Election 2015

[Edward Campbell]

What makes the Duffy trial different from all those cases is the PMO involvement.  That's why it will be bigger news than all the others.

Agreed, but I remain unconvinced that it will have much impact outside of the greenbelt. I think Canadians are already bored and, equally, already believe that most politicians are venal and would do what Duffy did, given half a chance.

I also suspect that Nigel Wright's testimony will be anticlimactic. He will say, "Yes, I gave Duffy some money because I wanted to make a political problem go away and I was, personally, offended by how Mr Duffy's actions might impact on the prime minister's programme. It was my money; I asked nothing of Mr Duffy except that he make things right with the people of Canada. I did not consult the prime minister." Mr Wright is a very smart man, at least as smart and as tough as Donald Bayne ... he will not be shaken on cross-examination and his testimony will be like a damp squib.

 

[Remius]

Agreed, but I remain unconvinced that it will have much impact outside of the greenbelt. I think Canadians are already bored and, equally, already believe that most politicians are venal and would do what Duffy did, given half a chance.

I also suspect that Nigel Wright's testimony will be anticlimactic. He will say, "Yes, I gave Duffy some money because I wanted to make a political problem go away and I was, personally, offended by how Mr Duffy's actions might impact on the prime minister's programme. It was my money; I asked nothing of Mr Duffy except that he make things right with the people of Canada. I did not consult the prime minister." Mr Wright is a very smart man, at least as smart and as tough as Donald Bayne ... he will not be shaken on cross-examination and his testimony will be like a damp squib.

I would add to that that this is more of Senate issue and something Canadians will view as the Senate and their cronies being the problem as an institution (as opposed to the ruling party or the PM) not so much as something that would be an election issue. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Is there another element at play as well?

Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin were reporters.  They were hired because they were popular and effective as communicators (as you've said elsewhere ERC).

When they left the Press Gallery for the Red Chamber they lost the support of their drinking buddies in the Gallery and became fair game, perhaps even prime targets due to the politics of envy.  Thus they came under extra scrutiny and could be guaranteed a headline on an otherwise slow news day.  So the press's interest in them could be explained.

The problem the press has though, is that it is rapidly losing respect with the public.  It is falling from the ranks of the 6 O Clock Preachers like Walter Cronkite to the level of used car salesmen.

If two old time preachers (say Paisley and the Pope) had a dispute, then the guns came out.  On the other hand what reaction is there to two used car salesmen brawling in the street?

 

[George Wallace]

Is there another element at play as well?

Mike Duffy and Pamela Wallin were reporters.  They were hired because they were popular and effective as communicators (as you've said elsewhere ERC).

At the same time, that may be a red herring.  They may have had "Ghost Writers" and "Producers" cuing them from the control booths.

 

[Remius]

At the same time, that may be a red herring.  They may have had "Ghost Writers" and "Producers" cuing them from the control booths.

Likely in the case of lower level reporters but I'm fairly sure that bigwigs in the industry have their share of influence as chief correspondents and principle anchors.  Mansbridge, Laflamme et al all have a big say in what direction their news goes, I would presume.

 

[dapaterson]

The relevance of Duffy et al is less along party lines, and more along individual judgement lines.  Neither Mulcair nor Trudeau named the Liberal senators under investigation.  Many of the Tory senators under investigation, on the other hand, were named by the PM.  If the Dippers & Liberals approach this as "Look at the poor judgement and poor selections made by the PM" they may have something.

 

[George Wallace]

Likely in the case of lower level reporters but I'm fairly sure that bigwigs in the industry have their share of influence as chief correspondents and principle anchors.  Mansbridge, Laflamme et al all have a big say in what direction their news goes, I would presume.

Sometimes it is all "appearance" that counts.  "Does the camera love you?"

 

[Remius]

The relevance of Duffy et al is less along party lines, and more along individual judgement lines.  Neither Mulcair nor Trudeau named the Liberal senators under investigation.  Many of the Tory senators under investigation, on the other hand, were named by the PM.  If the Dippers & Liberals approach this as "Look at the poor judgement and poor selections made by the PM" they may have something.

That would be the best approach for them if they planned on using this.  Justin Trudeau has already distanced himself from the senate by removing them all from caucus and Thomas Mulcair can state that they are the only party clean in anything related to the senate.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The relevance of Duffy et al is less along party lines, and more along individual judgement lines.  Neither Mulcair nor Trudeau named the Liberal senators under investigation.  Many of the Tory senators under investigation, on the other hand, were named by the PM.  If the Dippers & Liberals approach this as "Look at the poor judgement and poor selections made by the PM" they may have something.

I agree ... but the supremes have stymied him on most of the easy ways to reform the Senate, and he can use that to mollify his own supporters.

I remain convinced that he can 'trump' the supremes by going directly to the provincial premiers and the senators themselves and refusing to appoint anyone to the Senate who has not:

    1. Been elected in the province; and

    2. Presented the PM, prior to being appointed, with a signed letter of resignation, effective the date of the next provincial general election.

This forces the provinces to hold Senate elections when they have general elections ~ or risk going unrepresented.* It will take time, maybe 25+ years, to completely reform the Senate, and elected senators will demand to be effective, too ~ and a smart PM will allow the Senate to exercise its constitutional powers.**

A reformed Senate will be a thorn in the sise of many (most? all?) prime ministers: there is no way to guarantee than an elected and effective Senate will not delay, even block government legislation. Some Canadians, especially those who oppose the government of the day on any given issue will like that; others will not.

_____
*  The supremes will scream bloody murder, but I'm not convinced that they can win and I think they know it. The Senate is not popular with Canadians, making it elected ~
    saying, in effect, "You judgment is better than mine" ~ will be popular. Some sitting senators, secure in their jobs until they are 75, will stay on, but many will resign, too, rather than be anachronisms.
**  For example, in areas in which the federal intrudes into areas of provincial jurisdiction (health, for example) a smart PM would select the minister (or an associate minister) from the Senate.

 

[Edward Campbell]

And David Akin posts another poll:

This time the CPC and NDP are in a statistical dead heat but a measurable fade continues to be visible for the Liberals - now they are a full 5 to 7 points behind the CPC/NDP front-runners.

Caution: we have four and a half months to go. Canadians will not start to really pay attention until after Labour Day.

But, that caution being noted:

    1. Something is wrong with the LPC's campaign; and

    2. Prime Minister Harper needs to get some good "press" ~ his current trip to Europe may help a bit; and

    3. Thomas Mulcair needs to start reassuring Canadians that he has a team, Canadians will want to know who might be the the NDP finance minister, for example. Will it be Nathan Cullen (he is the finance critic in the NDP shadow cabinet?
        Who will be foreign affairs minister? Will it be Paul Dewar? Will Françoise Boivin get Justice? He needs to start introducing his "A Team."

 

[dapaterson]

    1. Something is wrong with the LPC's campaign; and

Unless they are adopting the Ali "rope a dope" tactic, and planning to let the other two pugilists duke it out, then come up the middle.  We don't see their internal polling; we don't know what they've got in their bag of tricks; in fact, we don't even know everything that we don't know.  (This applies to all parties, not just the Liberals).

It will be interesting to watch how the party communicates (indirectly) its goals for the fall "running of the reptiles".  Is it to win? Is it to become official opposition? Is it to regain lost seats?  When you're in third place out of three, there are lots of ways for you to declare victory.  Jean Charest was a "success" in taking the Tories to 20 seats in 1997.

    2. Prime Minister Harper needs to get some good "press" ~ his current trip to Europe may help a bit; and

Except Canadians don't much care or concern themselves about foreign affairs; any blip from this will be shortlived.

    3. Thomas Mulcair needs to start reassuring Canadians that he has a team, Canadians will want to know who might be the the NDP finance minister, for example. Will it be Nathan Cullen (he is the finance critic in the NDP shadow cabinet?
        Who will be foreign affairs minister? Will it be Paul Dewar? Will Françoise Boivin get Justice? He needs to start introducing his "A Team."

This, I think, is what will be key in the upcoming campaign.  Can the NDP come across as a credible potential government?  Can they control the bozo outbreaks that bedevil most parties?  I am not yet convinced that the NDP is seen by enough Canadians as having the gravitas to form a national government.

The recent Alberta election was a wonderful example of vote splitting; a transferrable ballot would likely have seen a singificantly different outcome.  The national NDP won't have that same advantage.

 

[observor 69]

I think the Liberals should play up there bench strength. Take a look at the Wiki link listing the shadow cabinet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_Shadow_Cabinet_of_the_41st_Parliament_of_Canada

Lots of smart capable talent.

 

[GAP]

That list tells me that nothing much has changed within the Liberal Party, except the leader(s).........

 

[observor 69]

That list tells me that nothing much has changed within the Liberal Party, except the leader(s).........

Hence the problem. 

 

[a_majoor]

Unless they are adopting the Ali "rope a dope" tactic, and planning to let the other two pugilists duke it out, then come up the middle.  We don't see their internal polling; we don't know what they've got in their bag of tricks; in fact, we don't even know everything that we don't know.  (This applies to all parties, not just the Liberals).

It seems far more likely the LPC will get pummeled on the ropes by every party out there, starting with some heavyweight blows from the CPC and NDP, but even getting smacked around in QC by the Bloc and having the Greens snapping at their ankles everywhere. I suspect the parties might even enjoy this slugfest, and turn on the easy target rather than fight each other (at least not until enough blood has been drawn from the LPC).

It will be interesting to watch how the party communicates (indirectly) its goals for the fall "running of the reptiles".  Is it to win? Is it to become official opposition? Is it to regain lost seats?  When you're in third place out of three, there are lots of ways for you to declare victory.  Jean Charest was a "success" in taking the Tories to 20 seats in 1997.

The real problem with the Liberal "campaign" is that most people have come to the conclusion there isn't one. How long has the Young Dauphin been the leader? How many policies have come from his mouth? Ideas? Directions? Handwaves? He may be a "nice young man" but I want a bit more when looking for the direction my country is going to go, both for myself and my children. In the end, I want a place where *we* have a chance to get ahead, not just the political class and their crony hangers on. The long history of the LPC being the party that goes for power at any cost does not reassure me that I am going to benefit on any material way from a Liberal government in office. And silence from the Young Dauphin does nothing to reassure me that things have changed. I certainly am not the only person who feels this way.

The idea that the NDP needs to show gravitas and be accepted as the national "government in waiting" may be one of those calculations which is behind the Prime Minister's decision to not take part in television debates. Rather than sit there and be a punching bag for a multitude of contestants, he steps out and lets Tom Mulcair come off as the smart guy in the room (hardly a difficult proposition when he will be debating the Young Dauphin and Elizabeth May...). The Prime Minister will be able to set up situations where he can take on Mr Mulcair at places of his time and choosing (those mini debates the CPC is promoting?) or fight him in the media (a more dangerous proposition).

 

[Brad Sallows]

I am less interested in a prospective NDP finance minister's identity than in a prospective NDP government's fiscal ideas.

QC and ON both want transfers - probably a great amount of transfers.  There is no value for the CPC in promising more money to QC; they did the fiscal imbalance thing, the QC government turned around and gave provincial taxpayers a tax cut, and QC voters seem to have decided that the CPC is still not a friend to QC.  Wynne has not talked to or about Harper in a way that suggests the CPC would get any credit there either.  All of the transfers that the CPC has continued, restored (since the Chretien/Martin cuts), and increased have passed almost unnoticed.  The CPC gets bad press for the fact that Martin's health accord had a termination date, instead of good press for extending it and putting up another health funding growth formula with a floor still well above current growth rates.

The only parties that can buy votes are the LPC and NDP.  Both are floating childcare funding in their platforms.  QC undoubtedly does not expect to pay more in than it takes out of such a scheme.

AB is weathering a bit of a storm; ON has never really recovered; BC isn't going to drive any economic growth as long as the province-wide NIMBY movement holds sway.  I suppose it's time for SK/MB, NL, and the Maritimes to pull the country's weight so the NDP can keep its QC base happy.

 

[Infanteer]

I'm seeing the Alberta Provincial Election repeated all over again, except the political "poles" of left and right are reversed.  Alberta had two right of centre parties fighting and the left of centre party went up the middle and won big.  Federally, we have two left of centre parties fighting and a right of centre party poised to go up the middle.  At this point, I can reasonably expect the Conservative Party's 30% polling to actually translate into big seat numbers if the NDPs 31% and the Liberals 23% split ridings up.

 

[suffolkowner]

Brad Sallows
I am less interested in a prospective NDP finance minister's identity than in a prospective NDP government's fiscal ideas.
[/quote]

Fiscal or monetary?
Perhaps that is the problem, too many people trying to solve a monetary problem with so called fiscal solutions

 

[Edward Campbell]

Brad Sallows
I am less interested in a prospective NDP finance minister's identity than in a prospective NDP government's fiscal ideas.


Fiscal or monetary?
Perhaps that is the problem, too many people trying to solve a monetary problem with so called fiscal solutions

So, you want higher interest rates? or even lower ones?

How do you propose that any political party does that? remember the Coyne Affair in 1959-61? As a result of that little dust up it is the Bank of Canada, not the elected government, no matter how much popular support or big a majority it might have, that decides monetary policy.

 

[suffolkowner]

So, you want higher interest rates? or even lower ones?

There is more to monetary policy than interest rates, even though conversations on interests rates obviously remain prominent as they should 

How do you propose that any political party does that?]
Do what?


remember the Coyne Affair in 1959-61? As a result of that little dust up it is the Bank of Canada, not the elected government, no matter how much popular support or big a majority it might have, that decides monetary policy.

That is the popular reading but I think wrong.  For example if the Bank of Canada were to decide that interests rate were too low now and began to raise them(lets say to 2%) or indicated the intention to do so, what would the appropriate response from the government be? For how long and to what extent could a discrepancy in policy be allowed? What if instead of 2% it was 4%?