• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Election 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
E.R. Campbell said:
I suspect the Clerk and a small battalion of Constitutional scholars are looking for ways to satisfy the letter of the Supremes' ruling: to have a Constitutional agreement on Senate reform, but without opening the entire Constitution for negotiation.

A canny provincial premier could draft a proposal and get buy-in from other enough provinces for Senate reform, then present the Feds with almost a fait accompli - "We the provinces have spoken and want to fix your mess, since you are unable to do so."

I think we are in a two or three year window where such a thing is possible - I'm certain that the premiers of Ontario and Quebec would love to tweak the current government.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Although I have some quibbles with the health act, it isn't fair to say the feds stole anything.  What they did was say "here is some money, provided you do the following".

They took control of the spending. Whoever controls the money, controls basically everything. A province is now hamstrung from creating its own autonomous healthcare system. If Alberta decides tomorrow that it wants to 100% private, unregulated healthcare, Albertans will still be taxed federally just like every other Canadian but would receive no money from the federal government (which they could then use to do other things). Provincial voters are basically be put in a position where "you can have private healthcare if you want, but we're going to take your money anyway... so go frig your hat, voter."

The Canada Health Act was 100% designed by Trudeau Sr to take the power away from the provinces and centralize it at the top, because, well, he believed that was better. And that's exactly what it did...
 
Sure.  But they also took responsibility for the taxation.  Whichever level of government is willing to demand a tax is surely entitled to decide how it wants the money spent.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Sure.  But they also took responsibility for the taxation. Whichever level of government is willing to demand a tax is surely entitled to decide how it wants the money spent.

Yes, they centralized healthcare, that is what I have been saying so I am not sure what you are trying to argue with me about.

Who said they were entitled to demand a tax in the first place? Certainly not the Constitution Act. The Constitution Act gives pretty exclusive powers to the provinces for healthcare related services. The only reason the Canada Health Act was introduced instead of a National Healthcare plan run entirely by the feds (can you imagine the disaster?) was because the Constitution didn't specifically state that the provinces had exclusive control of healthcare spending, despite the fact that the spirit of the Constitution Act would certainly say so.
 
According to a report in the Globe and Mail:

    "A group of high-level Liberal and New Democratic backroom veterans has collected millions of dollars from unions and other centre-left interests to run a pre-election advertising campaign attacking Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.
      Beginning on Friday, the group – which calls itself Engage Canada – will begin running television ads across Canada that ..."

What those ads will do, like Conservative attack ads, I hasten to add, is shade and distort the facts ... and economic facts are east to distort, especially when "ordinary Canadians" are the audience. Those "high-level Liberal and New Democratic backroom veterans," using your union dues and charitable (you thought) donations, will lie to you and me about something ~ a notional but undefined "middle class" ~ that neither they nor most of us, and especially not Justin Trudeau, really understand.

This worked well enough in Ontario last year when, as in the current national pre-campaign, unions and other progressive groups raised and spent millions on anti-PC attack ads, but I'm not sure that they will be preaching to anyone but the choir at the national level. I know that some people are planning to vote against Prime Minister Harper, for a variety of reasons ~ treatment of veterans (the Liberal New Veterans' Charter) being just one example ~ but my sense is that they are not voting for much of anything. The impact of the "left's" attack ads may be to simply reinforce the confusion of the many and varied anti-Harper factions.

A majority of Canadians doesn't want or vote for anything ... it may well be that 65% of Canadians will not vote for the CPC, but the 35% who do may be able to elect the government. The vast majority of Canadians who don't like that fact are seriously confused about democracy.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
According to a report in the Globe and Mail:

    "A group of high-level Liberal and New Democratic backroom veterans has collected millions of dollars from unions and other centre-left interests to run a pre-election advertising campaign attacking Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.
      Beginning on Friday, the group – which calls itself Engage Canada – will begin running television ads across Canada that ..."

What those ads will do, like Conservative attack ads, I hasten to add, is shade and distort the facts ... and economic facts are east to distort, especially when "ordinary Canadians" are the audience. Those "high-level Liberal and New Democratic backroom veterans," using your union dues and charitable (you thought) donations, will lie to you and me about something ~ a notional but undefined "middle class" ~ that neither they nor most of us, and especially not Justin Trudeau, really understand.

This worked well enough in Ontario last year when, as in the current national pre-campaign, unions and other progressive groups raised and spent millions on anti-PC attack ads, but I'm not sure that they will be preaching to anyone but the choir at the national level. I know that some people are planning to vote against Prime Minister Harper, for a variety of reasons ~ treatment of veterans (the Liberal New Veterans' Charter) being just one example ~ but my sense is that they are not voting for much of anything. The impact of the "left's" attack ads may be to simply reinforce the confusion of the many and varied anti-Harper factions.

A majority of Canadians doesn't want or vote for anything ... it may well be that 65% of Canadians will not vote for the CPC, but the 35% who do may be able to elect the government. The vast majority of Canadians who don't like that fact are seriously confused about democracy.

Voter_turnout_in_Canada_1867-present.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/Voter_turnout_in_Canada_1867-present.png

This is increasingly an option for Canadians.  In the absence of a compelling reason to vote (for or against) the largest single block of Canadians opt to not vote and leave the field to the partisans.

I don't know which party that dynamic favours but it is certainly a factor in the calculus as the UNINVOLVED do influence the outcome of the vote.

Even no action is an action.

 
ballz said:
They took control of the spending. Whoever controls the money, controls basically everything. A province is now hamstrung from creating its own autonomous healthcare system. If Alberta decides tomorrow that it wants to 100% private, unregulated healthcare, Albertans will still be taxed federally just like every other Canadian but would receive no money from the federal government (which they could then use to do other things). Provincial voters are basically be put in a position where "you can have private healthcare if you want, but we're going to take your money anyway... so go frig your hat, voter."

The Canada Health Act was 100% designed by Trudeau Sr to take the power away from the provinces and centralize it at the top, because, well, he believed that was better. And that's exactly what it did...

This is not entirely true.  The reality is that the federal government gets a choice.  They can stand up to the provincial voters in favour of the new health system or they can back the people who are against the change in the prov and cut off funding.  Its political calculus.  There are a million ways to define private vs public care and lots of shades of grey.  The feds could redefine and continue funding things.  Imagine the political blowback if Ontario decided to go it alone and the feds cut hospital funding so grandma's and sick kids don't get health care?!.  It would be the end of that government (both provincial and federal).

The federal governments know that to actually use their financial clout as a weapon against provinces is suicide, always has been and always will be.  Look at the one common market issue or provincial trade issues etc...  Hell they can't even get rid of marketing boards without something blowing up in their face.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
According to a report in the Globe and Mail:

    "A group of high-level Liberal and New Democratic backroom veterans has collected millions of dollars from unions and other centre-left interests to run a pre-election advertising campaign attacking Stephen Harper’s Conservatives.
      Beginning on Friday, the group – which calls itself Engage Canada – will begin running television ads across Canada that ..."

What those ads will do, like Conservative attack ads, I hasten to add, is shade and distort the facts ... and economic facts are east to distort, especially when "ordinary Canadians" are the audience. Those "high-level Liberal and New Democratic backroom veterans," using your union dues and charitable (you thought) donations, will lie to you and me about something ~ a notional but undefined "middle class" ~ that neither they nor most of us, and especially not Justin Trudeau, really understand.

...


And David Akin (Sun News) reports: "On same weekend that Engage Canada comes out with ad attacking Harper Conservatives, their conservative doppelganger, Working Canadians, is out with an ad attacking Justin Trudeau: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o86n3MJxarc
 
And regarding both attack ads and health care spending, David Akin (Sun News) posted the Engage Canada TV ad ~ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ABvLHvwMAs ~ and then this:

        "In that Engage Canada TV ad, they claim the Conservatives are "cutting health care by $34 billion." That's a flat-out lie, folks. But don't take my word for it -
          - here's the Parliamentary Budget Officer:"


         
11073957_1103919769634365_4139505290492451238_n.jpg


See my remarks, just above where I said "Those "high-level Liberal and New Democratic backroom veterans," using your union dues and charitable (you thought) donations, will lie to you and me about something ..." In this case the Liberal/NDP/progressive/Laurentian Elites lie is about health care spending.

So I have a challenge for those of you who plan to vote against Prime Minister Harper because you don't like e.g. his government's stand on veterans' benefits ~ I challenge you to challenge the parties you plan to support on the numbers: how much will they commit to veterans' benefits? Will Liberals repeal their very own New Veterans' Charter? And where will they get the numbers from? From the same place they got their lie about health care spending?
 
It's too early to draw conclusions, which is another way of saying thet the Liberals stil have time to turn things around, but this story, which is reproduce4d under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright from CBC News is encouraging:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-losing-steam-as-election-approaches-polls-suggest-1.3109809
logo-cbc-news.png

ANALYSIS | Liberals losing steam as election approaches, polls suggest
After leading in the polls for 2 years, the party is in danger of falling behind at the worst possible time

By Éric Grenier, for CBC News

Posted: Jun 12, 2015

Less than a year ago, the Liberals under Justin Trudeau were comfortably leading in the polls, their victory against a tired Conservative government and drifting NDP opposition looking all but inevitable.

Today, the party is losing steam and in danger of dropping out of a three-way race with its erstwhile floundering opponents.

That the Liberals have been slumping in the polls for months has been overshadowed by the sudden NDP surge since the victory of its provincial cousins in Alberta in May. But the Liberal slide has been prolonged and significant.

The Conservatives currently lead in ThreeHundredEight.com's polling averages with 31 per cent support, with the Liberals at 29 per cent and the NDP at 28 per cent. But that represents a dramatic shift in a short period of time.

As recently as October, the Liberals were averaging 36 per cent support in the polls, putting them seven points up on the Conservatives and 12 points ahead of the NDP. Since then, the Liberals have dropped seven points, with four of those points going to the NDP and two to the Conservatives.

Worse, the Liberals' decrease has accelerated. The party was polling at around 34 or 35 per cent between November and February, and still enjoyed a lead over the Conservatives. But by the beginning of March, they were down to 33 per cent, and by the end of that month, 31 per cent. The Liberals have lost about four points over the last three months, compared to a three-point drop in the previous five.

The Liberals led in virtually every single poll from the day that Justin Trudeau became leader in April, 2013 to the end of last year. But over the last 16 national surveys, the Liberals have led or been tied for the lead in only four.

The drop in support for the party has coincided with softening numbers for Trudeau as well.

In Nanos Research's weekly rolling polls between November and April, Trudeau was generally the choice of 30 to 31 per cent of Canadians as the best prime minister, against 30 to 34 per cent for Stephen Harper and 17 to 19 per cent for Thomas Mulcair. But in the survey published this week, Trudeau stood at just 27 per cent, behind Harper (29 per cent) and just ahead of Mulcair (25 per cent).

NDP eating into Liberal support from coast to coast

No one part of the country has been responsible for the slide in Liberal support.

In British Columbia, the Liberals stood at 34 per cent in mid-February, but have since dropped seven points. The New Democrats have gone from just 22 per cent to 31 per cent over that time, while the Conservatives have held steady.

The Conservatives have also been holding their own in the Prairies and in Atlantic Canada, whereas the Liberals have slipped. In Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the Liberals have gone from 31 per cent just a month ago to 27 per cent today. The NDP, meanwhile, has jumped from 20 to 25 per cent. The New Democrats are up eight points in Atlantic Canada since early March, while the Liberals have decreased from 52 per cent to 45 per cent.

In Ontario, the Liberals were polling as high as 42 per cent in October. They were still at a relatively robust 36 per cent in mid-April, but have since fallen to 32 per cent. The Conservatives have taken a small step back here, from 36 to 34 per cent over the last two months, while the NDP has jumped six points to 26 per cent.

The downward trend for the Liberals in Quebec has been more gradual. The party was at 32 per cent from November to January before slipping to between 28 and 30 per cent through to March. They have since fallen more sharply to 25 per cent, while the NDP has picked up six points over the last month to lead with 34 per cent. The Conservatives have taken a hit here, dropping from 21 per cent to about 18 per cent, putting an end to the gains they had made in the province since the beginning of the year.

The Bloc, at 17 per cent, was hardly a factor in the race prior to this week. How Gilles Duceppe's return to lead the party will shift things remains to be seen.

Finally, the Liberals have also taken a big hit in Alberta, down eight points since just before the provincial election to 18 per cent. The NDP has picked up six points over that time, moving into second at 27 per cent. The Conservatives have also seen their support increase as memories of the provincial vote fade. They have gone from 44 to 49 per cent.

This all adds up to a worrying picture for the Liberals.

After leading in the polls for so long, momentum is turning against them at the worst possible time. They will have the opportunity to reverse these trends once the election campaign begins in earnest. But rather than campaigning as the front runners, the Liberals could find themselves chasing the Conservatives and New Democrats once the writ finally drops.

ThreeHundredEight.com's vote and seat projection model aggregates all publicly released polls, weighing them by sample size, date, and the polling firm's accuracy record. Upper and lower ranges are based on how polls have performed in other recent elections. The seat projection model makes individual projections for all ridings in the country, based on regional shifts in support since the 2011 election and taking into account other factors such as incumbency. The projections are subject to the margins of error of the opinion polls included in the model, as well as the unpredictable nature of politics at the riding level. The polls included in the model vary in size, date, and method, and have not been individually verified by the CBC. You can read the full methodology here.


I think voters are, for the very first time, taking the NDP seriously ... voters can compare M Mulcair to Prime Minister Harper and they can imagine both running the country; I doubt that M Trudeau fares as well when they (voters) compare him and the prime minister. Voters like M Trudeau; he is, certainly, a nice young man; voters respect Prime Minister Harper and M Mulcair.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
It's too early to draw conclusions, which is another way of saying thet the Liberals stil have time to turn things around, but this story, which is reproduce4d under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright from CBC News is encouraging:

Your bias is showing... ;)

I honestly wonder what a federal NDP gov't would really be like.  Not the uber socialists that some ppl think they will be like, but what they will be like when they have to make real decisions with real people at the other end, with real US presidents calling them up and asking for support at this UN meeting etc... and what they will do when their real world consequences come back around at them.  What are they going to say to Russian agression, at a NATO meeting, military funding, fighter jet choices, dealing with first nations when it costs the "white" population money, land or power.  Its a big unknown.  I probably should go to their website and read up.  Harper had to go towards the centre to keep power, I think Mulcair will have to do the same.
 
Underway said:
Your bias is showing... ;)

I honestly wonder what a federal NDP gov't would really be like.  Not the uber socialists that some ppl think they will be like, but what they will be like when they have to make real decisions with real people at the other end, with real US presidents calling them up and asking for support at this UN meeting etc... and what they will do when their real world consequences come back around at them.  What are they going to say to Russian agression, at a NATO meeting, military funding, fighter jet choices, dealing with first nations when it costs the "white" population money, land or power.  Its a big unknown.  I probably should go to their website and read up.  Harper had to go towards the centre to keep power, I think Mulcair will have to do the same.

Look at Bob Rae and his time as Ontario premier. You'll get a big preview.
 
Underway said:
Your bias is showing... ;)

I honestly wonder what a federal NDP gov't would really be like.  Not the uber socialists that some ppl think they will be like, but what they will be like when they have to make real decisions with real people at the other end, with real US presidents calling them up and asking for support at this UN meeting etc... and what they will do when their real world consequences come back around at them.  What are they going to say to Russian agression, at a NATO meeting, military funding, fighter jet choices, dealing with first nations when it costs the "white" population money, land or power.  Its a big unknown.  I probably should go to their website and read up.  Harper had to go towards the centre to keep power, I think Mulcair will have to do the same.

recceguy said:
Look at Bob Rae and his time as Ontario premier. You'll get a big preview.


Yes, my bias is showing, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to reiterate that my problem is not with the Liberal Party of Canada, in fact I wish it well because I know that we always need a robust, competent "government in waiting" because the Conservatives, the party I support, will become lazy and corrupt and will need replacing ... just as did St Laurent's Liberals in the 1950s, Trudeau's Liberals in the 1980s and Chretien's Liberals in the 2000s They all got lazy and some of them were corrupt, too. My problem is with M Trudeau: I do not believe he is fit to lead Canada; I hope he leads the LPC to another third place finish, resigns the leadrship and is replaced by a grownup.

Recceguy: I'm not sure we can trot out Bob Rae as a horrid example any more. Thomas Mulcair in 2015 is not Bob Rae in the 1990s, nor are the situations really comparable. Perhaps we should look at Jean Charest's Quebec government in the early 2000s, when M Mulcair was a minister there, or at the Doer and Salinger NDP governments in Manitoba (from 1999 to the present) for better, more current thoughts about how a Mulcair government might look.


Edit: typo
 
I think Bob Rae's government was a little questionable but I'm not sure they were particularly socialist.

I don't get the fascination with private health care, been there, done that.
 
suffolkowner said:
I think Bob Rae's government was a little questionable but I'm not sure they were particularly socialist.

I don't get the fascination with private health care, been there, done that.

Hybrid healthcare.

Two-tier system where National Health is still available to those who cannot afford or simply choose to utilize government-funded care. On the other hand you would have private clinics, private imaging, private hospitals and surgeons that a citizen could go to for a fee and instead of waiting 6 months for arthroscopy, only have to wait maybe a couple weeks.

There is clear evidence that not only would it drive down healthcare costs across the country, it would force government-funded services to reduce wait times rather than just talk about it.
 
David Akin asks: "Can you say: Prime Minister Thomas Mulcair? Cuz as this 41st Parliament comes to an end, the NDP appear to have all the momentum, says pollster Frank Graves of Ekos Research."

11108339_1160626793963662_2422686322696654228_n.jpg


 
suffolkowner said:
...

I don't get the fascination with private health care, been there, done that.


My, personal "fascination" is based on OECD studies which, year after year after year show that Canada spends more than most (almost all) OECD countries on health care but always ranks in the bottom half (of 35+ countries) in terms of "outcomes." We spend too much, compared to say, France, Sweden, Singapore and even the UK and we get worse care than they do. None of the "good" countr ies (lower costs and better outcomes) have a single payer system. The best all have significant private (insurance and delivery) components. (The only slight comfort we can take is that our American neighbours spend more and have even worse outcomes.)

I object to spending too much and getting too little in return on/for anything.

The Canada Health Act was, in 1984, and still is, today, a monumentally f'ing stupid idea.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
David Akin asks: "Can you say: Prime Minister Thomas Mulcair? Cuz as this 41st Parliament comes to an end, the NDP appear to have all the momentum, says pollster Frank Graves of Ekos Research."

11108339_1160626793963662_2422686322696654228_n.jpg

Quite possibly the worst result for Canada IMO.  It would also be a terrible result for the CAF.  I can imagine making an exit from the organization if this scenario plays out as I think the NDP would make the Decade of Darkness look like a freaking picnic in comparison to how they would conduct day to day business.

 
E.R. Campbell said:
My, personal "fascination" is based on OECD studies which, year after year after year show that Canada spends more than most (almost all) OECD countries on health care but always ranks in the bottom half (of 35+ countries) in terms of "outcomes." We spend too much, compared to say, France, Sweden, Singapore and even the UK and we get worse care than they do. None of the "good" countr ies (lower costs and better outcomes) have a single payer system. The best all have significant private (insurance and delivery) components. (The only slight comfort we can take is that our American neighbours spend more and have even worse outcomes.)

I object to spending too much and getting too little in return on/for anything.

The Canada Health Act was, in 1984, and still is, today, a monumentally f'ing stupid idea.

Without a doubt we spend too much for too little return. I'm just not convinced it's due to having a "public" system. It's probably has at least a little to due with the fact that were in Canada and not Singapore etc.. If Singapore didn't have a cheaper health system than Canada that would truly be worth looking into. American proximity probably is a factor in our costs

 
TANGENT ALERT

Singapore's system is quite different.

Singapore's system uses a combination of compulsory savings from payroll deductions to provide subsidies within a nationalised health insurance plan known as Medisave. Within Medisave, each citizen accumulates funds that are individually tracked, and such funds can be pooled within and across an entire extended family. The vast majority of Singapore citizens have substantial savings in this scheme. One of three levels of subsidy is chosen by the patient at the time of the healthcare episode.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top