited claim on the public purse.)

I would add that it was introduced by the Liberals in such a way as to be a political trap for the other parties, particularly the Torries. How could they possibly vote against something that was championed as an improvement, and maintain their "support for the troops" position. A poisoned political pill that all parties had to vote for; veterans were a distant third consideration. Debt reduction and cost control was the second; and sticking it to the opposition parties was the first. It was such an effective strategy that Harper now gets the lion's share of the blame.